This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="psn8214"][QUOTE="soapandbubbles"]So consolites are NOT missing much. bigboss5ak
64 vs 24 players online. . :P
Ahh everytime i see this it makes me feel good about getting me a rig, oh and the better graphics helps as well.Well, it'll be better graphics, more players, jets, server browser, and DICE's fanbase which means a better community in general.
Ahh everytime i see this it makes me feel good about getting me a rig, oh and the better graphics helps as well.[QUOTE="bigboss5ak"][QUOTE="psn8214"]
64 vs 24 players online. . :P
treedoor
Well, it'll be better graphics, more players, jets, server browser, and DICE's fanbase which means a better community in general.
This one is huge for me as it gives you options as well, the matchmaking needs work on consoles."a bit early to make fair comparisons between the two" Ah ok then. tagyhag
indeed, OP destroyed his/her own thread by him/herself,i love when people try to claim ownage with things they don't even bother reading.
If I could play the PC version,I would.Who wouldn't?It consistently blows my mind when people say they'd rather play the console version. Why? Even if you don't have the means, are you telling me that you'd choose the 24 player, limited by console game over the glory that will be the 64 player PC version? I'm not buying it. I guarantee every single last one of you would jump at a chance to play the PC version.
psn8214
Obviously you never played BF2. But if you did, the console versions just won't be the same compared to the PC. I havent. But is it right to call out all console gamers for "doing it wrong"? Of course PC will be the best version. But is it logical to center out people who got console version?[QUOTE="Da_lil_PimP"][QUOTE="VensInferno"] How so?
VensInferno
The point is both versions cost the same and even if you have a mid-range rig running it on low/medium it will still put the console versions to absolute shame. Why waste 60 bucks when you can win with the same 60.
Get real son, this is the only proper reason for choosing a console version.[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]
[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]
Sure I would if the PC let me play with my DS3(without an attachment)and my psn friends and had trophies. Again im not trying to say PC sucks just trying to point out its not insane someone would want to play on another system. Im not going to lie I would like to try it on PC full blast but I wouldint make it my perminant place to play battlefield 3.
finalfantasy94
Whats the proper reasonvarys person to person. There is no define fact for it. What you think is nitpicky I may look at it as my main reason which version I would get. Im hoping your not one of those PC ego maniacs who think if your playing it on anything els but a PC your doing it wrong. Which translats to your an idiot if you play it on a console.
You can sit there and tell me that you prioritize playing BF3 with specifically a wireless DS3 (a wired one or wireless 360 controller won't do) and e-peen points, over the vastly improved graphics and more expansive multiplayer in the version which the developer has stressed is getting special attention and exclusive features. But you will be crazy.[QUOTE="lawlessx"]
they're just console fanboys(not owners) trying to defend console gaming.
Yup. My post is a telling off of such inane fanboyism.
I'd get the console version because my friends will. But I keep telling them I'm still on the fence and I may not even get it for the PS3. Yeah a few of my buddies are getting it for 360 and a few are getting it for ps3. I have both consoles and i played BFBC2 on 360 and PC but I told them there is no way that I'm even considering getting BF3 on consoles. It was made for DX11 on PC and that is no doubt where the best experience is going to be. They were all pissy about it but hey....sorry thats what I build my Eyefinity PC for was games like BF3 so i'm putting that bad boy to use.Man, I'm so sick of this "Quick Play" nonsense. It probably does get you into a game more quickly, but what should matter the most is that you get into the right game. And you never know until you've waited for the map to load up. I don't know the latency, I don't know the amount of players, or if the teams are evenly matched since there's no auto team balance.Server browser is huge for me as it gives you options as well, the matchmaking needs work on consoles.
mitu123
Also it feels like the game prioritizes keeping the player count on all servers above 16 or so over filling servers up, I don't want to join those servers, but am frequently connected to them. And lag has become more of an issue recently in my experience. Don't know which countries I'm being connected to.
Because of all that crap I often find myself joining a game, holding back to check the teams. then quit because the player list looks like s***. And then I have to pick a specific map or wait some so I'm not connected to that same server again, which does happen, so I have to wait for it to load and then quit again.. Etc. It's...it is not a good time. In practice this alleged "quick play" is a much slower and more frustrating experience than I remember a server browser setup ever being. And Battlefield has had some crappy ass server browsers.
Who cares? If you're playing it on a console, you're doing it wrong.
cain006
neh, i dont want to play against people who use a mouse to shoot, thats just cheap.
[QUOTE="cain006"]
Who cares? If you're playing it on a console, you're doing it wrong.
right4dead
neh, i dont want to play against people who use a mouse to shoot, thats just cheap.
Cheap? How so?[QUOTE="right4dead"][QUOTE="cain006"]
Who cares? If you're playing it on a console, you're doing it wrong.
mrmusicman247
neh, i dont want to play against people who use a mouse to shoot, thats just cheap.
Cheap? How so? It's not, though preferring a controller to a kb/m for PC FPS is questionable.Man, I'm so sick of this "Quick Play" nonsense. It probably does get you into a game more quickly, but what should matter the most is that you get into the right game. And you never know until you've waited for the map to load up. I don't know the latency, I don't know the amount of players, or if the teams are evenly matched since there's no auto team balance.[QUOTE="mitu123"]
Server browser is huge for me as it gives you options as well, the matchmaking needs work on consoles.
McStrongfast
Also it feels like the game prioritizes keeping the player count on all servers above 16 or so over filling servers up, I don't want to join those servers, but am frequently connected to them. And lag has become more of an issue recently in my experience. Don't know which countries I'm being connected to.
Because of all that crap I often find myself joining a game, holding back to check the teams. then quit because the player list looks like s***. And then I have to pick a specific map or wait some so I'm not connected to that same server again, which does happen, so I have to wait for it to load and then quit again.. Etc. It's...it is not a good time. In practice this alleged "quick play" is a much slower and more frustrating experience than I remember a server browser setup ever being. And Battlefield has had some crappy ass server browsers.
That's why I picked it up on PC as well, to avoid doing that because I've been there on my 360. At least it's a improvement over matchmaking no matter how crappy the server browser is.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment