This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

DICE: Console players 'aren't getting less Battlefield 3'

#1Paragon57Posted 9/24/2011 6:48:11 PM
Asked if fewer online players and smaller maps - Battlefield 3's multiplayer will allow for 64 players on PC and 24 players on console - will offer a lesser experience, he told the latest issue of Edge: "They're definitely not getting less of a game.

"It has the same amount of destruction and the same amount of visual fidelity. It'a also a misconception I've seen on the internet that the console version won't have jets - that's not true.

"We've scaled the maps accordingly for console so it makes the pacing all right and the balancing is good," Liu added. "If you play a big Conquest map then the map is balanced accordingly." (Read more in Link)


http://www.computerandvideogames.com/320045/dice-console-players-arent-getting-less-battlefield-3/

He even says they could have done what MAG did and did 256 players later on.

Less isn't 24 compared to 64, hm? XD
---
P a r a g o n 5 7 was here!
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7527/paragon.png
#2AsucaHayashiPosted 9/24/2011 6:52:46 PM
just trying to appeal to the console fanbase even if what they're stating makes no sense.

up to and including 64 >>> up to and including 24 regardless of map size and balance.
---
''PC/360 titles are Microsoft exclusive meaning not on Apple or Linux, meaning the people who own Windows own 360 which still makes it exclusive''. ~Phamous1
#3Agent_GreerPosted 9/24/2011 7:01:03 PM
Regarding the amount of players, less is more.
---
My name is Soundcell and I like tacos y burritos y baby panda bears y spaghettios.
#4MourningReignsPosted 9/24/2011 7:01:37 PM
Console players are just getting less players.
#5A_Nonny_MoosePosted 9/24/2011 7:02:22 PM
Well with 24 people rather than 64, smaller maps makes a lot of sense.
---
http://razielsdomain.forumotion.net
http://i.imgur.com/QB2km.png
#6Dragunov_4_everPosted 9/24/2011 7:02:33 PM
At the end of the day it's still less no matter how he tries to spin it. It's going to feel less like an actual Warzone and the dog fights in the Air are going to be half-assed.

If you have a gold coin and I have a bar of gold. Sure they're just both as pretty, they smell the same, they're both made of the same stuff, and they're both worth a lot, but you still have less then me.

If they can do as many players as M.A.G. then why are they limiting the console version?

The PC players are getting more for less. A PC game costs less than a console game, for whatever dumb reason. Our version should be cheaper. In fact, the price of console games need to lower as a whole. If PC gaming can make profit of cheap games then why can't console gaming?
---
- SFxT mains: Marduk, M.Bison, Lili, Raven, Hugo, Poison
- TTT2 mains: Dragunov, Jinpachi, Marduk, Raven, Ogre, Lili
#7A_Nonny_MoosePosted 9/24/2011 7:05:27 PM
I'd imagine it's cheaper to make stuff for the PC than it is for consoles.
---
http://razielsdomain.forumotion.net
http://i.imgur.com/QB2km.png
#8PixelDaemonPosted 9/24/2011 7:10:47 PM(edited)
Agent_Greer posted...
Regarding the amount of players, less is more.

Not for the Battlefield series.
---
People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
#9HanzaishaPosted 9/24/2011 7:11:09 PM
The usual PR spin. This guy isn't going to admit any version of the game is worse than another. There is no denying that the PC version will be the best version no matter which way you twist it. I am sure it will still be fun on consoles, but saying "Console players aren't getting less Battlefield 3" is pure BS.
#10AsucaHayashiPosted 9/24/2011 7:26:22 PM
Regarding the amount of players, less is more.

it's a good thing then that PC gamers have the option to experience both "less is more" along with "more is more".
---
''PC/360 titles are Microsoft exclusive meaning not on Apple or Linux, meaning the people who own Windows own 360 which still makes it exclusive''. ~Phamous1