Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Xbox 360 and PS3 battlefield 3 players?
Would you of preferd to not have vehicals and much (if any) building destruction to have 64 players. So basically a massive call of duty. OR are you happy with it how it is.
Me personally am split when I'm thinking about it, but I guess the vehicals and destruction is what makes it battlefield more than the amount of people per game, so I overall think its fine how it is on consoles.
3 Answers
- Anonymous10 years agoFavorite Answer
I don't care about 64 players tbh, and its nothing to gloat about. Its just a cluster ****. 24 players is more than enough, you can focus more on the objective rather than trying to run like hell not to get your *** blown to bits because theres a **** loads of players around your base.
- ?Lv 510 years ago
In my opinion, I might as well play Call of Duty if I'm not driving vehicles or destroying things. I think it would get too hectic with more players than it has now. It would just be endless spawn trapping (even now it can get bad). I love the difference between the two, I still play Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield 3.
- 10 years ago
Well are you asking our opinion, because the only difference i think is just the player cap(32). But i totally agree with you, i think they should of added more deathmatch styled gametypes. but Rush is almost like that except you capture points and move closer to others spawn. Im pretty satisfied since they added the other deathmatch options.
