EA backstabs pc gamers. Battlefield 3 console game

elmuzzy66. · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:13

Well thats the end of a great franchies. No more 64man servers, mods and the likes. Don't know why the console bunch are so happy, it will never be a proper bf game, just another clone of bfbc2, moh and cod.

elmuzzy66. · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:17

Shamikebab said:
yep.

Nope it was a totaly different game, which only shared the name of battlefield.

Shamikebab · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:22

elmuzzy66. said:
Nope it was a totaly different game, which only shared the name of battlefield.

read the rest of the thread. No-one said it was the same, simply that it was the console version of Battlefield 2.

thecremeegg · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:22

Oxy said:
thats utter tosh, you have arma2 and arma2roject reality!!!

Lol wut? Arma, the game that runs no higher than 30 fps regardless of your system :rolleyes:

Lets face it, the fact its coming out on consoles is going to mean the franchise is at an end. A successor to BF2 would at least need to have the same size maps, player count etc and being on consoles that isnt going to happen. Its going to be just like BC2 and that saddens me

gord · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:27

Bring back BF Vietnam, rolling over the tree tops playing Wagner to all the suckers below!

craptakular · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:27

thecremeegg said:
Lol wut? Arma, the game that runs no higher than 30 fps regardless of your system

Lets face it, the fact its coming out on consoles is going to mean the franchise is at an end. A successor to BF2 would at least need to have the same size maps, player count etc and being on consoles that isnt going to happen. Its going to be just like BC2 and that saddens me

I get 60fps out of mine! When did you last play it?

Just because bf3 is multi platform doesn't mean it's a failure!

All it will mean is lower textures, less buildings and less damage so consoles can cope.

gibb · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:30

I don't like the sound of this. I have no problem with consoles themselves, and BC2 was a good game, however for me it was not battlefield. Battlefield for me is 64 player maps, numerous vehicles, fights between infantry, tanks and fights in the air. You do get helis in BC2 but it is just one attack chopper and a blackhawk and compared to BF2 they are terrible. (feel laggy, super vulnerable to the ground)

If they have to design BF3 for consoles I can see smaller maps, less players and restrictions on air combat. Consoles will be too old to handle the scale of true Battlefield and many console players prefer the "run and gun" style gameplay of COD and BC.

Lyon85 · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:35

Dice giving PC gamers 32 man battles was a nice touch in BC2, but they need to go way beyond this for BF3. They need to make huge incredible maps for the PC and then shrink them down for the consoles to fit into the relatively tiny RAM constraints. Then make sure none of the game mechanics are hideously dumbed down for a mainstream audience.

Basically, if they aren't treating this "cross-platform" title like two quite different games this will not be a real Battlefield game.

Teaf · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:42

They would have been a bit mad not to bring it to consoles to be honest. I'm not overly concerned, I thought BC2 was great on the PC - had a few niggles at the start though which I think are ironed out now (still has a few, but what doesn't).

Evilsod · 31 Jul 2010 at 11:50

'Wes said:
Tbh, TheGoon has made a valid point, whether console ports are successful on the PC or not, you will always get the feeling you're meant to be playing the game on the console rather than on the PC which it obviously isn't meant to be which develops an everlasting state of fail.

It's also only a certain amount of time till MMO's get distributed on consoles as well.

Its ironic really considering almost every game will work better with pc controls than a gamepad :rolleyes:

schnipps · 31 Jul 2010 at 12:11

Its a business they are going where the money is, anyone that suggests it was ever going to be anything different is living is lala land and likely 14 with no idea about the business world. The only other way is to bring it PC only but jack the price up and market it as a premium product, but anything more than £25 for a pc game and everyone starts kicking off, if it was pc only but £45 would anyone buy it then?

Strife212 · 31 Jul 2010 at 13:05

tgomas said:
I don't like the sound of this. I have no problem with consoles themselves, and BC2 was a good game, however for me it was not battlefield.

Yeah, thats got it spot on.

Allnamestaken · 31 Jul 2010 at 13:16

I would buy it for £45.

Battlefield 2 was a real game.

Online was epic and it should remain that way.

Port it to consoels and lower the game size n graphics for the consolesbut they should focuss on the pc side of it mainly because thats what made the battlefield franchise what it was!

Psypher5 · 31 Jul 2010 at 13:25

would you guys just wait untill it comes out? :/

LeJosh · 31 Jul 2010 at 13:30

HUGE assumptions being made here. Talk about knee jerk reactions ffs.

Not one of you know how it's going to exist on the PC platform. This is just them getting more money, give it a ******* rest children.

craig3000 · 31 Jul 2010 at 13:38

This makes me LOL, all the people raving that BF3 would be so much better than BC2, personally I don't see the problem the PC can't be the centre of attention just because you want it too, as long as they treat all the platforms equally

NathanT · 31 Jul 2010 at 13:46

craig3000 said:
....as long as they treat all the platforms equally

This is my gripe. BC2 was broken on the PC, it obviously didn't go through he same testing as the console versions. Not only was it broken.. but it stayed broken and the patches were left wanting (or breaking even more stuff)

The xbox version of BC2 didnt have the knife bug left in it for months, just a small example but a large part of the game that they worked around a lot with the whole taking of dogtags notion.

Unfortunately, I can't see them giving the PC side the same treatment as the consoles, as its not their main target market anymore.

silversurfer · 31 Jul 2010 at 13:55

WHat is the knife bug, it goes through walls? That was reported in beta

gizmoy2k · 31 Jul 2010 at 14:01

silversurfer said:
WHat is the knife bug, it goes through walls? That was reported in beta

The patch before the last one broke the knife completely, you could be standing knifing someone in the back and see loadsa blood but no kill,

Theres vids of it on youtube, it was like this for about 2 months

Lyon85 · 31 Jul 2010 at 14:04

craig3000 said:
This makes me LOL, all the people raving that BF3 would be so much better than BC2, personally I don't see the problem the PC can't be the centre of attention just because you want it too, as long as they treat all the platforms equally

You don't see the problem? The problem is so unbelievably obvious.

The PC is not an equal platform. It is technically capable of so much more than any current console.

The problem is that we have already had a number of PC exclusive Battlefield games and the console still hasn't managed to produce an equal game. Bad Company was a great game imo, don't get me wrong, but it just was not a real Battlefield title.

If you're going to take advantage of the benefits of the PC as a platform you need to design primarily for the PC. So we need to ditch this idea that consoles are equals, they're just not.

From a business point of view going multi platform makes perfect sense, but as PC gamers we are losing some of what makes being a PC gamer so appealing. The PC needs to be the lead platform for BF3, but it's much easier to make a console game and port it to PC, because you just can't make a straight port of a fully fledged PC game to consoles.