Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,865
- Location
- Surrey
It was the console version of Battlefield 2. Nobody said it was the same.
EA backstabs pc gamers. Battlefield 3 console game
- Thread starter svs22
- Start date
It was the console version of Battlefield 2. Nobody said it was the same.
im a PC gamer through and through and i am getting sick of other pc gamers constantly moaning about this and that
if i were a developer and i constantly had pc gamers moaning sooner or later ill just think **** them
yes it is annoying when games are intentionally dumbed down or have limits put on them due to having to run on consoles
but that's just the way things are now need to get used to it
i was hoping they would make a fully featued pc version then make a seperate cut down version based off it for the consoles
like they did in the old days but that costs extra money so cant see them doing it
if i were a developer and i constantly had pc gamers moaning sooner or later ill just think **** them
yes it is annoying when games are intentionally dumbed down or have limits put on them due to having to run on consoles
but that's just the way things are now need to get used to it
i was hoping they would make a fully featued pc version then make a seperate cut down version based off it for the consoles
like they did in the old days but that costs extra money so cant see them doing it
im a PC gamer through and through and i am getting sick of other pc gamers constantly moaning about this and that
if i were a developer and i constantly had pc gamers moaning sooner or later ill just think **** them
yes it is annoying when games are intentionally dumbed down or have limits put on them due to having to run on consoles
but that's just the way things are now need to get used to it
i was hoping they would make a fully featued pc version then make a seperate cut down version based off it for the consoles
like they did in the old days but that costs extra money so cant see them doing it
You're right. **** producing a quality game people will be talking about for years to come as a milestone of gaming. What we want is re-hashed, ported ****e that sets milestones for advertising budgets and profits...
You're right. **** producing a quality game people will be talking about for years to come as a milestone of gaming. What we want is re-hashed, ported ****e that sets milestones for advertising budgets and profits...
post of the month! \o/
You're right. **** producing a quality game people will be talking about for years to come as a milestone of gaming. What we want is re-hashed, ported ****e that sets milestones for advertising budgets and profits...
lol just lol
Let's be real here for a minute, we know for the fact that the 360 and and PS3 version will outsell PC by a rather big margin and I'm not talking about this game in particular. What incentive do developers have to pay us PC gamers special attention as compared to the console users who will not only make them more money (which after is what drives the majority of the industry) and also would probably require less work due to unified platform to develop for? Frankly apart from boy scout honour I can't think of another single one.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
Considering they listed PC in that list I fail to see the problem...
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
You're right. **** producing a quality game people will be talking about for years to come as a milestone of gaming. What we want is re-hashed, ported ****e that sets milestones for advertising budgets and profits...
Er... Why not let them actually get it out and play it before deciding whether on not it's going to be crap.
Er... Why not let them actually get it out and play it before deciding whether on not it's going to be crap.
Pff, thats just further proof its going to be crap. If it was any good it would already be out on pc by now!
With free coconuts!
But seriously, the state of BC2 hasn't left me with high hopes and MoH looks like it'll be even worse, I wouldn't be overly surprised if BF3 followed suit.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,865
- Location
- Surrey
I love how much some drama queens are overreacting at one line of information in a news post 
I mean just look at the thread title How about waiting for some more information? Or would that be too much like common sense?
I mean just look at the thread title How about waiting for some more information? Or would that be too much like common sense?Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.
Battlefield 3 will be a different game if on console as well. That is the point of consternation here. I take back my comment about you being silly.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,865
- Location
- Surrey
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.
Battlefield 3 will be a different game if on console as well. I take back my comment about you being silly.
And what makes different bad
Was Grand Theft Auto 3 worse than 1 and 2 because a console was a lead platform? I think not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,152
- Location
- Surrey
Well thats me not buying BF3 then Real shame tbh. Its going to have small maps and limited numbers of players, ie BC2.1
What a complete ballsup from EA!
Real shame tbh. Its going to have small maps and limited numbers of players, ie BC2.1What a complete ballsup from EA!
It isn't. It's a very good one.
People just love coining the phrase "crappy console port" on here though.
And what makes different bad
Hmm, erring towards silly again I fear. As per you point, Battlefield 2 wasn't all it could be on console hence being a different game. The same will stand in BF3's case due to hardware limitations. We don't want to deprive consoles of games but in this instance it is detrimental to the title. Try to keep up
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,152
- Location
- Surrey
Its not a good one but neither is it overly bad. The engine is poop sadly and thats what lets it down.