Battlefield 3 announced, is superior on PC.

[adam_grif]

The Official EA site for it.

The latest issue of Game Informer is a BF3 cover issue, their website says 24 players on consoles, 64 players on PC.

(Generic modern shooter cover)



The game is reportedly running on the "Frostbite 2" Engine. Prone is making a return, as are Jets. Coop campaign is also confirmed. I had some fun back in the day with BF2 so I'm cautiously optimistic.

[weemadando]

Hah.

They just shitcanned 1943 and Onslaught for PC.

Maybe they'll go for the trifecta.

[adam_grif]

I have no idea what Onslaught is, but '43 was announced as 24 players max on all platforms right from the get go. I doubt they would announce 64 players on PC with the official reveal only to scrap that later on. It was GI claiming 64 for PC / 24 for console, but EA's official twitter page has said "64 players" without specifying platform, so what GI said was most likely accurate.

[Lagmonster]

Not that I know shit about making functional and fun online games, but I'm still more or less looking forward to FPS games with a couple hundred players on each side. We've been peaked at 64, MAG excluded, for some time now. Is there some kind of threshold technologically involved, or is that just about the maximum number of people you can throw into a modern FPS at once before things aren't fun anymore?

[adam_grif]

Well from what I know of MAG, it had 256 players but it never really felt like it, and you spent most of the time in smallish engagements for objectives and such. Scaling past 64 players you either get huge chaotic battles or it's exactly the same game, just with more players per server who rarely see each other, and you may as well be playing with 64 or 32 players. Another possible explanation is that although you could easily make a 1000 player game for 360 if you wanted to, it would necessarily look like dog turd compared to its contemporaries, and making huge bug graphically sucky shooters is not something that developers or publishers are keen to do. Finally, high player counts on huge maps with destructible environments and all sorts of vehicles necessarily introduces the need for higher bandwidth to maintain the plumbing.

[Losonti Tokash]

From what I know of Mag, the map isn't actually a single game, it's several instances spliced together that the game switches you between as you move around the map (poorly).

At any rate, while it's disappointing that the player count on 360 is still less than half of the PC, I was pleasantly surprised from playing BC2 with how empty the game doesn't feel. Looking forward to this one.

[Aaron]

24 players is plenty. I'm not sure what we get in BC2 but it's enough that even with really shitty players, it's quite busy. So for me, number of players doesn't equal quality.

[Losonti Tokash]

24 players is plenty. I'm not sure what we get in BC2 but it's enough that even with really shitty players, it's quite busy. So for me, number of players doesn't equal quality.

BC2 is the same, 12 v 12.

[Aaron]

That's fine then, as long as the maps are well constructed I don't care.

[adam_grif]

From memory what they did in BF2 was that the maps scaled based on how many players were there. The maps were built for the largest player size, but then sections were inaccessible if you had, say, a 16 or 32 player server. If you loaded up a full 64 player one, you'd get the full map.

The entire appeal of the battlefield series was the large player count and huge maps and ability to fly jets and helicopters and drive tanks and shit. BC wasn't a horrid game by any stretch of the imagination but it was quite the shift away from the traditional formula thanks to smaller size. It looks like the console peasants will be getting that again, and more power to them. But the PC gaming master race will be enjoying our 64 player anarchy If it gets too much, I can always join a smaller server.

[Aaron]

So it's a "hurr hurr consoles suck" thing then? Grow up dude.

[adam_grif]

Are you trying to say that having less options on the console versions doesn't make them inferior? Because the PC version will be able to do everything the console version does in terms of 24 player games, plus the ability to play on larger maps with up to 64 players. This means that the actual content of the game is superior on PC, not just the usual PC advantages of being able to use K&M and having much sharper image quality and better graphics.

Although I am being partially joking with the Console Peasents / PC Gaming Master Race stuff, the PC version is definitely looking like the indisputably superior version in this case.

[Aaron]

*shrug* My criteria is simply that it is fun. I don't play on the PC anymore simply because the 360 controller is easier on my wrists, so whether the PC version is superior or not is irrelevant, to me.

