official Battlefield 3

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I found this Gem before, the PC demo for Wake Island from 2002. (Editor not working for me)

http://battlefield2.filefront.com/file/Battlefield_1942_Multiplayer_Demo_Wake_Island_map;5003

I just instinctively said to a friend the other day while trying to talk them into playing BF3 that I had been playing the BF series for 10 years, as it felt right saying it, and I guess I am not to far off.

If playing video games was like going on vacation, I have probably been to Wake Island a good 3-4 weeks. Karkand twice as long.

Not the most pleasant of vacations though. LOL

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I would suggest you buy the game now, since you start off feeling a lot weaker than your higher-ranked opponents. If you play it now you could have access to a few of the good guns for your preferred class to get you off to a good start on Wake Island. It's a map I've always been terrible at though, so I hope my skills on it are better than they were on the Battlefield 1943 version of it. :p

I have BF3 on the PS3, just haven't put more than a few hours into MP yet :)

[Paul Ferson Veteran]

I have BF3 on the PS3, just haven't put more than a few hours into MP yet :)

I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions on it since Karkand seems so well remembered. I'd love a WWII weapon pack since I could perhaps get the MG3/MG42 back, and have a reason to play Support. :p

[philcruicks]

No problem, I am a PC player, and I take no offense to that, since I can run the game at 1920 x 1080, change graphic settings at will, get 60 fps and play on 64 player servers, and what, Xbox players get 1280x1024, no AntiAliasing, 30 framers per second and 32 players?

So it makes sense you can load it faster on the 360, as it is a machine dedicated to just gaming, and yeah, not as many resources needed to begin with since it is a lower version of the game itself.

24 players, I don't know about the resolution AA and FPS...xbox outputs and 1080p and the BF3 box says 1080p...but I know a lot of games run lower and are scaled up.

But the map itself should be much different lo load, same textures and size, numbers of objects etc...being a dedicated system help but compared to some of the PC's people have you would have thought the PC wouldn't be far off on load times.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

24 players, I don't know about the resolution AA and FPS...xbox outputs and 1080p and the BF3 box says 1080p...but I know a lot of games run lower and are scaled up.

But the map itself should be much different lo load, same textures and size, numbers of objects etc...being a dedicated system help but compared to some of the PC's people have you would have thought the PC wouldn't be far off on load times.

It is definitely upscaled to 1080p, and actually it is a bit lower than 1280 x 1024

1280x704 on both PS3 and 360. removing a few lines from 720p saves good perf & memory for us

Found on twitter, but I am sure there are more sources.

I figured it would be the same deal, but actually there are differences in the maps and the number of objects it needs to load, etc. Like one simple example is there was a discussion a few pages back about how on the map with the air carrier, on the PC version there is an anti antillery gun on the deck of the ship, but it is not there on the console version. I imagine there are subtle differences to make up for the difference in player count.

Also as pointed out, the difference in frames per second is pretty big as well. I get an average of 75 fps at high at 1920 x 1080. I believe the console versions are a steady 30 FPS, that is a pretty significant difference.

I am not pointing this out to say it is not a good experience on the consoles, I still feel the game is enjoyable on the consoles, but I do feel it is not really fair to compare loading times between the console and PC version simply because there are so many different factors and configurations as far as components from player to player on the PC, on the consoles it is pretty much the same constant settings. I think that is a pretty important distinction.

[pixated]

The USAS-12 with Frag / Slug is retarded. :D

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/battlereport/show/8386571/1/216353686/

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/battlereport/show/8384812/1/216353686/

[trag3dy]

Also after initially loading the game for me which takes around 30-45 seconds, after that maps usually take 5-10 seconds to load.

The USAS-12 with Frag / Slug is retarded. :D

http://battlelog.bat...71/1/216353686/

http://battlelog.bat...12/1/216353686/

And it's gonna be nerfed, too. Enjoy it while it lasts. I started using the 870cs today got around 90 kills in 2 games, so that's a decent alternative. I was using flechete (sp) rounds, too. Frag rounds don't seem to be as useful with it.

[pixated]

Also after initially loading the game for me which takes around 30-45 seconds, after that maps usually take 5-10 seconds to load.

And it's gonna be nerfed, too. Enjoy it while it lasts. I started using the 870cs today got around 90 kills in 2 games, so that's a decent alternative. I was using flechete (sp) rounds, too. Frag rounds don't seem to be as useful with it.

It's only frag that's being nerfed, right? I find slug works just as well in most cases. One just has to aim a little better and obviously you can't kill someone who's hidden behind something with it.

Then again if they nerf frag to take 3 shots to kill instead of 2 that will still be just fine.

[trag3dy]

It's only frag that's being nerfed, right? I find slug works just as well in most cases. One just has to aim a little better and obviously you can't kill someone who's hidden behind something with it.

Then again if they nerf frag to take 3 shots to kill instead of 2 that will still be just fine.

I'm thinking it will be several things. They'll reduce it's effective range, which is really actually entirely way to far, the splash damage range, and it's overall damage. I think they'll hit it pretty hard. And I suppose you're technically right, those notes only mentioned 12g frag rounds.

[pixated]

The slug worked pretty much the same in BC2, not sure if they nerfed it there as I stopped playing after a few weeks. Anyone know?

Anyway I agree that the frag is way too powerful right now. :)

[Paul Ferson Veteran]

The slug worked pretty much the same in BC2, not sure if they nerfed it there as I stopped playing after a few weeks. Anyone know?

I think the Slug was still possible to snipe with even when Battlefield 3 released.

I'm just after unlocking my first Service Star for the F2000. :D

[pixated]

I think the Slug was still possible to snipe with even when Battlefield 3 released.

I'm just after unlocking my first Service Star for the F2000. :D

Cool. If that's the case I doubt they will nerf the slug (or I hope anyway). It's a fun weapon to play.

[Paul Ferson Veteran]

Cool. If that's the case I doubt they will nerf the slug (or I hope anyway). It's a fun weapon to play.

I haven't tried it but if it's anything like it was in Bad Company 2 it's still a fair challenge to use well at long ranges. I'm using the Assault class mostly, but one class I can never really see myself using in this game is Recon because sniping seems so difficult to me. I just use it for the SKS. :p

[philcruicks]

It is definitely upscaled to 1080p, and actually it is a bit lower than 1280 x 1024

Found on twitter, but I am sure there are more sources.

I figured it would be the same deal, but actually there are differences in the maps and the number of objects it needs to load, etc. Like one simple example is there was a discussion a few pages back about how on the map with the air carrier, on the PC version there is an anti antillery gun on the deck of the ship, but it is not there on the console version. I imagine there are subtle differences to make up for the difference in player count.

Also as pointed out, the difference in frames per second is pretty big as well. I get an average of 75 fps at high at 1920 x 1080. I believe the console versions are a steady 30 FPS, that is a pretty significant difference.

I am not pointing this out to say it is not a good experience on the consoles, I still feel the game is enjoyable on the consoles, but I do feel it is not really fair to compare loading times between the console and PC version simply because there are so many different factors and configurations as far as components from player to player on the PC, on the consoles it is pretty much the same constant settings. I think that is a pretty important distinction.

Useful info there, yeah I was one of the people who checked the 360 carrier for the AA...I think thats more balancing than not being able to load it cause its too much for the console, but yeah I agree, the PC's definitely run it better...Maybe there are more map differences then most of us realise.

I was tempted to get it for PC but I only have 1 friend who has it on PC about 10 on 360 and as you well know this is a squad based game...also my graphics card isn't up to the challenge (not even DX10 :( ) lol its like the last component that needs an upgrade in my PC, but most of my gaming is done on 360 so I haven't bothered yet.

[philcruicks]

WOOOO! after like 40 attempts I finally go the achievement for not alerting any enemies in drop 'em like liquid! god damn that was hard!

[sbauer]

Useful info there, yeah I was one of the people who checked the 360 carrier for the AA...I think thats more balancing than not being able to load it cause its too much for the console, but yeah I agree, the PC's definitely run it better...Maybe there are more map differences then most of us realise.

I was tempted to get it for PC but I only have 1 friend who has it on PC about 10 on 360 and as you well know this is a squad based game...also my graphics card isn't up to the challenge (not even DX10 :( ) lol its like the last component that needs an upgrade in my PC, but most of my gaming is done on 360 so I haven't bothered yet.

I have both versions and the maps are quite different. Some of the PC maps are bigger. Quite a few have more capture points in conquest.

[madd-hatter]

I just loaded Grand Bazaar and timed it and it took 5:42 to load... I might try to reinstall.. No reason why this should take this long to load.

Do it.

I'm playing from a SSD with the other components lower than what you listed. It takes me 5-15 seconds to load any given map going in with ultra settings.

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

Maps on my PC take a horrendously long time to load, although it is smart enough to know when the same map is being played again, so if I'm playing on a one map server, The first map load takes about 1-2 minutes, but all the following rounds on that map will take about 5-10 seconds.

With reference to the changes, I like a lot of what has been changed, although they still haven't fixed the problem with trying to spawn on someone who dies spawning you at deployment. I like the IRNV and tac-light changes too. I stopped using the IRNV because I felt like I was cheating.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Just a normal 7200rpm hard drive for me and the first initial map takes about 1-2 minutes to load on my PC, a bit less if I disable kasperksy. Gonna try to hop on tomorrow for a few rounds has been awhile.

Also there is no release date yet for Back To Karkand pack correct?

[trag3dy]

Just a normal 7200rpm hard drive for me and the first initial map takes about 1-2 minutes to load on my PC, a bit less if I disable kasperksy. Gonna try to hop on tomorrow for a few rounds has been awhile.

Also there is no release date yet for Back To Karkand pack correct?

December 13th, a week from this Tuesday.

[SteelToast]

Just a normal 7200rpm hard drive for me and the first initial map takes about 1-2 minutes to load on my PC, a bit less if I disable kasperksy. Gonna try to hop on tomorrow for a few rounds has been awhile.

Also there is no release date yet for Back To Karkand pack correct?

PS3 Release date: 6th December

X360 & PC Release date: 13th December

Source: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/

I am so exited for Wake Island from BF2/1942!

[gkl]

I really hope that this patch will fix crashes that happen every single time I want to join a server after a period of not playing the game. Combined with the long loading times (good PC, but loading a map takes way too much time), starting up the game is quite frustrating to say the least.

I guess it might be good time to check out games hoarded from the Steam sale...

[trag3dy]

I really hope that this patch will fix crashes that happen every single time I want to join a server after a period of not playing the game. Combined with the long loading times (good PC, but loading a map takes way too much time), starting up the game is quite frustrating to say the least.

I guess it might be good time to check out games hoarded from the Steam sale...

Have you tried reinstalling it?

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

December 13th, a week from this Tuesday.

PS3 Release date: 6th December

X360 & PC Release date: 13th December

Source: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/

I am so exited for Wake Island from BF2/1942!

Nice, thanks for the replies. That works for me, as the week after I am taking the last two weeks of the month off from work, for 17 straight days. Of course some of them include the holidays, but one or two is going to be nothing but the Back To Karkand maps. Nice.

As excited as I am about Karkand the map, I am pretty much equally excited for the Sharqi Peninsula map. That is going to wind up being a fan favorite IMO. Have some very fond memories on the BF2 version. All 4 of them are damn fun maps in their own regard though, so pretty much equally looking forward to all of them.

[Dot Matrix]

M416 is NOTHING compared to the F2000.

F2000 > *

AEK <3 :blush:

Leveling up to 40 to unlock the P-90 is hard business. :(