BATTLEFIELD 3's Lead Development Platform "Switched" To Consoles In Mid-Production, DICE GM Karl-Mag

kylew said:
People might take it as an indication, but BFBC2 had massive maps on it and that was on consoles as well. I think people, Raven especially, look in to things way too much when it comes to "console ports".

But, even if they designed the maps to be small to cater for consoles, it's still not a case of it being a port, but that it's not made to support 64 players very well, though I appreciate that's what you were getting at, but we all know Raven likes being sensationalist when it comes to claiming things are console ports. :p
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, the difference between BC2 and BF3 though is that BC2 had similar player counts between all the platforms, so difference in quality was negligible. When you have a massive difference in player counts, you can tell if they map was actually designed with that particular player count in mind or not. For Metro 64p and Seine 64p on conquest, the answer is most definitely no, along with 64p Rush on any map, all of them were designed for a lower player count.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a port, which is where I think Raven tripped up, but from the design of some maps, you can certainly tell that the PC wasn't their first priority to balance them out and correctly scale them in accordance with the count of players.
 
kylew said:
Map design = console port? What? :confused:

That's like saying gun design = console port, it's absolute nonsense.

Wait, what am I saying? You're Captain Flip-Flop.
Click to expand...



lol you have no clue " BC2 has massive maps lol " go look at BF2 maps and then compare them to BF3, when did 64 conquest maps on PC require a maximum of 5 caps clustered together? Dice simply designed the game around consoles and its 24 players then added one or two more caps for PC, obviously you have no experience of past battlefields so are very ignorant on why battlefield fans are not pleased with BF3. Still banned from the GFX forum?
 
I agree with Raven BF3 is a joke it's so small maybe I can sue EA on the trade Descriptions Act?

It's very boring, I can't believe I am actually saying this but I am excited to receive MW3 on Xbox.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
lol you have no clue " BC2 has massive maps lol " go look at BF2 maps and then compare them to BF3, when did 64 conquest maps on PC require a maximum of 5 caps clustered together? Dice simply designed the game around consoles and its 24 players then added one or two more caps for PC, obviously you have no experience of past battlefields so are very ignorant on why battlefield fans are not pleased with BF3. Still banned from the GFX forum?
Click to expand...

You really need to give up on your rose tinted view of BF2. It was a one-off, never to be seen again shooter. Just give it up and stop crying like a baby and go back to BF2 if you love it so much. Times have moved on in case you had not noticed.

Tha majority like it, the few dislike it. That is life, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Aedus said:
Snip.
Click to expand...

I'm finding the maps i've played are suited below 64 player counts. I played on a 32 slot server on Caspian Border Conquest last night, and it felt better, same for the Bazaar map and maps like Operation Firestorm, it's more suited to below the 64 player count.

Now, i'm not saying 64 player Conquest is crap, because that isn't what i'm trying to say, but 64 players on the maps i've currently played makes the map feel small in some way and i don't enjoy it as much. If DICE used more of the space available on the maps we currently have, and spread out the flags, then a 64 slot server would be the way forward in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Never really been into pc shooting games. Was never that good with mouse and keyboard for fps. Untill this year when i finally played more of them.

This is my first real fps for some time. And i think its rather an impressive game.

Graphics are amazing. Dont play it if u hate and play somthing else.
 
LoL at the cry babies. I don't care if they developed it for a Casio calculator, the game is still awesome. It's might not be perfect at the moment, but with a couple of patches things are only going to get better.

Carry on :p
 
Jono said:
How would it play an on I7 920 and 5850?
Click to expand...

Depends on res but with a q6600 @ 3.2 and the same card I get about 40-60 (smooth btw) on high at 1920x1200.

I have disabled Ambient Occlusion because I can't even make out the difference on MP, MSAA isn't needed and with the Post AA on medium there aren't any jaggies I've seen either.
________

I like how you have to be a sheep and not a true Battlefield fan to think that the game isn't a steaming pile.
 