If it is, well kudos to the dudes who use a PC.

But yeah, I thought you were engaged in the usual PC vs Console horseshit I see around the net.

[adam_grif]

Not sure if you know this, but you can plug your wired 360 controllers into any USB port on your PC and just go if you're using Vista/Windows 7. If you're on XP you need to download a driver first, but it's like two MB. If you've only got wireless you need a bluetooth receiver for your PC, but you can still do it. 90% of all high profile games coming out on PC these days support the 360 gamepad natively (stuff that doesn't make sense with the pad such as grand strategy games obviously not included in this completely made-up-on-the-spot statistic). Crysis for example lets you plug the controller in mid-session and just start using it, then unplug it and go straight back to keyboard/mouse with no interruptions.

I've been powering through Batman Arkham Asylum using my 360 pad. 60 frames per second, 1280 x 768, everything maxed out, hardware physics, 4x Anti Aliasing and tripple buffering. Feels good man.

[Aaron]

I actually did not know that, so thank you. That may actually get me more mileage out of the pile of PC games I've got gathering dust.

[General Zod]

I actually did not know that, so thank you. That may actually get me more mileage out of the pile of PC games I've got gathering dust.

Just so you know bfbc2 doesn't offer 360 controller support on pc. Unless there's some hidden option I didn't know about.

[adam_grif]

Yeah the 360 pad compatibility really makes life easier when you're playing a 3rd person action game or platformer or something. I still mainly game K&M but sometimes a game just really screams to be played on a controller.

Just so you know bfbc2 doesn't offer 360 controller support on pc. Unless there's some hidden option I didn't know about.

Mass Effect + 2 doesn't support it natively on PC either for some bizarro reason. You'd think the fact that there is actually a 360 version that they developed would make it easy enough to implement, but no.

There is a program called X mapper (or X-mapper or some such variation) that lets you use the 360 pad in games that don't support it natively, but the left stick ends up being purely digital in most cases, just the keyboard buttons mapped to the stick basically.

[General Zod]

I've tried mapping programs like that before. If you don't want to fuck with settings it's a huge pain in the ass to use.

[Ritterin Sophia]

From what I know of Mag, the map isn't actually a single game, it's several instances spliced together that the game switches you between as you move around the map (poorly).

So you actually don't know a lot?

The big maps called Domination (that one is Flores Basin Transfer, there's two other) are split up into five sections with a server of it's own, like you said. Where you got it wrong is the idea that it's different instances and that you move through the areas poorly. Each section is open to every player and the transition from one section to another is seamless. It's true that most of the time you won't have the whole 128v128 fighting in the same area, unless of course something goes wrong for the defense and they get pushed back to the primary objectives.

[Mr Bean]

Here's the thing about Battlefield 3, they should not be limited to 64 players, that has to be a design choice on the part of the devs.
Why?

Because Battlefield 2 could run 128 players as PR has shown
http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr- ... icial.html
It ran stable, people could fight each other just fine, but funny enough lots of things broke because the game was only designed to display 64 people so the game only displayed name tags for the first 64 people and only showed scores for the first 64 people and so on. But it was stabled, the server had a heavier load but even when crammed 128 people into the same 200 meter area firing and shooting at each other the game kept up. The server had a higher load but nothing crippling.

Second Aaron can be demonstrated as having console stockhome syndrome.
This is Battlefield, the more players the better, the more players the more targets AND the more equipment one gets.
One can not justify eight manned positions on the aircraft carrier if you have 24 people, no can one justify actually giving ships the correct amount of weapons. You can't justify things like AC-130 gunships manned and flown by the players with only 24 on the field. No can you justify more than a single helicopter. Dogfights in 24 player games are non-existence unless that's all the map is.

However since this is also battlefield the real question is about how friendly the engine is to modding. Most mods lost everything in the move from BF1942 to BF2 because the engines were radically different. If PR and FH2 can move lots of assets over to BF3 you might see some very interesting mods emerge.

