Battlefield 4 - Thread

Fr0dders · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:15

The things you dislike about BF3 are nothing to do with consoles.

The console version of bn BF3 has less players, different maps with less vehicles, a server software that is far less customisable than on the PC server versions.

The PC utilises parts of the frostbite 2 engine that even the next gen consoles can only dream of tapping into.

All of the things you want from BF3 could easily be achieved without touching the console version which was developed separately. It's just drummed down to appeal to a greater audience and make more sales that's all.they could easily give the PC version a commander mode and not touch the console version.

The frostbite 2 engine was designed With the PC as the lead platform, it's just a shame that the content of the game wasn't, with PS3 getting 1 week early access to all DLC.

Colourblind support was added to the PC version long before consoles. Us console gamers only got it after months of requesting it. One thing BF3 is not, is a console port

As somebody said on the Planetside 2 video comments. The whole philosophy behind the battlefield franchise has changed. It used to be about striking the right balance between mil sims like Arma, and COD. Now, thanks to EA, it's just about making as much money as possible.

That's your problem, and it's nothing to do with consoles

RavenXXX2 · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:18

diamount said:
Absolute rubbish. I think you don't know what a port means, a port is a game DIRECTLY ported from consoles to the PC without any added features, improved graphics, locked FPS usually and the like. BF3 does not have any of the symptoms of consolitis.

As for the UI - yes it can be improve. But seriously your reasoning skills are seriously lacking, a console UI directly ported to PC would be something like Skyrim.

Get a clue, at its heart BF3 is a console game on PC, from gameplay and console UI to 100% scripted destruction and maps where 70% of them are out of bounds flat land. This thanks to the game being developed for consoles first, now let it sink in and take it as fact. Of course it's not a direct port but it's still a console focused game on PC, any scrub can see this.

diamount · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:21

RavenXXX2 said:
Get a clue, at its heart BF3 is a console game on PC, from gameplay and console UI to 100% scripted destruction and maps where 70% of them are out of bounds flat land. This thanks to the game being developed for consoles first, now let it sink in and take it as fact. Of course it's not a direct port but it's still a console focused game on PC, any scrub can see this.

/facepalm

Even in the link YOU GAVE said it was switched to consoles halfway in development, do you have some sort of mental problem or are you doing this on purpose? I'm still waiting for you to display accurate evidence to show how obvious of a PC port this is. Obviously the destruction was toned down quite a bit when compared to BC2 but it still looks a lot better.

Fr0dders · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:22

RavenXXX2 said:
. The fact that PC has to wait for consoles when it comes to game updates/patches says it all. Consoles are the focus for BF3, if this stays true for BF4 they can do one. Now go do some research before posting nonsense.

rubbish.

The console versions have just as many players as the PC version. The patches are released across all platforms at the same time, because no platform should be more important than another.

You'd be just as miffed as a PC gamer if us console gamers got the patch before you did. When PC only has the same amount of players as the other platforms, they can't afford to forget all the other platforms to feed the PC gamers "master race" ego complex

RavenXXX2 · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:23

You really are clueless, probably play on 360.

Mrlol, you play on 360, opinion invalid.

Neil79 · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:23

Here we go

World war 4

diamount · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:24

RavenXXX2 said:
You really are clueless, probably play on 360.

Yes, a console gamer defending the pc version of the game. Seems legit.

Fr0dders · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:25

RavenXXX2 said:
Get a clue, at its heart BF3 is a console game on PC, from gameplay and console UI to 100% scripted destruction and maps where 70% of them are out of bounds flat land. This thanks to the game being developed for consoles first, now let it sink in and take it as fact. Of course it's not a direct port but it's still a console focused game on PC, any scrub can see this.

What you mean like these maps ?

http://battlefield2.filefront.com/info/BF1942_Maps_8

http://battlefield2.filefront.com/info/BF1942_Maps_4

http://battlefield2.filefront.com/info/BF1942_Maps_16

That map design is totally the fault of the consoles isn't it ? :rolleyes:

Fr0dders · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:29

Not forgetting these of course

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Belgrade

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Camp_Gibraltar

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Sidi_Power_Plant

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Verdun

Again, map design totally because they were console ports. Oh wait a minute ....

RavenXXX2 · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:32

mrlol, the maps in BF3 do not support 64 players well at all, this is down to Dice and their decision to make console the lead platforms, they have compromised the maps to make them playable for 24 players, this is a fact.

Fr0dders · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:33

RavenXXX2 said:
You really are clueless, probably play on 360.

Mrlol, you play on 360, opinion invalid.

I play BF3 on 360

I played all the PC versions of the other BF games. The only reason I don't play bf3 on pc is because my PC isn't up to it.

I should be able to play Planetside 2 on it though. Going to give that a go when it comes out

RavenXXX2 said:
mrlol, the maps in BF3 do not support 64 players well at all, this is down to Dice and their decision to make console the lead platforms, they have compromised the maps for 64 players, this is a fact.

No, you just don't like any maps that have flags close together, something that plenty of other battlefield games have had. Even BF2 had maps like mashtuur city that were all clustered together

Difference is that BF2 wasn't all clustered maps, where BF3 is. It would have been so easy to design huge maps for 64 players where everything is spaced out, then only give the consolers a portion of that map. They just took a design decision you didn't like ( to make all the maps clustered)

diamount · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:36

RavenXXX2 said:
mrlol, the maps in BF3 do not support 64 players well at all, this is down to Dice and their decision to make console the lead platforms, they have compromised the maps to make them playable for 24 players, this is a fact.

Did you bother to click the links? They are 1942/2142 maps. Regardless, the only cramped map would be Metro... I agree terrible map, and anything in close quarters. But aside from then that they accommodate 64 players easily. You are required to use a vehicle to get to your destination in a reasonable time

Combat Fighter · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:37

What are the chances of BF4 for pc getting 128 players on a map?

I wish they would scrap the consoles for the BF series.

BF belongs to the pc community.

diamount · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:40

Combat Fighter said:
What are the chances of BF4 for pc getting 128 players on a map?

I wish they would scrap the consoles for the BF series.

BF belongs to the pc community.

That would be pretty insane but would probably require an even beefier system. The Napoleonic wars DLC for M&B Warband has like 100 players per team. Fun stuff, but the game isn't really a looker but that's good as it runs flawlessly.

setter · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:41

There are just a few maps on bf3 that can support 64 players, op firestorm, kharg island, caspian border and canals. Even then though, the flags are very close. The rest of them are to tightly spaced with ludicrous choke points, take metro. On 64 player conquest, it always turns into an explosive mess at ticket hall, grand bazaar, the alleyway, damavand peak, the tunnels.

RavenXXX2 · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:41

Combat Fighter said:
What are the chances of BF4 for pc getting 128 players on a map?

I wish they would scrap the consoles for the BF series.

BF belongs to the pc community.

Yeah, shame its gone the way it has. As for 128 players, no chance with consoles as the focus for EA and Dice. Planetside 2 is where you wanna be.

setter · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:43

Less players seems to be more in line with ea's thinking, if mohwf is anything to go by. 20 players max.

Fr0dders · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:43

If EA were to close down tomorrow I've no doubt the BF franchise could be allowed to go in different directions.

A free to play micro transaction funded MMO in the battlefield world would be simply awesome. Direct rival to Planetside 2 except being modern time as opposed to futuristic.

But it will never happen as long as EA are involved

setter said:
Less players seems to be more in line with ea's thinking, if mohwf is anything to go by. 20 players max.

This. We've all seen how EA forced DICE's hand on the "well never charge for maps" issue? EA have too much input and too much control for massive changes like that

RavenXXX2 · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:46

I would take more players over naff scripted destruction if it had to be dropped to increase player count. Notice how the destruction in BF3 is worse than in BC2, that's progress for you.

setter · 18 Jul 2012 at 16:46

MrLOL said:
But it will never happen as long as EA are involved

Agreed, personally myself i think that dice's hands are tied by the bigwigs at ea, forced into simplifying things to get a product out to as wide a market as possible. Pc gamers in their eyes are a small niche market.