EA backstabs pc gamers. Battlefield 3 console game

arknor said:
erm lol what? people arent alowed to expect a game to be better than its previous version thats many years old now?
Click to expand...

If the game is really as good as people say, then it's a pretty big ask. Multiplayer games aren't like SP ones that should get better with each iteration, sometimes the combination of physics/weapons/maps/community/"feel"/etc will mean that a sequel will be inferior (at least in the eyes of some) to it's predecessor. Take CS for example, there were/are still loads of people playing that despite the fact that it predates CS:S by around 5 years.

The problem is that sometimes people spend too much time waiting for the Next Big Thing(TM) rather than focusing on enjoying what we already have :) If they aren't prepared to do that, well, then maybe that's an indication that the game they are making comparisons with isn't actually as good as they claim.
 
BF2 was good but the graphics are fairly dated now. BF2 was and is massively overplayed, the typical developer probably envisions a lifespan of a few months unless they have a subsriber system setup
Theres tons of old games they have not managed to beat in terms of gameplay, usually they are well overplayed also. Hence people do seek a sequel equal or better.
bc2 is not quite equal, seems alright but more arcadey and limited play?
 
Just because its a console game ported to a pc doesn't necessarily mean its going to be total tripe. MW2 would have been utterly superb if it had dedicated server support on the PC version but IW/activision decided just to rake in the cash instead. However its still an enjoyable game, albiet a pure hacker fest.

I enjoyed BFBC2 for around 6 weeks on multiplayer before getting bored and also really enjoyed the single player experience on the game. The multiplayer only needs slight tweaks and mod/mapping tools to be available to cement its position for a few years to come.
 
silversurfer said:
BF2 was good but the graphics are fairly dated now. BF2 was and is massively overplayed, the typical developer probably envisions a lifespan of a few months unless they have a subsriber system setup
Theres tons of old games they have not managed to beat in terms of gameplay, usually they are well overplayed also. Hence people do seek a sequel equal or better.
bc2 is not quite equal, seems alright but more arcadey and limited play?
Click to expand...

Don't ea get a percentage of ever server sale/rental?
 
IDC if bf3 goes to consoles, aslong as we get support for new upcoming or current hardware. ( DX11 ). If they cut short on the dx11 just to goto consoles i would have shot myself. But i dont mind if they goto consoles with bf3 as long as they support dx11 in the pc version. Or any other type of hardware what pc uses.
 
as long as the PC version is pretty much bug free, supports DX11 and scales well on any hardware being Nv or AMD than it would be fine I don't care if its avalbe on 360 or PS3 as long as the PC version is better in some way *cough mod able*
 
AMG said:
as long as the PC version is pretty much bug free, supports DX11 and scales well on any hardware being Nv or AMD than it would be fine I don't care if its avalbe on 360 or PS3 as long as the PC version is better in some way *cough mod able*
Click to expand...


Pig. Fly. Moon.
 
Probably wont get to see any really large maps and 64 players then :(

I still miss BF1942 to bits, submarines, battleships, carriers. Dog fighting to torpedo bombing with a friend in the rear gunners seat. Tank maps, infantry map, air maps. We had it all in that game, it seems all the Battlefields since then although fun, pale in comparison to BF1942.
 
BF3 Positive Thinking


Like everyone else here, I enjoy BC2, but let's be honest, it isn't BF2/2142. I do like the gameplay, it has the feel of a console port, and a lot of the features that made BF2/2142 what they were are absent in BC2: large maps, mods, commanders, comm rose, VoIP (?!?), etc. The good news is that the DICE does acknowledge this.
Firstly, you must understand Bad Company 2 was never a "true" Battlefield game, so it's not fair to assume this is the direction DICE will be heading in, at least on PC. Series associate producer Barrie Tingle has said, "Battlefield Bad Company 2 is NOT a sequel to Battlefield 2 or 2142; it is a sequel to Battlefield Bad Company and as such the list of features matches that of the original game and not that of past Battlefield games." In other words, it was always intended as an offshoot, not a monster, flagship title like previous games have been.
Click to expand...
Based on early reports, things look pretty good for the PC version of BF3. First of all, it's designed primarily for DX11. This good news for the BF3 PC since consoles support DX9. To top it off, it's optimized for 64-bit.
Firstly, we learn via Twitter from DICE rendering architect Johann Andersson the engine BF3 is built on -- Frostbite 2.0 -- is "primarily developed for DirectX 11"; XP and DX9 won't be supported (though you may be able to hack it). Also the engine will be especially optmized for 64-bit -- thankfully a lot of you have chosen the road less travelled. Good news in itself, but since consoles only support DX9, the implication is the PC version will be a "true" PC game.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to rally the troops and say BF3 is going to be awesome. I too am trying to keep my expectations grounded to avoid being disappointed. All I'm saying there's hope that this will be a good true sequel to the BF series, and signs point to the fact that the DICE is aware of the PC community - plus the fact that they know Bad Company 2 PC is different from what the true Battlefield series, so we can assume that BF3 will not be a slightly better version of BC3.
Click to expand...

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/14494...d-frostbite-2-engine-good-news-for-pc-gamers/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom