Battlefield 3 Discussion
Destiny
20 Mar 2011
Scope, on 20 Mar 2011, 3:43, said:
Pav:3d, on 18 Mar 2011, 13:52, said:
SquigPie, on 18 Mar 2011, 7:21, said:
Are...Are you guys honestly discussing wether or not a .50 cal does a certain amount of damage to concrete?
...
I'm just gonna go back to my invisible walls and immovable boxes.
...
I'm just gonna go back to my invisible walls and immovable boxes.
Why is it that FPS's bring out the more ridiculous discussions in these forums
Oh and reload animations
Yeah, this never gets old especially for Chyros
Although, if the SP is good, I'd enjoy it...good story and missions are enough for me, then...to MP.
deltaepsilon
20 Mar 2011
As someone once stated on the BF3 forums; buying a Battlefield game for its SP is like watching a porno for its plot
Destiny
20 Mar 2011
So is that a good, or is it a bad?
...I guess I shouldn't ask.
Edited by Destiny, 20 March 2011 - 01:28.
...I guess I shouldn't ask.
Edited by Destiny, 20 March 2011 - 01:28.
Admiral FCS
20 Mar 2011
Miss the heli level from BC1.
On the topic, I think that this game might actually be a real Battlefield sequel.
On the topic, I think that this game might actually be a real Battlefield sequel.
Kalo
20 Mar 2011
TheDR, on 18 Mar 2011, 10:29, said:
Tehkiller isn't upset about the damage, he is annoyed by the devs promising realistic destruction when they promised so much more for BC2 and so much more for 2142. I am honestly siding with him as games companies these days then to promise some many features in the "pre-alpha" that some have to be cut because they just don't have the time. It's always the cool features like realistic destructible terrain and bullet penetration holes that just disappear before the release.
Stay skeptical people, it saves major disappointment. If Dice had only been working on this for 5 years then sure, it might deserve it's hype, but they haven't. Until they get out of pre-alpha and get into what the real game is going to be, no one should expect anything more than BC2 with a shiny skin (although I loved BC2, so I'd buy that).
Stay skeptical people, it saves major disappointment. If Dice had only been working on this for 5 years then sure, it might deserve it's hype, but they haven't. Until they get out of pre-alpha and get into what the real game is going to be, no one should expect anything more than BC2 with a shiny skin (although I loved BC2, so I'd buy that
).I don't always anticipate video games, but when I do, I remain skeptical.
TehKiller
21 Mar 2011
Sgt. Rho, on 20 Mar 2011, 4:50, said:
I actually liked the SP of Bad Company 2 
Paradox as BC was a SP spin off
TheDR
26 Mar 2011
Good news everyone!
This means that the maps must be pretty big for them to have to scale them down. Looking forward to seeing the scale of the maps.
Quote
Battlefield 3 Maps Scaled Down For Consoles
Massive multiplayer maps featured in the PC version of Battlefield 3 will be scaled down in its console equivalent, developer DICE revealed to CERFY at C2E2 in Chicago. As you may well be aware, BF3 supports up to 64 players, compared to a meager 24 on consoles. Expect more compact levels to better accommodate this limit.
How extensive of a downsizing these maps are receiving is unknown, but we’d expect DICE will cut corners where it makes sense.
DICE was keen to point out that while players trekking on the ground will be hit with “out of bounds zones” when venturing out too far, those in the sky will have a larger map area to fly around in.
Battlefield 3 is due out this fall on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC.
Massive multiplayer maps featured in the PC version of Battlefield 3 will be scaled down in its console equivalent, developer DICE revealed to CERFY at C2E2 in Chicago. As you may well be aware, BF3 supports up to 64 players, compared to a meager 24 on consoles. Expect more compact levels to better accommodate this limit.
How extensive of a downsizing these maps are receiving is unknown, but we’d expect DICE will cut corners where it makes sense.
DICE was keen to point out that while players trekking on the ground will be hit with “out of bounds zones” when venturing out too far, those in the sky will have a larger map area to fly around in.
Battlefield 3 is due out this fall on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC.
This means that the maps must be pretty big for them to have to scale them down. Looking forward to seeing the scale of the maps.
Alias
26 Mar 2011
It's good that's they're scaling them down for the consoles rather than having the consoles themselves meaning the maps on the PC are scaled down as well.
Sgt. Rho
26 Mar 2011
They indeed must be pretty big, considering there are quite a few big maps in games like MW2, or BC2.
TehKiller
26 Mar 2011
Big maps in MW2? What you smoking? I want it too.
In other words...the maps arent huge...they are just as big as the regular BF2 sized maps...which coincidentally means that its too huge for consoles
Edited by TehKiller, 26 March 2011 - 14:29.
In other words...the maps arent huge...they are just as big as the regular BF2 sized maps...which coincidentally means that its too huge for consoles
Edited by TehKiller, 26 March 2011 - 14:29.
Chyros
26 Mar 2011
Size is relative. BF maps aren't that much bigger than CoD maps in relative terms considering you can choose to spawn upfield and take advantage of the highly increased mobility vehicles have. If there were no vehicles and you would always spawn at the back side of your side of the map, like in CoD, only then the full size of BF maps would come into play.
Sgt. Rho
26 Mar 2011
Even with vehicles, the distance often comes into play. I've seen many long-distance battles in BF2.
ΓΛPTΘΓ
26 Mar 2011
Maps on BF2 can be truly massive. See mods like Project Reality, maps can take ages to get around on a car. And pretty much impossible on foot.
TehKiller
27 Mar 2011
BF2 maps were aeons bigger than MW2...Derail is like 1/4 of Karkand (maybe slightly bigger but not more than 1/3) and Karkand is one of the smaller ones.
Along with the fact that the maps didnt exactly use much of the active terrain (to explain...BF2 uses 9 "terrain pieces". The middle one is the "active" or "actual" map while the rest is called surrounding terrain but the maps use half of the active terrain and on the rest of it they slab the out of bounds area). But either way...Consoles are scaled down because of the way console FPS's work. They are meant to be fast paced which requires smaller areas but the player count cant be too huge otherwise aimbot is going to give the players a big headache (what I was trying to say is that too many players would make it too cramped)
Along with the fact that the maps didnt exactly use much of the active terrain (to explain...BF2 uses 9 "terrain pieces". The middle one is the "active" or "actual" map while the rest is called surrounding terrain but the maps use half of the active terrain and on the rest of it they slab the out of bounds area). But either way...Consoles are scaled down because of the way console FPS's work. They are meant to be fast paced which requires smaller areas but the player count cant be too huge otherwise aimbot is going to give the players a big headache
(what I was trying to say is that too many players would make it too cramped)
Kalo
27 Mar 2011
Chyros, on 26 Mar 2011, 18:14, said:
Size is relative. BF maps aren't that much bigger than CoD maps
Haven't you only played BC2?
Slevered
29 Mar 2011
bf2 had to accommodate jets, that alone should tell you that the maps are bigger. Also, with lager maps come choke points of battle and team based tactics instead of the constant running and gunning by yourself.
Wizard
29 Mar 2011
I have to admit I am looking forward to playing on some larger maps. I was a little disappointed with the overall scale of BC2 on most maps, which was hard to reconcile against my experiences of MW2 at the time, given that the game isn't the same, yet some of the maps felt like it was supposed to be. Some of the game types were heavily limited by the stupid choke points and huge lack of flanking opportunities etc.
Slevered
29 Mar 2011
I agree with you Wizard, most of the maps were a little slimmer than they should be, but I think DICE got the formula just right in "Oasis", "Harvest Day", and "Hill 137". For being 32 player maps, those were the best size (width and length wise). Rush still does need a little map tweaking. One thing I would like to see more of, that I haven't seen much of a majority of games is the "Real Time War" mechanic. You'll know what I mean if you have played Star Wars Battlefront 2, MAG, and Global Agenda. Realize that I don't think it would be plausible for many games, I would just like to see it implemented in more IPs (in the simplest form its just a way to switch up the remedial map rotation, in advanced forms it could change gameplay opportunities on each map depending on where the level is placed in the global map)
Edited by Slevered, 29 March 2011 - 17:58.
Edited by Slevered, 29 March 2011 - 17:58.
Destiny
30 Mar 2011
Holy shit awesome!!! Man, the graphics are top-notch as well. Almost...real.
SquigPie
30 Mar 2011
Whoa.
May actually get this one, even though I have sworn off "Modern Realistic Combat" FPS'es.
Edited by SquigPie, 30 March 2011 - 13:29.
May actually get this one, even though I have sworn off "Modern Realistic Combat" FPS'es.
Edited by SquigPie, 30 March 2011 - 13:29.
Destiny
30 Mar 2011
That Little Bird scene was epic. Although I hope you can get ammo by going to some ammo pile or walking over 5.56/7.62 guns.
