Wheres the outrage that BF3 isn't a PC exclusive!!

I'm mad. I hope at least they make the PC version first and THEN strip it down for a console port - the way they should make all games.

1q3er5

I wouldn't count on it. My guess is they will make it for consoles and then port it over for pc like they did with bc2 (though that was originally a console game) and with what happened to mw2.

More people being able to play a game is never a bad thing. Why be upset?i5750at4Ghz

It's common knowledge that if development focus is spread across PC and consoles, quality on PC takes a hit as a result.

We're talking poor FOV (see: Bad Company 2), poorly implemented online features such as server browsers and friends lists (see: Bad Company 2), lower player numbers and smaller maps (see: Bad Company 2), lack of viable communication options such as voice hotkeys and BF2's comm-rose (see: Bad Company 2), poor mouse response times and vehicle controls (see: Bad Company 2), and the list goes on. Bad Company 2 is just one of many examples, but it's one of the best examples out there because it was so sloppily thrown at us on PC and required many patches before even such simple things as a reliable server browser and fully featured text chat box made their way into the game.

Most prior Battlefield games did not suffer from these problems or lack these features. They were tailor made specifically for PC, and the large maps and number of players and excellent "feel" of vehicles and controls reflected that.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]More people being able to play a game is never a bad thing. Why be upset?THA-TODD-BEAST

It's common knowledge that if development focus is spread across PC and consoles, quality on PC takes a hit as a result.

We're talking poor FOV (see: Bad Company 2), poorly implemented online features such as server browsers and friends lists (see: Bad Company 2), lower player numbers and smaller maps (see: Bad Company 2), lack of viable communication options such as voice hotkeys and BF2's comm-rose (see: Bad Company 2), poor mouse response times and vehicle controls (see: Bad Company 2), and the list goes on. Bad Company 2 is just one of many examples, but it's one of the best examples out there because it was so sloppily thrown at us on PC and required many patches before even such simple things as a reliable server browser and fully featured text chat box made their way into the game.

Most prior Battlefield games did not suffer from these problems or lack these features. They were tailor made specifically for PC, and the large maps and number of players and excellent "feel" of vehicles and controls reflected that.

BC and Battlefield games have almost nothing in common.i5750at4Ghz

Err....what? Firstly, they have "Battlefield" in their names, which inplies they will be/are of the same gameplay, deviating here and there. Bad Compan is just Battlefield with a singleplayer campaign slapped onto it. And that's not mentioning Conquest, vehicles, squads and kits.

I'd go as far as to ay Bad Company is a slightly lobotmized version of the original BF games because of its COD-esque feel and upgrades. Still, they are related and I don't see how you can ever say they aren't.

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]More people being able to play a game is never a bad thing. Why be upset?i5750at4Ghz

It's common knowledge that if development focus is spread across PC and consoles, quality on PC takes a hit as a result.

We're talking poor FOV (see: Bad Company 2), poorly implemented online features such as server browsers and friends lists (see: Bad Company 2), lower player numbers and smaller maps (see: Bad Company 2), lack of viable communication options such as voice hotkeys and BF2's comm-rose (see: Bad Company 2), poor mouse response times and vehicle controls (see: Bad Company 2), and the list goes on. Bad Company 2 is just one of many examples, but it's one of the best examples out there because it was so sloppily thrown at us on PC and required many patches before even such simple things as a reliable server browser and fully featured text chat box made their way into the game.

Most prior Battlefield games did not suffer from these problems or lack these features. They were tailor made specifically for PC, and the large maps and number of players and excellent "feel" of vehicles and controls reflected that.

I have no proof, but I do know it's making an appearance on 360 and PS3, too, which is rarely (if ever) a good sign. Bad Company 2 was done the same way - tailored to consoles, ported to PC to please fans on that platform - so why wouldn't Battlefield 3 be? It would certainly be nice to have them do the PC version separately and give us a Battlefield game true to the series, leaving console players with another "Battlefield for Idiots" game, but that's just being hopeful. Realistically, I don't see it happening. If it does, I'll be one happy camper.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

It's common knowledge that if development focus is spread across PC and consoles, quality on PC takes a hit as a result.

We're talking poor FOV (see: Bad Company 2), poorly implemented online features such as server browsers and friends lists (see: Bad Company 2), lower player numbers and smaller maps (see: Bad Company 2), lack of viable communication options such as voice hotkeys and BF2's comm-rose (see: Bad Company 2), poor mouse response times and vehicle controls (see: Bad Company 2), and the list goes on. Bad Company 2 is just one of many examples, but it's one of the best examples out there because it was so sloppily thrown at us on PC and required many patches before even such simple things as a reliable server browser and fully featured text chat box made their way into the game.

Most prior Battlefield games did not suffer from these problems or lack these features. They were tailor made specifically for PC, and the large maps and number of players and excellent "feel" of vehicles and controls reflected that.

THA-TODD-BEAST

I have no proof, but I do know it's making an appearance on 360 and PS3, too, which is rarely (if ever) a good sign. Bad Company 2 was done the same way - tailored to consoles, ported to PC to please fans on that platform - so why wouldn't Battlefield 3 be? It would certainly be nice to have them do the PC version separately and give us a Battlefield game true to the series, leaving console players with another "Battlefield for Idiots" game, but that's just being hopeful. Realistically, I don't see it happening. If it does, I'll be one happy camper.

The problem is that anyone in thier right mind knows that Bad Company is essentially "battlefield for idiots" but no one cares as long as there isn't something better out there. Console games sell better when console players think they're playing the pinacle of what can be achieved in the genre, when really it's all been done before and better. In other words, consoles are only profitable as long as console users remain uneducated about the other possibilities on PC.

The game will still be a great game.

PC players don't deserve more or better, they deserve a good game, and that's exactly what the PC community will get, they will get a better version of the game than consoles because of specs.

I don't see what the complaining is all about. It makes complete sense from a sales standpoint to try and reach as many customers as possible.

I think everyone is past that stage. Dosent it go, Outrage, Deinal, then acceptance? Outrage was a long time ago.

The game will still be a great game.

PC players don't deserve more or better, they deserve a good game, and that's exactly what the PC community will get, they will get a better version of the game than consoles because of specs.

I don't see what the complaining is all about. It makes complete sense from a sales standpoint to try and reach as many customers as possible.

SamGv

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="ravenguard90"]

The rage has significantly died down since it seems they're taking the same steps developing BF3 that they did with BF2. Primarily, they're optimizing the BF3 engine for DX11 features, which is pretty much what BF2 did when going from DX8 to DX9. Secondly, they're also looking into moving player caps back up to 64 players for PC, which they weren't able to do with BC2 due to bandwidth caps for consoles. Both of these key characteristics show that the PC version of BF3 is lining itself up to be a PC-to-console port, rather than the other way around.

So don't fret about it; DICE is not exactly ready to screw us over just yet ;)

Wasdie

No they said they have been building the Frostbite 2.0 engine on the PC with DX 11 since the early development of DX11. Back in Feb they said that PC gamers will be blown away with what they have.

What's probably going to happen is that it is a PC game being ported to the PS3 and 360 with their versions of the Frostbite engine that will be like Battlefield 2 Modern Combat on the Xbox and PS2 back last gen.

When DICE said that PC gamers will be blown away and they have been extremely quiet about it for a few years, I am expecting that they will not be lying to us and will just be like "Here's the awesome 360 version. Oh yeah there is a PC version as well."

[QUOTE="SamGv"]

The game will still be a great game.

PC players don't deserve more or better, they deserve a good game, and that's exactly what the PC community will get, they will get a better version of the game than consoles because of specs.

I don't see what the complaining is all about. It makes complete sense from a sales standpoint to try and reach as many customers as possible.

SF_KiLLaMaN

I totally understand where you are coming from. But from a business stand point that does not matter. Example.

Best Buy actually started in Minnesota right? ..well are they still in Minnesota? nope, they branched out because it was the best choice from an economic standpoint lol they are no longer Minnesota exclusive.

That doesn't mean that the PC players will have a horrible game, they will have a great game, probably not as good as it would have been if they used TEH power of the PC!!! but it will be a great game none the less.

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

[QUOTE="1q3er5"]

I'm mad. I hope at least they make the PC version first and THEN strip it down for a console port - the way they should make all games.

Cdscottie

So you think they should make a game for PC then "strip it down" for a console.

Heres an Idea, how about the next big FPS is made for Consoles and then ported to PC with 1/3 of the content removed.

It pisses me off when game developers do this, they make one version of a game an then strip content from it when porting it to another system.

What pisses me off more is when people complain when a great game that was available on only one system has a sequel available on multiple systems. I played both Crysis and Crysis Warhead on the PC, but will be playing Crysis 2 on the PS3. The only possible complaint I would have with Crysis 2 coming to consoles is that Crytek didnt bother releasing Crysis 1 first on the consoles so people actually know what is going on in the game.

That may be true. But if games are made for PC with new technology in mind, gaming PC's would have to be replaced much more frequently to account for the need for more hardware to run newer games requiring more.

costs to much to make games these days for some system. you have no reason to be outraged other people can play the same games.

costs to much to make games these days for some system. you have no reason to be outraged other people can play the same games.

dontshackzmii

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

costs to much to make games these days for some system. you have no reason to be outraged other people can play the same games.

SF_KiLLaMaN

I think a console could easily play BF2

Halo kids with F-34Bs and Bradleys. *Shivers*

It'll be worse sportmanship than there alreayd is with vehicles.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

costs to much to make games these days for some system. you have no reason to be outraged other people can play the same games.

SamGv

I think a console could easily play BF2

If it is a huge leap from BF1 to BF2 then now, consoles wont come close lol.

But seeing how Crysis is being ported to consoles which looks really good, not as good as PC but extremely good for consoles. I think BF3 will look good on all systems, much better on PC of course.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]More people being able to play a game is never a bad thing. Why be upset?THA-TODD-BEAST

It's common knowledge that if development focus is spread across PC and consoles, quality on PC takes a hit as a result.

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]More people being able to play a game is never a bad thing. Why be upset?Daytona_178

It's common knowledge that if development focus is spread across PC and consoles, quality on PC takes a hit as a result.

Yeah, and that's one of the rare exceptions.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"][QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

It's common knowledge that if development focus is spread across PC and consoles, quality on PC takes a hit as a result.

Yeah, and that's one of the rare exceptions.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

costs to much to make games these days for some system. you have no reason to be outraged other people can play the same games.

SamGv

I think a console could easily play BF2

Think again. You need at least 1gb of RAM to run it properly with full view distance, and 2gb+ for any of the mods, which are half the reason I bought BF2 anyway. Sure, consoles have the video hardware and processing speed to run a game like BF2, but that's not that impressive, after all it's a game from 2005. It's the SCALE that makes battlefield what it is.

No, Im not outraged, because its not really any surprise!

I don't care if it is... What I do care about is if it is optimized for each of the whatever systems it will be on!

If that is achieved than what do you care? would you still be angry?

If so why? Because the people on consoles get to enjoy a little bit of the fun we pc gamers do? If so, grow up!

[QUOTE="Rob_101"]

I feel back stabbed and betrayed.... frostbite engine *shudders* :(

Wasdie

Frostbite 2.0 engine which was being developed with ATI with early DX 11 hardware. DICE isn't afraid to drop older versions of DX. They may just go native DX 11 with this game. Battlefield 2 was DX9 native, the first major game that was DX9 native and didn't support DX8 at all. For the record, the Source engine still supports DX8.

Sure they limit their audience, but maybe that is why there is a PS3 and 360 version, because the PC audience is going to be very small so they need a version of the game that can turn a profit.

I've heard that BF 1943 was nothing more than a quick moneymaker to help with BF3 and BF BC2. Then BF BC2 became the money maker for BF3.

DICE is pretty smart with releasing games like they have.

I agree that it should be PC exclusive, but this is EA we are talking about here. The day of PC exclusivity is pretty much gone at this point. We can only pray that it won't be too consolized(regenerative health, unlimited ammo, 3 simple class choices, etc). I'm not holding my breath though.

[QUOTE="SamGv"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] If it is the same game I am going to be pissed. The problem is that consoles cannot run a game the caliber of BF2. It is way too big and has too much content for a console, not to mention the console crowd wants amazing graphics. it just cannot be done on consoles. If the PC gets "the same game" as consoles do, it will not be a true battefield game.SF_KiLLaMaN

I think a console could easily play BF2

Really? Do you think that the current generation of consoles are so underpowered that they can't run great looking games?

Most of my PS3 library (most PS3 exclusives) looks better than all the PC games that I can play maxed out, which is all of them except Crysis.

Halo kids with F-34Bs and Bradleys. *Shivers*

It'll be worse sportmanship than there alreayd is with vehicles.

Sheppard212

Battlefield 2 was filled with **** It was hardly better than the Halo community. I still remember all those team killers for vehicles or for no reason.

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

Halo kids with F-34Bs and Bradleys. *Shivers*

It'll be worse sportmanship than there alreayd is with vehicles.

argetlam00

Battlefield 2 was filled with **** It was hardly better than the Halo community. I still remember all those team killers for vehicles or for no reason.

Now imagine that with screaming microphones and a general lack of team play.

I still love and play BF2 today. If BF3 ends up not being the true sequel, well damn you consoles.....Damn you to hell!!!

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

Halo kids with F-34Bs and Bradleys. *Shivers*

It'll be worse sportmanship than there alreayd is with vehicles.

Sheppard212

Battlefield 2 was filled with **** It was hardly better than the Halo community. I still remember all those team killers for vehicles or for no reason.

Now imagine that with screaming microphones and a general lack of team play.

I realize I'm going to get flamed for this, but...

Does anyone else actually prefer BC2's "consolized" (read: smaller and more focused) presentation over that of the regular Battlefield series? I was really into Battlefield 2 when it was first released, and although it's a great game, I honestly felt like the scope of the game just hampered its enjoyability much of the time. Huge maps are all well and good, but not when you constantly end up stranded half a mile from the battle because your idiot teammates each took off in their own vehicle and sped off without you, ignoring your requests for a ride. This was a problem even in servers at half capacity with only 32 players, as was the mass overpopulation of snipers, which was another problem exacerbated by the huge maps. And the squad system didn't help much either, as most squad leaders didn't seem to even understand the concept.

In sum: When it comes to multiplayer, I'll take a smaller, more focused game that gets everything right and gives players less opportunity to create headaches, rather than a wide-open, experimental cluster-(censored) where huge numbers of morons can run rampant, any day of the week.

The rage has significantly died down since it seems they're taking the same steps developing BF3 that they did with BF2. Primarily, they're optimizing the BF3 engine for DX11 features, which is pretty much what BF2 did when going from DX8 to DX9. Secondly, they're also looking into moving player caps back up to 64 players for PC, which they weren't able to do with BC2 due to bandwidth caps for consoles. Both of these key characteristics show that the PC version of BF3 is lining itself up to be a PC-to-console port, rather than the other way around.

So don't fret about it; DICE is not exactly ready to screw us over just yet ;)

ravenguard90

As long as they keep the 16 and 32 player maps to consoles and the 64+ players only to PC the game can be great. If they start to disable features in order to run in consoles as with the Crysis 2 multiplayer then the game will be a failure.

But I'm optimistic currently: aside from the scale, Bad Company 2 is way better than Battlefield 2 in may book.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="SamGv"]

I think a console could easily play BF2

snover2009

Really? Do you think that the current generation of consoles are so underpowered that they can't run great looking games?

Most of my PS3 library (most PS3 exclusives) looks better than all the PC games that I can play maxed out, which is all of them except Crysis.

Sure they do, if thats the case your PC library is pretty old.

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] BF2 maybe, but if BF3 doesn't have good graphics the console crowd will not buy it. Add great graphics to BF2 and there is no way a console can run it.NanoMan88

Really? Do you think that the current generation of consoles are so underpowered that they can't run great looking games?

Most of my PS3 library (most PS3 exclusives) looks better than all the PC games that I can play maxed out, which is all of them except Crysis.

Sure they do, if thats the case your PC library is pretty old.

Consoles are gimped PCs from 6 years ago. That said, they use graphical trickery to make things look better, like DoF and Bloom so a lot of the games still look good, albeit it is trickery.

We need a new round of consoles so PC games can advance again, currently we only get ported games so the PC hardware isn't being pushed.

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] BF2 maybe, but if BF3 doesn't have good graphics the console crowd will not buy it. Add great graphics to BF2 and there is no way a console can run it.NanoMan88

Really? Do you think that the current generation of consoles are so underpowered that they can't run great looking games?

Most of my PS3 library (most PS3 exclusives) looks better than all the PC games that I can play maxed out, which is all of them except Crysis.

Sure they do, if thats the case your PC library is pretty old.

I don't think games from 2010 count as "old"

Simply, all the PS3 exclusive games I have look much better than all my PC at maxed out settings. Excluding Crysis since only supercomputers can run that one.

I can compare the two platforms visually because I have played extensively on both. I am assuming you only play games on PC since you are so quick to say, "Console Graphics Suck!"

I don't think games from 2010 count as "old"

Simply, all the PS3 exclusive games I have look much better than all my PC at maxed out settings. Excluding Crysis since only supercomputers can run that one.

I can compare the two platforms visually because I have played extensively on both. I am assuming you only play games on PC since you are so quick to say, "Console Graphics Suck!"

snover2009

Actually, most multiplatforms do 'suck' compared to their PC counterparts graphically.

The only exceptions to this observation are exclusives, and even then you could tell where they took shortcuts here and there. A very common trick is playing with your line of sight. You know how they blur the surrounding areas when zooming in? That saves memory due to reduced texture quality.

And I do have both systems. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 did look amazing, but nothing compared to what I can get with a PC.

what? you're seeking that kind of outrage here at GS? we get console exclusive begging threads at a daily basis, what outrage?

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

I don't think games from 2010 count as "old"

Simply, all the PS3 exclusive games I have look much better than all my PC at maxed out settings. Excluding Crysis since only supercomputers can run that one.

I can compare the two platforms visually because I have played extensively on both. I am assuming you only play games on PC since you are so quick to say, "Console Graphics Suck!"

ravenguard90

Actually, most multiplatforms do 'suck' compared to their PC counterparts graphically.

The only exceptions to this observation are exclusives, and even then you could tell where they took shortcuts here and there. A very common trick is playing with your line of sight. You know how they blur the surrounding areas when zooming in? That saves memory due to reduced texture quality.

And I do have both systems. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 did look amazing, but nothing compared to what I can get with a PC.

You must be playing you PC games in 1080, what would explain it.

The only game coming to PC where I know without a doubt will look better than anything on PS3 would most likely be Crysis 2, which would most likely require a $1,000 video card.

[QUOTE="ravenguard90"]

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

I don't think games from 2010 count as "old"

Simply, all the PS3 exclusive games I have look much better than all my PC at maxed out settings. Excluding Crysis since only supercomputers can run that one.

I can compare the two platforms visually because I have played extensively on both. I am assuming you only play games on PC since you are so quick to say, "Console Graphics Suck!"

snover2009

Actually, most multiplatforms do 'suck' compared to their PC counterparts graphically.

The only exceptions to this observation are exclusives, and even then you could tell where they took shortcuts here and there. A very common trick is playing with your line of sight. You know how they blur the surrounding areas when zooming in? That saves memory due to reduced texture quality.

And I do have both systems. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 did look amazing, but nothing compared to what I can get with a PC.

You must be playing you PC games in 1080, what would explain it.

The only game coming to PC where I know without a doubt will look better than anything on PS3 would most likely be Crysis 2, which would most likely require a $1,000 video card.

facepalm.jpg

Seriously. No you don't. Just two of those will be overkill for it while one is still VERY good.

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

Really? Do you think that the current generation of consoles are so underpowered that they can't run great looking games?

Most of my PS3 library (most PS3 exclusives) looks better than all the PC games that I can play maxed out, which is all of them except Crysis.

snover2009

Sure they do, if thats the case your PC library is pretty old.

I don't think games from 2010 count as "old"

Simply, all the PS3 exclusive games I have look much better than all my PC at maxed out settings. Excluding Crysis since only supercomputers can run that one.

I can compare the two platforms visually because I have played extensively on both. I am assuming you only play games on PC since you are so quick to say, "Console Graphics Suck!"

Console graphics are horendous compared to PC.

There is no AA and AF to be found. + they are limited to dx9 and atmost 1080p.

You must be blind to think that consoles look anywhere near as good.

[QUOTE="ravenguard90"]

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

I don't think games from 2010 count as "old"

Simply, all the PS3 exclusive games I have look much better than all my PC at maxed out settings. Excluding Crysis since only supercomputers can run that one.

I can compare the two platforms visually because I have played extensively on both. I am assuming you only play games on PC since you are so quick to say, "Console Graphics Suck!"

snover2009

Actually, most multiplatforms do 'suck' compared to their PC counterparts graphically.

The only exceptions to this observation are exclusives, and even then you could tell where they took shortcuts here and there. A very common trick is playing with your line of sight. You know how they blur the surrounding areas when zooming in? That saves memory due to reduced texture quality.

And I do have both systems. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 did look amazing, but nothing compared to what I can get with a PC.

You must be playing you PC games in 1080, what would explain it.

The only game coming to PC where I know without a doubt will look better than anything on PS3 would most likely be Crysis 2, which would most likely require a $1,000 video card.

Uhh read up on the news, I made a thread abit back, they're developing the new engine for Dx11 and 64 bit, that means it's developed for PC, then ported to consoles.

ventnor

I really hope it doesnt end up like bfbc2 did...