DICE discusses Battlefield 3 console multiplayer changes

DICE is making a few compromises for the console versions of Battlefield 3 -- namely, fewer players and smaller maps. The compromises aren't ideal,...

74

DICE is making a few compromises for the console versions of Battlefield 3 -- namely, fewer players and smaller maps. The compromises aren't ideal, but studio head Patrick Bach recently defended the decisions.

"The biggest difference between the PC and console version of Battlefield 3 is that we have 64 players on the PC and 24 players maximum on console," Bach explained. "The rest is more or less the same: we use the same engine, the same technology, the same animation system, the same lighting system. Our aim is to give the player the exact same experience and not try to dumb down the console version.

"If you want the same quality of game, I would say it's really, really hard. We tried to get more players in [to the console version] but then you need to scale down all the graphics, scale down all the destructibility, and sometimes you need to scale down all the map sizes," Bach told GameZone (via CVG). "Everything is a compromise on: where do you cut?"

Bach compared Battlefield to other games on the market, and says DICE "[doesn't] see games that have more players as a better experience, so having more players per se doesn't automatically give you a better experience." He says if they squeezed in 64 players, people would get "very upset that it looked worse, played worse and wasn't as fun as the PC version." He also says that scaling down segments of the console version allows them to keep vehicles accessible.

He also called the multiplayer maps "more or less" the same. "When we say they are smaller, it's not that we have cut them in half. But we tried to compact them slightly to keep the action up. If you compare it to Battlefield: Bad Company 2, the maps weren't really small on console. We actually had huge maps even for console. We have the same kind of angle on it right now. We want to create the same experience for PC as for consoles."

Battlefield 3 is due on October 25 for PC, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360 -- though its digital platforms are still undetermined. If you just can't wait that long, the public beta is set for sometime in September.

Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    July 26, 2011 7:30 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, DICE discusses Battlefield 3 console multiplayer changes.

    DICE is making a few compromises for the console versions of Battlefield 3 -- namely, fewer players and smaller maps. The compromises aren't ideal,...

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 7:43 AM

      This is something that has nagged at me about BF3 ever since they mentioned 64 player support only on PC. It will be interesting to see how they can make "small" changes to a map to make it work as well for 24 as for 64 players. Or if conversely it plays much better with 24 than 64. If a full PC server is rotating through all of the maps, will they all work well at 64? And the console version will be just as good on all of the slightly modified maps? Seems hard to believe, and I'm extremely interested in finding out where it falls down as this often reveals some things about how the designers are prioritizing.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 8:00 AM

        They managed in BF2 to cope with making the play area smaller for servers with fewer players, 16 & 32 were the numbers if I remember rightly. Maybe they are going to do the same with BF3 and make one of the player number breakpoints 24.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 8:28 AM

        BF2 had a similar system where map size was dynamically limited by player numbers. It worked well.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 10:13 AM

          Dynamic isn't the right word for it. They had different versions of each map for different amounts of players, i.e.: almost every map has a 16, 32, and 64 player version that could be loaded into the map list for the server. I think Wake Island is one of the few that only had one size.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 10:22 AM

            It was dynamic. If more people joined the map would open up without a reload. That's dynamic.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 10:25 AM

              Not in BF2. I can 100% guarantee you that. I've played a massive amount of it. A change in the size of the map requires a reload.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 10:29 AM

                This is accurate. It was not dynamic.

                • reply
                  July 26, 2011 10:31 AM

                  Strange. My brain must be broken.

                  • reply
                    July 26, 2011 10:38 AM

                    I used to remember it that way too, but the last time i played it like 2 years ago it wasn't and i remember being very surprised about it.

                    • reply
                      July 26, 2011 10:41 AM

                      I think it was announced to be dynamic, but unfortunately it didn't turn out that way.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 11:05 AM

              It was planned that way, but it was one of the features that were cut near the end. It was a great idea too, join a server with only a few player and the map adjusts as the population grows. Nothing worse then everyone leaving a 64player size map turning the whole thing into a ghost town. The other feature I remember is dynamic destruction/environmental interaction lol (Shoot the cable on the crane, and the boxcar it was holding will fall down, altering the map), along with BF-TV.

              Supposedly it was technical reasons that made them drop support for them.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 8:01 AM

      "Bach compared Battlefield to other games on the market, and says DICE "[doesn't] see games that have more players as a better experience, so having more players per se doesn't automatically give you a better experience." He says if they squeezed in 64 players, people would get "very upset that it looked worse, played worse and wasn't as fun as the PC version. ""
      lol they try to make it sound like he is saying that more players don't make it more fun. What he really means is that it obviously is more fun, but not when you have to turn the rest of the game to shit (performance and looks wise) . It should be obvious that more players are favorable in a Battlefield game.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 8:35 AM

        Having more players is only more fun if the map size can accommodate them.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 9:04 AM

        It's down to the map. 64 players can be a clusterfuck.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 10:19 AM

          Map design is definitely important when you have 64 players. Too small, and no one can do anything at all because even if they're able to kill 2-3 dudes, there will still be 5 more in the way. Too big and you'll spend 5 minutes walking around on foot without seeing a soul, not doing anything important or fun. Some of the really big BF2 maps were probably a bit too big and made it necessary to get everyone in a vehicle of some sort to not be bored as shit.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 8:08 AM

      In other news, DICE's Patrick Bach says "Just buy BF3 on PC for God's sake."

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 8:08 AM

      I'm just hoping they include a fair amount of large conquest maps and the like to actually support that many player, and not just including one map to back up their 64 player count checklist on the back of the box.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 8:12 AM

      Meh, doesn't surprise me, of course the console versions can't match PC. Hopefully next gen will :)

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 8:18 AM

      It's beautiful when PC comes out on top. Rare sight, but beautiful.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 8:31 AM

        64 players always felt like too many anyway - it generally just became a spam fest. 32 players felt about right

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 8:35 AM

          Not if your maps are huge and people are running to different objectives in squads while jets are in the air and helicopters are doing air insertions.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 8:36 AM

            That sounds more like the privileged players with air power are having a ball and everyone else is getting pounded.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 8:44 AM

          Tell that to HITLER. Oh, please send only 32 of your best Nazi solders.

          This is america!!! WE LIKE OUR VIRTUAL WARS BIG. OUR VIRUTAL BULLETS HOT.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 8:45 AM

          Rush with 64 players *could* be a problem. If the maps are similar to BC2 for where the Mcom is, then this will be a problem for sure. Conquest is a different beast and 64 players will probably be fine on most maps/situations.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 9:59 AM

            They fixed this issue by spreading the mcoms out a lot further.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 10:07 AM

            I hope we get a mixed rush/conquest game mode. MCOM stations set at key points in a map for your team if you want to keep certain roads, bridges, buildings intact to use for your advantage. With the destruction 2.0 engine they could implement interesting gameplay features.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 10:42 AM

              That would be awesome. Kind of like getting your enemy territory mixed in my bf3.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 12:29 PM

            Rush is limited to 32 last I heard.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 8:48 AM

          yeah never liked 64 players in BF42, BFV or BF2. too many people to feel like you were really making a difference as a player

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 8:57 AM

            64-player Tank race. Awwww yeah.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 10:22 AM

            On a 64 player server it is definitely harder for a single person to have that big of an impact, but A) it's definitely possible and B) BF2, at least, has the squad mechanic to help compensate for that. You shouldn't really ever be doing stuff on your own in BF2. A squad of 5 average skill people that work together really well should beat the pants off a squad of 5 highly skilled players that don't work together at all. It's a team game.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 8:12 PM

            64 players was amazing in 1942, tribes 1 and 2 and Warhawk. If done right, it can be good.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 9:00 AM

          64 always felt just right to me. The 90+ was too big and the 16 and 32 were too small.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 9:39 AM

          Depends on the Map, 64 BF2 maps, were HUGE

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 10:15 AM

            Yeah, 64 players in Operation Harvest is nothing. Gulf of Oman with 64 is a bit crowded.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 10:24 AM

              Operation Clean Sweep was probably too big for even 64 players. I remember never wanting to leave a flag because by the time you got anywhere someone was trying to take the flag you just left, and if you died, you'd have to spend another 3-4 minutes getting back where you were.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 10:26 AM

                We need to have a shackbattle. I've been playing BF2 the last few weeks just out of nostalgia, and there are still tons of servers.

                • reply
                  July 26, 2011 10:32 AM

                  If we can get 64 players, we need to have at least one round on FuShe Pass 64. I fucking love that map so much, but it really does need 64 players and lots of vehicle drops.

                  • reply
                    July 26, 2011 10:40 AM

                    It's a good map. I like Operation Harvest because there's far more armor, and less JetRape.

                    • reply
                      July 26, 2011 10:58 AM

                      I quit playing long before that map was free for everyone. Armored Fury was pretty damn awesome and it's a shame that more people didn't buy it.

                    • reply
                      July 26, 2011 4:02 PM

                      Operation Road Rage was always a fucking blast. I thought it was really well designed in that it was fairly wide open, but the control points had lots of cover for infantry and when you weren't on the roads it was difficult to maneuver in a vehicle. This made it possible to try sneakiness and use different attack angles to your advantage, but you gave up a lot of time to do so.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 9:54 AM

          fully agreed

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 10:10 AM

          64 is fine. huge maps, lots of vehicles, and a COMMANDER function to bind them all!!! :D

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 10:21 AM

            Yeah, too bad we haven't seen jack shit for all the vehicles they're talking about besides the tank. I'm weary of them living up to the Battlefield standard of heavy vehicle involvement.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 10:36 AM

            ...except there won't be a commander function in BF3, didn't they already say that?

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 10:52 AM

              I'm holding the last remaining candle lit for it. I still have hope. I wouldn't consider it a proper BF title without it.

              granted, becoming commander was always a shitshow of who loaded the map first then survives a wave of 'kick out the commander' votes because people that are 1-12 need to blame someone else :D

              but yeah... commanding. try it in BF2. I just did to refresh my memory, and it's fucking AWESOME.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 10:55 AM

                I loved commander in BF2142, and I will miss it in BF3.LEt's hope they make something even better to replace it.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 10:57 AM

                It's sort of like a random RTS. Sometimes your squads are working well together, implementing your orders, taking/defending positions, calling in artillery and vehicle drops. Other times it's just wild west.

                Alternatively, a great commander can make the game so much better when you're on the ground and he's looking out for your squads.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 11:12 AM

                bf42 didnt have it and was a proper BF title

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 1:12 PM

                What hope is there to have? It's a confirmed "no" is it not?

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 10:39 AM

        Sad, but true.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 10:37 AM

      I'm really worried that there will only be one or two maps that support 64 players properly. BC2's maps are all far too cramped for 32 players and i don't trust them to be dedicated enough to create basically 2 times the maps they would have had to create if they just shoehorn 64 players in. I'm expecting maps that work best with 32 players across both platforms with maybe one or two 64 player maps and a few made for 16 or 24 for the console versions. Meaning most maps will be either too crowded on pc or too empty on consoles.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 1:00 PM

      WoW!!!! Finally you can say, "You get what you pay for!" You play on a $200.00 console vs a $1000.00 plus PC you better have and see a difference! Why doesn't DICE, just man up and say, The PC version is better? Sheesh!

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:04 PM

        I spent $4,000 on my computer.
        Then I bought a MBP just so I could chat while streaming.
        This week I bought MacBook Air so I could chat while my MBP was streaming on my 3d Plasma TV.

        I own two different Lexus LS cars, with all the options.

        And I still won't say, 'you got what you paid for' just because I play PC games.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 1:05 PM

          I will, on the other hand, call you an idiot for making your post.
          Then buy something worth more than your console just because I can.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 1:07 PM

            Here you go: http://chattypics.com/files/preorrdderrrJPG_wsx69g2zz3.jpg

            I bought two copies of SW-TOR. I'm going to give them to my friends, just because I can.

            Welcome to Shacknews.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 1:08 PM

              I actually bought those on preorder day for myself. Screw giving stuff away.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 1:10 PM

              Jesus Christ, Loiosh, I've never seen someone get bitchslapped with a billfold before.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 1:12 PM

                Sorry, I overreacted. :(

                • reply
                  July 26, 2011 1:14 PM

                  Fuck the haters, it's all good, we are each allowed a bad post a day.

                  • reply
                    July 26, 2011 1:15 PM

                    You guys hit quota for the month already.

                    • reply
                      July 26, 2011 1:19 PM

                      Don't be an asshat, Pothead. He overreacted, he's sorry, he doesn't need a dogpile from other Shackers who make worst posts on a daily basis. Move on, you're not needed here.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 1:10 PM

              You kind of sound like a douche in this thread Loiosh.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 1:11 PM

              What the fuck are you rambling on about.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 2:06 PM

              Whaaat the fuck is this?

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 4:01 PM

              You could have saved us all a little grief and just said I have a small penis.

              At least we would have laughed.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 1:09 PM

            Douche much?

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 1:30 PM

            lol

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 7:48 PM

            You apparently can't read... I was making fun of the remarks about cushioning the blow to console users. Plus, it's nice to know that PC users aren't getting a straight port...

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 1:42 PM

          Congratulations on the terrible posts you've contributed to this thread.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 4:08 PM

          what do you do for a living, other than dragons?

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 1:03 PM

      Anyone else read that the game will have vehicle health regen? WTF is that. We better be able to turn it off.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:20 PM

        that's terrible if it's true

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 1:29 PM

          I have read it in a few places on boards from peoples impressions with the alpha build.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 1:40 PM

            I don't think it can hurt that much, and the regen rate is likely too slow to make a difference. Vehicles go down awfully quick in BC2 without a squad of 3 doing constant repairs, throw in 2x as many players and it's going to be even worse if they don't balance shit enough.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 1:44 PM

              If it's too slow to make a difference, why even put it in at all? The basic health regen makes sense, but this seems unnecessary and silly.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 1:49 PM

                I meant while engaged in combat. Out of it when retreating or moving to the next point it will be nice to repair a little without having to jump out or TK a teammate trying to help while moving because of the horrible collision detection.

                Think of it like the dudes in the back of a Blackhawk repairing from the inside, though imaginary and a lot less useful most likely!

                • reply
                  July 26, 2011 1:59 PM

                  Yeah, I follow, I just don't like the trend of replacing someone in the squad who could be doing the repairs at a much faster rate with a gimmicky gameplay mechanic. No pun intended.

                  I think it's a lot more rewarding to team-based gameplay if they did something like in BF2 where if you had an Engineer in your vehicle, other vehicle around it could get repaired (or however that worked, it may have been in BF1942).

                  • reply
                    July 26, 2011 2:05 PM

                    That was BF2. One reason I can see them opting for this gimmick instead is because there won't be a lot of vehicles again. You can't repair another tank like that when there's only one tank on the map!

                    I'd prefer something like the turret gunner being able to switch to weapons he's carrying and repair that way. While ducking even but that may be too cheap.

                    • reply
                      July 26, 2011 2:08 PM

                      You just brought up a good point I hope they let us duck down again when in the mounted guns on vehicles. That pissed me off that they took it out of bfbc2. My biggest wish would be the ability to jump on top of stationary tanks/apc and be able to throw in a grenade inside a hatch to take it out. That would be glorious.

                      • reply
                        July 26, 2011 2:11 PM

                        I'd also wish tanks had 2 or more external passenger slots. Sit on the side or back or something. Exposed but you could at least keep a squad together.

                        • reply
                          July 26, 2011 2:18 PM

                          We have excellent ideas pyide, however we are too lazy to send them in. paging efx

                    • reply
                      July 26, 2011 2:09 PM

                      Well, if you had a humvee with an engineer in it, he could be a mobile repair site! It would give those hummers some extra utility!

                      • reply
                        July 26, 2011 2:16 PM

                        Tell them that! I liked that aspect of BF2.

                        • reply
                          July 26, 2011 2:18 PM

                          I tried to get into the Alpha, but DICE said I didn't fit their credentials :(

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:25 PM

        On top of the repair tool? I would prefer more armor instead.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:39 PM

        Presumably only if occupied? Otherwise abandoned vehicles will just persist on the map until someone blows them up. I think it's a bad idea... just let people hit their vehicles with the repair tool.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 1:58 PM

          Abandoned vehicles would probably still blow up and respawn after being abandoned for x amount of time like every other BF.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 2:07 PM

        lol, wonderful

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 2:10 PM

        holy shit they take out commander and put in regen health for vehicles? battlefield going full retard

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 3:46 PM

        Please tell me your kidding? Regenerating health for a vehicle? lol...

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 1:20 PM

      what a lot of folks seem to forget was that after the initial novelty of BF2 wore off, most players preferred the smaller infantry-centric maps over the full blown kitchen sink maps with all vehicles available.

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:28 PM

        this is very true. karkand was my favourite

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:30 PM

        Kubra Dam forever.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 9:29 PM

          you must be the only person in the world who actually liked that map

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:33 PM

        I hated it. Preferred maps with vehicles (tanks especially) but the balance / jet rape was tiring and the design of some of the larger maps with 6 random flags was often annoying. I basically hated BF2 compared to 1942. Didn't think the infantry combat was that much better either. Squad system was the biggest improvement.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 1:37 PM

          (it being the infantry focused maps)

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 1:34 PM

        By smaller infantry-centric map you mean "any map without jets" because most people didn't like getting raped over and over by the unstoppable flying behemoths.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 1:42 PM

          I think they should have added a portable A/A or more A/A vehicles on the jet maps. This would have significantly helped balance those maps were JetRape was a problem.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 1:47 PM

            Maps with the Linebacker and Tunguska were much more balanced; their AA capabilities were great, and their mobility made them much more dangerous.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 1:59 PM

              Agreed.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 2:00 PM

              Definitely!

              Fushe Pass!!

              And the biggest problem with jet rape / heli rape was the lack of adequate DYNAMIC defenses. Hence the reason why the linebacker / tunguska were perfect (and should have been on any map with air to ground combat).

              95% of every static defense that DICE puts into their maps has the absolute worst location possible, IE it's next to a building that blocks 75% of the world around you. Coupled with the horribly limited viewing distance in BF2 that allowed jets to bomb and disappear before you could even lock onto them.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 2:01 PM

                Fushe Pass was a fantastic map.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 2:07 PM

                Agreed, alot of the problems with BF2 was the crappy defense against air. 1942 wasn't great either, they kept going back and forth with balancing over many patches.

              • reply
                July 26, 2011 4:42 PM

                Oh god the view distance was horrible. I hated that "fog" so goddamn much. >:(

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 3:59 PM

              I'd say "great" is overstating their effectiveness. "Good" or "OK at best" would be more fitting. Their main benefit was that you could move from your spot and hide if you locked on but couldn't shoot down the plane. In my experience if you locked on to a jet and didn't take it out, you'd better get the fuck out of the turret/mobile AA tank and run away so they can't use just instantly spot you with their ground radar and blast you with ease before you can get another lock.

          • reply
            July 26, 2011 3:56 PM

            At the end of the day, just adding more anti-air stuff to the game without addressing the basic problem with it would never have worked. The detection/lock-on range on all anti-air was pathetically small. By the time you got a lock on any jet, it will have already cleared your threat zone before you can fire. Instead, the radar tone will just tell them that you're (usually) sitting in the stationary AA turret and will just strafe your ass from outside the lock-on radius. The mobile AA vehicles were OK, but even those were just death traps against anyone with skill.

            Even if you did manage to get a lock on, chances are that they could pop flares and make your missiles useless so it was pointless to even try against a good pilot. On some maps (e.g.: Gulf of Oman, Kubra Dam) a good pilot would dominate so hard that getting in any armored vehicle meant certain death within 30 seconds, and in the FAVs you had a pretty high chance of getting bombed or strafed dead (I would guess around 25-30% on average) before you got to your destination. It god so bad at times that I would bypass any tank or APC for the FAVs and just juke and swerve as much as possible just so I could get where I needed to go and get some shit done.

            • reply
              July 26, 2011 9:01 PM

              That was an early change though - I remember it being very easy to shoot down jets in the first release ; long range locks, flares did fuck-all unless they fired a second after the missile, and the missiles could turn very quickly. Unfortunately they immediately changed it way too far in the other direction after bitching, and never went back to it.

        • reply
          July 26, 2011 5:16 PM

          true in a way but I don't think that was the primary reason people gravitated towards infantry only. People want to get back into action asap. Spawning on a huge map can be a pain in the ass, especially when your teammates have taken off with all the good vehicles. Also, the jets and copters took a certain amount of finesse and patience. Most FPS gamers aren't the patient type ;)

      • reply
        July 26, 2011 2:02 PM

        64 player Strike at Karkand was fun simply for that initial hill. So many fun battles to just take the first point.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 2:20 PM

      I'm going to play this game, but the more I read and hear I'm leaning towards the PC version.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 3:16 PM

      Uh what, similar sized maps with more than twice as many players, sounds....stupid. I was expecting them to just move the boundaries in like what they did for BF2 with the smaller player numbers. This sounds bad.

    • reply
      July 26, 2011 9:29 PM

      lol fuck dice/ea in the waste duct

    • reply
      July 30, 2011 9:45 PM

      I got this game to use jets as well, if I don't get those, I want my damn money back, I didn't want another BF:BC2 Mod to run in circles with as well as T-bagged by Mr.T and his Mohawk. BC2 only had helicopters, I don't want the same shit........ BC2 maps were small as it is. You saw little NPC jets fly over you... I do "NOT!!" want to deal with the jets missing. If I didn't want no jets, I would have taken my ass back to Port Valdez already. No point getting the game if it is going to be Medal of Honor, and BC2 mixed with a little Hex, and no jets, but less players, and small ass maps. Like usual MOH. Moh's side of Less players and really small maps. BC2's side of No jets, and bullshit. Together they make Call of duty black ops and more bullshit. I didn't pay for another map pack for black ops..... I payed for a game that "was" suppose to be cool........... and shit but now turns out it will look as shitty as Mario world. and be crumbs of old shit they made.... Looks like we have NOW! Bad Company 2: Iraq, now give us more money for useless shit. Stop wasting peoples money and time if you cannot get it right. I want the same shit as PC. I WILL NOT GO AND BUY A $4.000 COMPUTER~~~!!! I do not have money for this shit. Take it away from consoles if they cannot GET THE SAME SHIT AS PC~~!!! ITS NOT FUCKING FAIR GOD DAMMIT. Fucking rich people can only afford it. The economy is too bad to waste money and be in debt. fuck you Dice and EA, go fuck your useless shit. To me its another DLC for BC2 without good shit. I do not want another fast piece of shit like MOH and COD. BORING! FIX IT~~! I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF $$$$$ ON A DAMN PC.!!!!!!!!! Fuck you for saying " best game " Oh wait, There was a console best shit, REALLY~! CHANGE YOUR MIND NOW people! Charge back. too many disappointed people will be out there now. It's useless without equal shit. They shouldnt even said Pre-Order, They bullshitted console users out of there ass and what they needed for there money, but now theyll just get another copy of BC2 and MOH. That is shitty and does not have good shit. I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT! FUCKING FIX IT NOW! MAKE PC A SMALL ASS TOO!>>!> Now repay money, or fucking lie some more. I will go destroy my 18.5 inch tv and my ps3 now because every hd tv i used i still got shitty ass quality on bc2 and moh. fuck u and good bye

    • reply
      July 30, 2011 9:46 PM

      Now i'm mad, since consoles are the actual only thing to be able to play games when you "CAN NOT AFFORD A $4,000 gaming computer" to play "games" like this, Seriously. My doubts are down, I don't like small stuff, I just want to go and shoot my PS3. Maps smaller, come on.... Can't we do something? Or these "Consoles" just another Nintendo 64 from 1964? What's the point on getting some thing if someone is just going to out beat you any way with their stuff? I am sure people that buy a $1,000 HDTV for a "Game Console that blows" could have bought a gaming computer, but obviously they don't think about that until they re-think, and see "this" thread about stupid crap like this. Less players is half better though. I don't like small maps though! I lean towards PC, and sell my crappy 18.5 inch TV, with my PlayStation 3. To get on the PC side with my laggy ass computer.

    • reply
      July 31, 2011 6:15 PM

      Try to figure it out, I mean, Jets will definitely need room to be able to fly. Unless you make them 3x slower then it wouldn't work out well. I don't want only helicopters, make Jets accessible. READ US FORUMS! Geesh.

Hello, Meet Lola