Last edited:
Im sorry but putting ravens stats a side, i think he is spot on.

I have yet to see one game patch yet, only battlelog updates.. which is poo..
 
Bobisuruncle54 said:
Ok, I took two mins to disassemble your list.

  • Squad management is being looked at.
  • Ping is irrelevant when noobs don't even know what it means these days. What's missing is a ping limit that servers can set.
  • Battlerecorder isn't something that was used a lot, so that's out - that's business, not focusing on consoles.
  • Vehicles and Aircraft handle quite well, this is more your personal preference.
  • The vast majority of players will have gamepads, not joysticks. Again, it doesn't make business sense to develop settings for something the vast majority of players will never use.
  • The commo-rose is a joke, so you have one point there.
  • The HUD for vehicles/aircraft is your personal opinion, not a fact. It's not a hindrance.
  • How many people would use in-game VOIP? In all my years playing BF games, I have never heard anyone use it, and I've been playing since 1942. Teamspeak exists for a reason.

You're suffering from the old rose-tinted glasses syndrome a little bit. As for map design you're right, there are some duds but some levels are fine.

The problem with larger maps like you desire is that they are just too biased toward vehicles. A good recent example is the Heavy Metal Conquest map in BC2. It was simply too large for infantry, so you could sit there in a tank and kill anyone that came near you with ease. I frequently got 40+ kills for 1 death on that map, because it was simply too easy due to its size.

The best maps ever made in the BF series were part of the Northern Strike pack for 2142, they were the most balanced.

As for BF3, I'm going to see how the Karkland maps play before making a final judgement.
Click to expand...

Well said

Flag placements etc... have been done in the interests of balance. Not 'LOL console derp" as some seem to think.

It says it all - that the 4 best maps from BF2 they have chosen to port across from BF2 are all quite small. Heck 2 of them don't even have jets.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
lol you have no clue " BC2 has massive maps lol " go look at BF2 maps and then compare them to BF3, when did 64 conquest maps on PC require a maximum of 5 caps clustered together? Dice simply designed the game around consoles and its 24 players then added one or two more caps for PC, obviously you have no experience of past battlefields so are very ignorant on why battlefield fans are not pleased with BF3. Still banned from the GFX forum?
Click to expand...

But the PC version has completely different map designs to the console games ?

The console conquest maps only have 3 or 4 flags, and are much smaller.

If they wanted to make the PC maps as huge as Dragon Valley with 7 flags all massively far apart they could. The engine is capable of it.

You've got to face up to the fact you are in a minority with your wants from BF3, and DICE aren't going to cater for them. Theres a reason that the small maps like Sharqui and Karkand with flags so close together were so popular ......
 
All the old "BF3 vets" keep banging on about big maps etc etc. In the karkand pack only wake and gulf are big, karkand and sharkie are all close quarters with the flags near each other. If you think about it, wake is a big cluster fruit cake in most parts of the map.

If you look at the BF3 maps 5 of them are close quarters the rest are fairly big, ok not BF2 big but they are big enough, Caspian border, firestorm, krang island and canals are all good sized map that work well in 64 player.

I think people need to enjoy the game before the main event of the karkand maps come out, if not, please leave your feedback in the wishlist thread in battlelog :P
 
Faztastic said:
Im sorry but putting ravens stats a side, i think he is spot on.

I have yet to see one game patch yet, only battlelog updates.. which is poo..
Click to expand...

lolwut? The game hasn't been out 5 minutes :confused:

I'm sure there will be a patch in a few weeks.
 
Faztastic said:
Im sorry but putting ravens stats a side, i think he is spot on.

I have yet to see one game patch yet, only battlelog updates.. which is poo..
Click to expand...

It had a day one patch that was over 400meg. I know this as I had to download 452meg before I could play it from hard copy :) Now that can't just be battlelog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom