BF3 Armored Kill fears over cut console content

By Alan Ng - Jun 8, 2012

Earlier this week we gave you some initial details on the forthcoming Armored Kill expansion pack for Battlefield 3. Now though, with the confirmation of the biggest map in Battlefield history on the way, we’re also interested to see how this will work on console with a limit of just 24 players.

It’s no secret that the PC version of the game is the best version to own, simply because it contains full versions of the maps, while console players have to make do with a condensed version. This results in fewer flags on conquest maps and also unfortunately, the omission of certain vehicles as well on console, which would normally be included in the same map on PC.

Kharg Island is a classic example. PC players get an extra flag on conquest compared to console, while they also get a mobile AA and a scout helicopter to use as well. It’s a totally difference experience on console though and there is still no console map that combines an attack helicopter with a scout helicopter on conquest – which is obviously a big shame.

So with this in mind, how are DICE going to manage putting Bandar Desert on console, bearing in mind that they’ll have to satisfy console players as well with their boasts about this being the biggest map ever. We showed you a screenshot here which confirmed that Bandar Desert will have seven flags on conquest.

Players on Xbox 360 and PS3 will know that a seven flag conquest mode hasn’t been done yet on console Battlefield 3, with DICE finally managing to bring out a five flag version of Wake Island after release on console. Although we would love to a seven flag conquest on console, we doubt DICE will be making this possible on Bandar Desert once Armored Kill hits.

Then there is the massive decision on what vehicles they will have to cut from the console version compared to PC. A fact sheet confirmed that five new vehicles will be included in the expansion, but will they all make it into the console version as well, or will DICE have to chop some out again like they did on Kharg Island.

Obviously we’ll still get the highly anticipated AC130 gunship on console still, but don’t be surprised if we see one or two less tanks and ATVs to make the overall map more stable on console. 24 players on the ‘biggest map ever’ is disappointing on first glance as well, since we wish that DICE would increase the player count just for this map to make it much more exciting for console players.

If you are a console player at the moment, you are probably wondering the same things as we are, with regards to potential cuts on console. Let’s hope that DICE give out some answers soon before the expansion lands in September. In the meantime, give us your ideas on how Bandar Desert could work on console with 24 players.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus.

Also See: EA servers down Oct 27 for FIFA 18, Madden NFL, NHL suddenly

  • georgian

    i think if armored kill will be 24 players it will be bored after few weeks

  • 624653

    I am not as worried about having less vehicles on console (i have an Xbox). What I find worse is that if you aren’t in a vehicle it is incredibly boring on Conquest because you never run into any body. Conquest is manageable on smaller maps, but on the likes of Caspian Border and Gulf of Oman it is just quite boring if you aren’t on rush and you will only get 5-10 kills in a 40 minute game.

  • Juni Battlefield

    32 or 48 players on Console would be great on Armoured Kill, just 24 would mean u probably wouldn’t even have 1 player defending a map. Killzone 2 on PS3 had 32 players and decent sized maps that had 4 or 5 stories on each map. Please DICE, IF YOU VALUE YOUR FEEDBACK THEN PUT ON 32 OR 48 PLAYERS ON CONSOLES FOR ARMOURED KILL!

  • Paddywaba

    I dont understand why PC players have to be idiots all the time. We know consoles aren’t as good as PC but who really cares. The PS3/XBOX debate seems to have ended only to be replaced by PC players attacking consoles. Grow the f**k up PC players!

  • M27 IAR

    ” It’s a totally difference experience on console though and there is still no console map that combines an attack helicopter with a scout helicopter on conquest –which is obviously a big shame.”

    Operation Firestorm and Gulf of Oman have both choppers.

    • NgTurbo

      Not on console conquest they don’t. 

      Operation Firestorm and Gulf of Oman have the attack helicopers and the Kasatka / Venom transport helicopters if that’s what you meant? Not the Little Bird choppers.

      • Skip

        sharqi peninsula on console had littlebird with attack heli on console.

        • NgTurbo

          Not on conquest

    • Jonathan Ms13

      Im pretty sure He was talking about a little bird and a viper at the same map

  • Dynasty2201

    Bandar Desert would work on console with 24 players for sure.

    If you like freezes and laughable frame rates that is.

    Consoles dont have the power to run DICE’s new engine properly so they have to scale it back on each map by reducing players and vehicles.

    Cant help but smile whilst loading it up on PC knowing console players are FINALLY the ones losing out again.

    • Mb S550

      Why hate for console players?
      I have gaming rig, xbox 360 and ps3. They all have their advantages, while pc can run games with better gfx and more players, on console you get relaxed couch and big screen experience with no installations and drivers stuff.
      Or you just too broke too afford both?

      • Bardley

        Same here. While gaming on a PC is incredibly better gameplay wise, nothing beats chillin’ on the couch with only a controller.

        • Nick

          i have my 750$ gaming pc i built myself that has components from a 3000$ gaming pc hooked up to my 42 inch tv and i use a controller when i play from couch, minus shooters, cause controllers are not good enough when people are using mouses……

    • matonking

      Player limitations are caused by the amount of data that sony/xbox allow to be transmitted. Nothing to do with the console.

      MAG (Massive Action Game), a PS3 exclusive, had 250 players. So thats a big f you. Not sure how they managed it, but the game had very large maps, pretty good graphics and lots of action. Plus no lag.

      With lower numbers of players, having the same size PC maps is just not practical.

      PC’s have to run OS plus multitask with a whole host of other content. Consoles are dedicated gaming centers. The way that they use there CPU and GPU are completely different.

      Yes graphics on PC are better, but the consoles are 6 years old . I’m bet that 4-6 year old PC parts would give roughly the same graphics as a current console game. At the same frame rate and resolution.

      • Nin696

        You need to go back and look at Mag again… it looks like a N64 game compared to BF3. The real reason they could do 256 players was the fog of war that covered everything 200 ft around you. The map size does not matter if the system does not have to load it. BF3 on the other hand you can snipe and kill someone from one end of the map to the other. If you had the skill and luck that is.

        • matonking

          Yes, it had its comprimises in graphics department, but it wasn’t a 200ft range. Thats complete bull. I used to snipe in that game from much further. Plus it’s not always about graphics too, the gameplay was fun on MAG. Thats what is important. However, it still had 265 players.

          The data transfer limitation is based on the location of players relative to each other. I believe MAG got round this by only having those in your line of site/within a certain range actually visable. Or some other witchcraft.

          The destruction, vehicles and players in BF3 all contribute to this data transfer.. i.e if someone in a vehicle, on the other side of the map, blows up a building i’m in. Where as in MAG there was little to no destruction ( i can’t remember which ).

          The consoles COULD have more players, if sony/microsoft allowed a higher bandwidth during matches. But it sitll wouldn’t beat PC, without making additional sacrifices for destruction/visuals.I remember reading an official statement from DICE devs about this before the game was launched, I tried to google, but there is too much gaff on there ; I also can’t bebothered filtering.