Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles

CERFY has impressions of Battlefield 3 from the C2E2 show in Chicago. We've seen lots of speculation about map sizes in the game, since the military shooter sequel will support 64 player multiplayer on PCs, but only 24 players on consoles. It was confirmed for them that the console versions of BF3 will actually use scaled-down versions of the maps. It was also explained to them that pilots on the console versions will have a larger airspace for maneuvering than the ground troops. Thanks Ant.

View
28 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

28. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 10:13 Verno
 
Madoc Owain wrote on Mar 25, 2011, 08:57:
How will pilots eject from their aircraft if they're in airspace that exists outside the ground map? Will they be killed, or automagically routed to the nearest ground map edge?

You usually have a timer to get back in bounds and if you're ejected beyond the actual map boundaries then you will most likely be insta-gibbed and go back to the spawn/board screen.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Fire Emblem, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: The Machine, After the Dark, Devils Due
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 09:48 Kevin Lowe
 
Dev wrote on Mar 25, 2011, 09:18:
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 25, 2011, 04:25:
You can get outdated GB for 10$ maybe - high performance ram - to feed current generation I7's or hexacores still costs you 100$+
1) Since when did consoles use "high performance ram"? Pretty sure they use the cheapest of the cheap. Maybe at the time they came out that 512 megs in the xbox 360 was considered "high performance ram" but its not now.

1) $100 per gig? I don't think so. I got 6gb of "high performance ram" triple channel for my i7, and its about $100 for 6 gb now.
The 360 uses GDDR3 for its entire memory pool; the same stuff GPUs were shipping with until 2008 or so. It has 22 GB/s of bandwidth, right around the dual-channel DDR3-1333 in a modern mid-range gaming PC, and a lot more than the 10.6 GB/s a dual-channel DDR2-667 setup would have been putting out around the 360's launch. On the other hand, that's before the 360's CPU has to share that with the GPU.

The PS3 uses Rambus-derived main memory and more GDDR for the GPU. Again, decently high-bandwidth stuff, not standard 2006-era desktop RAM. By then, though, you had the 8800 GT, which had a bit more bandwidth than both memory pools in the PS3 put together, and didn't have to share with anything.

So, to compare it to desktop memory is pretty inaccurate, especially since the RAM in consoles had to be available in 2005/2006, and MS and Sony would have had to base their decision on what the memory would cost throughout the entire lifecycle, not just current pricing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 09:18 Dev
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 25, 2011, 04:25:
You can get outdated GB for 10$ maybe - high performance ram - to feed current generation I7's or hexacores still costs you 100$+
1) Since when did consoles use "high performance ram"? Pretty sure they use the cheapest of the cheap. Maybe at the time they came out that 512 megs in the xbox 360 was considered "high performance ram" but its not now.

1) $100 per gig? I don't think so. I got 6gb of "high performance ram" triple channel for my i7, and its about $100 for 6 gb now.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 08:57 Madoc Owain
 
How will pilots eject from their aircraft if they're in airspace that exists outside the ground map? Will they be killed, or automagically routed to the nearest ground map edge?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 07:45 Dmitri_M
 
I hope consoles get more ram so my pc games will work better  
Avatar 22350
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 07:40 Steelcamp
 
Don't both MS and Sony state they feel there's a good three years life left in the current consoles?
And didnt we just discuss the "PC gaming is dead" statement a few weeks back.
 
-------------------------------------------
3 billion+ men in the world and my sisters keep going back to the idiots...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 04:25 eRe4s3r
 
You can get outdated GB for 10$ maybe - high performance ram - to feed current generation I7's or hexacores still costs you 100$+  
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 02:33 finga
 
entr0py wrote on Mar 25, 2011, 00:26:
The problem isn't the consoles, it's the peer-to-peer multiplayer that has become absolutely standard on them. That is why the player limit on consoles is 24. And that low player limit is why the maps have to be small; 24 players could barely find each other on a large map.

A new generation of consoles won't fix that, only a new business model. But Microsoft isn't bloody likely to offer one as long as they can get away with collecting a monthly fee for providing a simple match-making service.

But why hasn't the PS3 had FPS games that use dedicated servers? Well, publishers aren't eager to pay for enough dedicated servers either, especially if they're not getting a monthly subscription. It's the huge number of privately run servers that make the dedicated server model work on the PC.

There have been at least four PS3 FPS games I can think of, all with dedicated servers and 32 or more players. Resistance 1 & 2, MAG, and Homefront.

(Of course, this focus on hard player counts as a linear measure of how "legit" your game is, well, it's kind of ridiculous. Especially when you realize that even a 64-player game can feel empty if the developers design the objectives so as to distribute players evenly across the map. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars felt jam-packed with action since it funneled people into one or two points of contention at all times.)
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 00:59 Dev
 
eunichron wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:58:
Suddenly_Dead wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:23:
Agent.X7 wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:11:
The Xbox sucked in the RAM department though. Consoles always skimp on the RAM, it's ridiculous.

