<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Battlefield 3 To Support 256 Players?</title>
	<atom:link href="/gaming/2011/03/battlefield-3-to-support-256-players/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/gaming/2011/03/battlefield-3-to-support-256-players/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jul 2017 19:01:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>/gaming/2011/03/battlefield-3-to-support-256-players/#comment-2466</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2182&#038;post_type=games#comment-2466</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[He&#039;s right, though. I remember Desert Combat matches only worked because of the sheer amount of geographical space between fighting points. The maps in Battlefield 2 were engineered too tight which made for less interesting kills (or deaths, in my case).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s right, though. I remember Desert Combat matches only worked because of the sheer amount of geographical space between fighting points. The maps in Battlefield 2 were engineered too tight which made for less interesting kills (or deaths, in my case).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
