Battlefield 3 will be coming to consoles

At this point EA/DICE can not solely rely on the outdated hardware of present consoles to structure a game (even less in 2011 when they are even more aged). For this reason alone I believe more resources will be spent on structuring this game on the constantly progressing PC hardware, because there is a higher expectation (engine and feature wise) specially for such a highly anticipated game. If this is truly the case then Battlefield 3 for the consoles will be similar to what Battlefield 2: Modern Combat was for the previous generation consoles back in the day.

 

They could be screwed, but this generation of consoles can do some handy things. For the consoles, it's all about memory and like in the article, internet bandwidth limitations. I like the idea of building different versions to various scales, much like the scaling variety of BF2 and 2142 maps with specific 16/32/64 player sizes. While the console versions would get 32 player size maps, the PC version would get 64+ player size maps that are larger and more open with more control points, etc, and of course better graphics. The console versions could easily be based of a "superior" PC build, streamlined to work within the console's limits and still be comparable in gameplay in most respects. I think that would be my idealized way of doing BF3. The PC version would overall be the definitive version of the game, with the console versions pretty much being the same in most respects. With lower max player limits, the scaled down maps would help keep the player density high, yet still allow for the classic BF style of play. With the scale down, areas/graphical assets that would normally have to be stored with the total map could be left out of the console version's of a specific map, lowering the memory strain. It would also make development easier, as some teams like Valve encourage a "PC version first" approach because of the huge workspace in the form of RAM to really get things done and work to squeeze assets down.

Here is a good example of BF2's map scaling that could have areas trimmed to save memory:

The 32 player version of this map includes most of the 64 player area but without access to the carrier and Beach Outpost areas. Effectively these areas could be cut out and save up on memory. While those in jets may notice that lack of objects/trees (the terrain could still be there of course), soldiers on the ground would not notice at all, and the gameplay wouldn't be effected at all by no means. The out-of-combat-zone areas themselves are a good example too of areas that could be cut out, especially if jets are cut out of the equation and only helos are left to be used for console players. One other thing that came to mind is if jet combat becomes more realistic, then larger maps would pretty much be mandatory to contain such battles. Keeping player density up would be extremely difficult to do on consoles with at best a 32 player limit. PCs could easily do 128 if DICE really wanted to, and to me this scaling option makes by far the most sense to keep player densities similar across all versions while making sure the gameplay on each platform is still classic Battlefield fun. Yes, the consoles probably wouldn't get jets (assuming DICE has jets planned for the PC version at least) but it would make things very manageable. What would other wise be a single map on the PC could then be split up into 2, 3, or even 4 maps for the console versions. With that, DICE could create a "scenario" MP type that pits multiple rounds across different areas of what would be a single very large PC map. According to what happens, the battle could roll back or up into other areas as individual skirmishes are fought and resolved until the multiple-skirmish battle is won by whichever side, I guess whoever get's "pushed" off the map first is the loser. It would be a decent way of accommodating the consoles, and in a way giving them a new form of multiplayer, while us PC gamers still get what we want: big sprawling battles!

 

What game was it that was cross platform?

 

Shadowrun on pc and xbox

 

Cross platform would instantly alienate console gamers in an FPS. I don't think it would encourage more console gamers to play on PC really. Shadowrun didn't do that nor any of the other cross platform titles like Lost Planet, Universe at War, etc. The best way to implement it would to just allow console players to use keyboards and mice. Yes, that could encourage some people to try PC gaming since not all console games would support such peripherals still (the non-cross platform ones that is). KB and mouse support on consoles could encourage some PC gamers to jump ship though.....Still their would be strength for the PC in cross platform gaming with superior graphics and framerates which is enough to pine plenty of gamers. That and the much better multimedia capabilities Lastly you still have the other bits like Live to worry about. PC gamers probably don't want to have to deal with gaming networks of sorts just to do something like cross platform gameplay. It's what killed it in many ways in the first place. Most gamers hate GFWL already.

 

The speed differences between console and pc are hard to describe. PC is so fast paced that when you switch over to console it's like the whole experience is nerf'd. Keyboard and mouse for fps all the way.

If the game was a combined experience for both pc and console on same map it would be a slaughter. The console kids would be screaming for mem card hacks from the get go.

BW, StevenX

 

WAAAAAAY too early man!