That's because you don't need much RAM when all you're running is a barebones OS and a video game. PCs are doing a billion things behind the scenes while you're gaming, consoles are only doing one thing.
Actually its because RAM at the time was quite expensive. Remember, for at least the last couple generations, consoles when they come out always sell at a loss (except for nintendo).
Nowadays RAM is so cheap you can get a gigabyte for around $10. Back then it was probably a gig for $100+.

This comment was edited on Mar 25, 2011, 01:25.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 00:33 Suddenly_Dead
 
AFAIK, Bad Company 2 uses dedicated servers on all platforms. I'd chalk it up more to:

1) Ensuring the game uses less bandwidth, and so degrades more gracefully on lower bandwidth connections (part of it being a console game is the user not having to worry about things like that)

2) Memory constraints
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 00:26 entr0py
 
7.62WorldOrder wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 21:51:
Looks like it's time for a new generation of consoles. I wonder if this will increasingly be a problem in the future, with PC hardware rapidly outpacing the current generation of console hardware to the point where there is a noticable difference in the experience.

The problem isn't the consoles, it's the peer-to-peer multiplayer that has become absolutely standard on them. That is why the player limit on consoles is 24. And that low player limit is why the maps have to be small; 24 players could barely find each other on a large map.

A new generation of consoles won't fix that, only a new business model. But Microsoft isn't bloody likely to offer one as long as they can get away with collecting a monthly fee for providing a simple match-making service.

But why hasn't the PS3 had FPS games that use dedicated servers? Well, publishers aren't eager to pay for enough dedicated servers either, especially if they're not getting a monthly subscription. It's the huge number of privately run servers that make the dedicated server model work on the PC.
 
Avatar 55038
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 00:22 Suddenly_Dead
 
PHJF wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 23:29:
xbox didn't surpass PCs by a long shot, or do you not remember the maps in Invisible War being 90% smaller than those of its predecessor? From that hideous black abomination exploded forth the ravenous specter that is consolitis.

And that is an example of why the consoles need more RAM. You just can't have large levels and high numbers of actors without the memory to back them up. But more GPU/CPU power makes for a shinier game so they win out.

The 360 was going to have a measly 256 MB before Epic got Microsoft to reconsider.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 25, 2011, 00:07 xXBatmanXx
 
Funny....the next article will be "pc using downsized maps - same as the console"  
Avatar 10714
 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: New dad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 24, 2011, 23:43 Draugr
 
eunichron wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:58:
Suddenly_Dead wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:23:
Agent.X7 wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:11:
The Xbox sucked in the RAM department though. Consoles always skimp on the RAM, it's ridiculous.

That's because you don't need much RAM when all you're running is a barebones OS and a video game. PCs are doing a billion things behind the scenes while you're gaming, consoles are only doing one thing.

What you said is true, but they are/were still skimpy in the ram dept.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 24, 2011, 23:29 PHJF
 
xbox didn't surpass PCs by a long shot, or do you not remember the maps in Invisible War being 90% smaller than those of its predecessor? From that hideous black abomination exploded forth the ravenous specter that is consolitis.  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 24, 2011, 23:22 Kevin Lowe
 
Techie714 wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 23:08:
People who buy BF3 on console are idiot sheeple!
No, they just have a different opinion than you. There's a difference.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 24, 2011, 23:12 Agent.X7
 
eunichron wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:58:
Suddenly_Dead wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:23:
Agent.X7 wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:11:
The Xbox sucked in the RAM department though. Consoles always skimp on the RAM, it's ridiculous.

That's because you don't need much RAM when all you're running is a barebones OS and a video game. PCs are doing a billion things behind the scenes while you're gaming, consoles are only doing one thing.

Except yes you do, that's why consoles have to skimp on hi-res textures and other goodies, because they don't have enough RAM to make the game run at an acceptable FPS with them.

Yes, when the first XBox came out, graphically it exceeded PCs, for a brief while. However, PCs still were better overall. This last gen was just about equal with PCs for a brief period. I expect the next gen will be better than PCs for a brief spark of time.
 
Avatar 23400
 
Origin - JStarX7
STEAM - Agent.X7
PSN - JStar_X7
Xbox Live - Agent X7
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 24, 2011, 23:08 Techie714
 
People who buy BF3 on console are idiot sheeple!  
Avatar 25373
 
Steam (ID)
http://steamcommunity.com/id/techie714/
DEAD SH0T
Keep your privacy!
http://prism-break.org/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 24, 2011, 23:03 mag
 
Tumbler wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 21:33:
Sure....I think I'll see this for myself before buying this on the PC. I would love to see them create a kick ass pc Battlefield game again, but I don't believe they will.

I thought you stopped buying PC games because they cost more than $1?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Battlefield 3 Scales Down Maps for Consoles Mar 24, 2011, 22:58 eunichron
 
Suddenly_Dead wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:23:
Agent.X7 wrote on Mar 24, 2011, 22:11:
The Xbox sucked in the RAM department though. Consoles always skimp on the RAM, it's ridiculous.

That's because you don't need much RAM when all you're running is a barebones OS and a video game. PCs are doing a billion things behind the scenes while you're gaming, consoles are only doing one thing.
 
Avatar 13977
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo