Hello, forumers. I am a console gamer. Specifically, a playstation gamer. I am a big battlefield fan. I've played BF1942 and BF2 and a little bit of BF3. Now BF4 is coming out. On the PS3, BF4 only supports 24-player battles, which means 12 players per team. On the PS4, BF4 supports 64-player battles, which means 32 players per team. That almost 3x as many. I own a PS3, but I don't have the money to buy a PS4 or PC (besides, like I said, I'm a PS gamer)
So, PS4 and BF4 aren't out yet, but PS3 and BF3 are. So I want your opinion guys. Is it worth it to pay my money to get BF4 on my PS3, or should I get a different game?
I'm just worried, because Battlefield Maps are so large, that seven of my teammates would hop in vehicles, 3 would camp, 1 will actually try to get the objective. BF3 on PS3 works the same way, 24-player battles.
So, is 24-player battles to little, or will it be balanced enough, from your experience on BF3 on PS3.
As someone who went from Battlefield on PS3 to PC... I never realized just how terrible it is on console until I played on PC. 24 players... *cringe* I could never touch it on console again, but considering that's your only choice then just buy it.
Of course, I have to say save up for a PS4. (It's basically too late to preorder now since preorders are basically sold out.) It will be a MILLION times better. That means you have plenty of time to save up the $500 needed for the game and console, (early 2014). Soooo, hold off on BF4 and wait till then. Because BF on last-gen console is a terrible experience, except BC2. That's what I recommend.
As someone who went from Battlefield on PS3 to PC... I never realized just how terrible it is on console until I played on PC. 24 players... *cringe* I could never touch it on console again, but considering that's your only choice then just buy it.
Of course, I have to say save up for a PS4. (It's basically too late to preorder now since preorders are basically sold out.) It will be a MILLION times better. That means you have plenty of time to save up the $500 needed for the game and console, (early 2014). Soooo, hold off on BF4 and wait till then. Because BF on last-gen console is a terrible experience, except BC2. That's what I recommend.
Thanks for the help man. I'll wait for a PS4 and get BF4
I'm just worried, because Battlefield Maps are so large, that seven of my teammates would hop in vehicles, 3 would camp, 1 will actually try to get the objective. BF3 on PS3 works the same way, 24-player battles.
Nah, it doesn't work like that. You have approximately half of your team skulking around in the woods playing sniper, and the other half camping the helo spawn.
I'm fairly certain you guys have no clue what you're talking about.
If you want anything larger as 2-4 fireteams get a PC.
I'm fairly certain I've seen 128 player matches in ArmA, Planetside has about 50 per team in smaller scale battles, there's loads of large scale games so don't limit yourself to the worthless consoles.
I've seen over 200 player matches in Mount and Blade. LITERALLY over 200 players running at eachother with huge swords and stuff.
I'm fairly certain you guys have no clue what you're talking about.
If you want anything larger as 2-4 fireteams get a PC.
I'm fairly certain I've seen 128 player matches in ArmA, Planetside has about 50 per team in smaller scale battles, there's loads of large scale games so don't limit yourself to the worthless consoles.
One possible issue for some people, including me, is affording a PC that could handle such gameplay. I have a good laptop, considering its age, but I can't play Planetside 2 because of my graphics card.
One possible issue for some people, including me, is affording a PC that could handle such gameplay. I have a good laptop, considering its age, but I can't play Planetside 2 because of my graphics card.
PCs only cost more up front. Due to cheaper games and free games and stuff it's about the same price if not slightly cheaper in the long run. Kind of like comparing a more efficient version of Prius with solar panels to some other car. Much more fuel efficient? Yep. More expensive up front? Yep. But due to saving on fuel and getting solar power for free you end up getting it about the same price on the long run theoretically.
So, PS4 and BF4 aren't out yet, but PS3 and BF3 are. So I want your opinion guys. Is it worth it to pay my money to get BF4 on my PS3, or should I get a different game?
I'm just worried, because Battlefield Maps are so large, that seven of my teammates would hop in vehicles, 3 would camp, 1 will actually try to get the objective. BF3 on PS3 works the same way, 24-player battles.
So, is 24-player battles to little, or will it be balanced enough, from your experience on BF3 on PS3.
Of course, I have to say save up for a PS4. (It's basically too late to preorder now since preorders are basically sold out.) It will be a MILLION times better. That means you have plenty of time to save up the $500 needed for the game and console, (early 2014). Soooo, hold off on BF4 and wait till then. Because BF on last-gen console is a terrible experience, except BC2. That's what I recommend.
Thanks for the help man. I'll wait for a PS4 and get BF4
MEGA FACEPALM. Do these words mean anything to you:
Nah, it doesn't work like that. You have approximately half of your team skulking around in the woods playing sniper, and the other half camping the helo spawn.
I've seen over 200 player matches in Mount and Blade. LITERALLY over 200 players running at eachother with huge swords and stuff.
One possible issue for some people, including me, is affording a PC that could handle such gameplay. I have a good laptop, considering its age, but I can't play Planetside 2 because of my graphics card.
PCs only cost more up front. Due to cheaper games and free games and stuff it's about the same price if not slightly cheaper in the long run. Kind of like comparing a more efficient version of Prius with solar panels to some other car. Much more fuel efficient? Yep. More expensive up front? Yep. But due to saving on fuel and getting solar power for free you end up getting it about the same price on the long run theoretically.