Another console lack, and a major one in this case. You can get by over there on Call of Duty This years Sequel on the consoles because they've killed their mod community, but over at DICE they are still fans of mods in the base Battlefield games. Or have been to this point anyway.

[Artemas]

BC2 had well designed maps specifally for smaller numbers of players. Hopefully, they'l have learned from DICE's map design and avoid any "empty battlefield" problems that the battlefield has traditionally had. On the other hand, some of the best moments in gaming have been in BF games where everyone converges on that one decisive point. A Rush gamemode would be awesome.

[Losonti Tokash]

From what I know of Mag, the map isn't actually a single game, it's several instances spliced together that the game switches you between as you move around the map (poorly).

So you actually don't know a lot?

The big maps called Domination (that one is Flores Basin Transfer, there's two other) are split up into five sections with a server of it's own, like you said. Where you got it wrong is the idea that it's different instances and that you move through the areas poorly. Each section is open to every player and the transition from one section to another is seamless. It's true that most of the time you won't have the whole 128v128 fighting in the same area, unless of course something goes wrong for the defense and they get pushed back to the primary objectives.

Well, I didn't say I knew a whole lot. I don't have any firsthand experience with it since I don't own a PS3 (or know anyone in my immediate area that owns one), so I was just relying on conversations with people who have played it.

[Uraniun235]

Not that I know shit about making functional and fun online games, but I'm still more or less looking forward to FPS games with a couple hundred players on each side. We've been peaked at 64, MAG excluded, for some time now. Is there some kind of threshold technologically involved, or is that just about the maximum number of people you can throw into a modern FPS at once before things aren't fun anymore?

I think part of it would be scaling. Battlefield 2 attempted this to some degree, but even then the server doesn't dynamically adjust the playable map area based on the number of people in server - it just loads a different map (well, the same map, but with different borders and objective locations) based on how many players you've configured the server to allow.

So if you run a 256 player map, and the server population drops, it might get a bit lonely or weird with only ~40 players in a map designed for 200.

Additionally, you'll probably want to incorporate support for smaller sessions, which means someone has to go through and create and balance maps suitable for varying session sizes - and the game will need to be thoroughly tested and stressed under the maximum player count, which could be more expensive if you want to throw professional testers/QA people at it.


Ultimately, the proportion of people wanting to join a huge combined-forces battle - whether an organized clan match or a pubbie mob melee - is going to be smaller than the proportion of people who just want to hop into any server and shoot guns at some other dudes while yammering over voice chat. Hell, there's people who think a 24 player server is way too much. So the cost/benefit thing doesn't indicate "huge servers" to the people with capital.


I feel for you, though, I really do. I remember having a blast on BF1942 and BF2 and thinking "man this would be even more awesome if we had enough dudes to fully man all these vehicles and still have dudes left over to run around on the ground".

[Aaron]

Second Aaron can be demonstrated as having console stockhome syndrome.
This is Battlefield, the more players the better, the more players the more targets AND the more equipment one gets.
One can not justify eight manned positions on the aircraft carrier if you have 24 people, no can one justify actually giving ships the correct amount of weapons. You can't justify things like AC-130 gunships manned and flown by the players with only 24 on the field. No can you justify more than a single helicopter. Dogfights in 24 player games are non-existence unless that's all the map is.

Console stockholm syndrome? Is that why I just totally thanked Grif for cluing me into a way to play some pf my old pc games?

Or are you automatically defective for not caring how many players are on a map as long as you have fun?

[Mr Bean]

Console stockholm syndrome? Is that why I just totally thanked Grif for cluing me into a way to play some pf my old pc games?

Or are you automatically defective for not caring how many players are on a map as long as you have fun?

Because your trying to justify how having less players is a great thing back up here in this post, your first post

24 players is plenty. I'm not sure what we get in BC2 but it's enough that even with really shitty players, it's quite busy. So for me, number of players doesn't equal quality.

That's not the statement of a person who just plays video games be they on Consoles or PC's. That's the statement of an abused man trying desperately to come to terms with what the bad men did to him.

24 players is a console limit which must be designed around and it limits games because of it.