Can we all agree that Battlefield 3 on consoles was terrible?

-Graphics were way inferior to the PC version which they showed off. The graphics were pretty poor on consoles IMO. DICE and EA tricked a lot of people with those trailers they showed of the PC version, and then the console version came out and looked bad.

-32 player battles on huge maps = boring and no action. 

-Lots of patches meant they screwed up with the original game. Sorry, but I want a game that works decently when I buy it.... not 6 months later. 

-Snipers were helpless against Vehicles. No C4, no Mines, nothing. 

-Forced downloads of DLC, even if you didnt buy them. For people with bandwidth caps, this is absolute **** as it used up bandwidth when we never even bought the DLC. 

-Campaign is the epitome of generic. Nothing interesting at all in the campaign. 

-Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was a better game on consoles. 

-Shooting mechanics are still inferior to COD. Even Far Cry 3 has better shooting mechanics. 

-The entire game seemed to have a teal tint to it. 

-Destruction was not very impressive at all. Actually seemed like a step back from BFBC2.

I'm a PlayStation fanboy... but even I have to admit Battlefield 3 was garbage on consoles. People hyped it up as the "COD Killer" and EA put a massive marketing campaign behind it. Unfortunately the game itself was trash on consoles. 

Can we all agree that threads that start with can we all agree are always sh1t?

Can we all agree that all multiplats are beter on PC?MonsieurX

Can we all agree that all multiplats are beter on PC?MonsieurX

Again, SW can never all agree on something

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Can we all agree that all multiplats are beter on PC?drakekratos

Can we all agree that all multiplats are beter on PC?MonsieurX

^^^^^^^

[QUOTE="drakekratos"][QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Can we all agree that all multiplats are beter on PC?MonsieurX

I wouldn't go that far, but it surely is nowhere near the PC version I still have and I do agree with your points like Bad Company 2 being better on consoles.

I seriously hate console BF3's controls when it comes to aiming, it just feels off.

Didnt the console version have a 24 player max?BPoole96

No. There were some  major  issues, including rubber-banding... However, when it was semi-fixed, the game was very enjoyable. I played a good chunk of the MP.

I wouldn't go that far, but it surely is nowhere near the PC version I still have and I do agree with your points like Bad Company 2 being better on consoles.

I seriously hate console BF3's controls when it comes to aiming, it just feels off.

mitu123

LOL you can be serious?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I wouldn't go that far, but it surely is nowhere near the PC version I still have and I do agree with your points like Bad Company 2 being better on consoles.

I seriously hate console BF3's controls when it comes to aiming, it just feels off.

MK-Professor

LOL you can be serious?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I wouldn't go that far, but it surely is nowhere near the PC version I still have and I do agree with your points like Bad Company 2 being better on consoles.

I seriously hate console BF3's controls when it comes to aiming, it just feels off.

MK-Professor

LOL you can be serious?

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I wouldn't go that far, but it surely is nowhere near the PC version I still have and I do agree with your points like Bad Company 2 being better on consoles.

I seriously hate console BF3's controls when it comes to aiming, it just feels off.

gameofthering

LOL you can be serious?

-Graphics were way inferior to the PC version which they showed off. The graphics were pretty poor on consoles IMO. DICE and EA tricked a lot of people with those trailers they showed of the PC version, and then the console version came out and looked bad. PC version looks better obviously but the difference really isn't that big.

-32 player battles on huge maps = boring and no action. Not true, player count was fine and maps like Operation Metro felt overcrowded.

-Lots of patches meant they screwed up with the original game. Sorry, but I want a game that works decently when I buy it.... not 6 months later. Was it any different on PC?

-Snipers were helpless against Vehicles. No C4, no Mines, nothing. Is it not same on PC?

-Forced downloads of DLC, even if you didnt buy them. For people with bandwidth caps, this is absolute **** as it used up bandwidth when we never even bought the DLC. Bad for ppeople with bandwidth caps but I don't really consider this a negative point.

-Campaign is the epitome of generic. Nothing interesting at all in the campaign. Again was it any different on PC

-Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was a better game on consoles. Agreed, one of the greatest MP game ever

-Shooting mechanics are still inferior to COD. Even Far Cry 3 has better shooting mechanics. same on PC

-The entire game seemed to have a teal tint to it. No different on PC

-Destruction was not very impressive at all. Actually seemed like a step back from BFBC2.

I'm a PlayStation fanboy... but even I have to admit Battlefield 3 was garbage on consoles. People hyped it up as the "COD Killer" and EA put a massive marketing campaign behind it. Unfortunately the game itself was trash on consoles.

drakekratos

Console FPS's are not even worth mentioning or discussing.

Didnt the console version have a 24 player max?BPoole96

Just downloaded Battlefield 3 for PC. I dont even want to start playing it. I click on the game in Origin only for it to take me to a Battlefield website. I want to start the game and it wont let me start playing until I download a plugin for my web browser? What is this sh!t?

Just downloaded Battlefield 3 for PC. I dont even want to start playing it. I click on the game in Origin only for it to take me to a Battlefield website. I want to start the game and it wont let me start playing until I download a plugin for my web browser? What is this sh!t?

RyanShazam

[QUOTE="RyanShazam"]

Just downloaded Battlefield 3 for PC. I dont even want to start playing it. I click on the game in Origin only for it to take me to a Battlefield website. I want to start the game and it wont let me start playing until I download a plugin for my web browser? What is this sh!t?

mitu123

Lots of patches mean they screwed up the original game? Clearly you don't understand what real multiplayer gaming is about. Those patches addressed balancing issues. DICE actually cares about the longevity of their games because they don't just release a new one every year.

Also a lot of what you said wasn't specific to the console version. The console verison just had 24 player online which was fine for a lot of the vanilla maps.

A lot of what you didn't like about BF3 had nothing to do with it being on the console.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="RyanShazam"]

Just downloaded Battlefield 3 for PC. I dont even want to start playing it. I click on the game in Origin only for it to take me to a Battlefield website. I want to start the game and it wont let me start playing until I download a plugin for my web browser? What is this sh!t?

RyanShazam

No the game uses Battlelog for the server browser. While it's a pain, it's not nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be when they announced it. However the server browser through Battlelog is not the greatest. 

The graphics and sound were great on consoles, and more importantly the game was fun.

People should really look at the dictionary once in a while, see the real meaning of what they believe are saying.

[QUOTE="drakekratos"]

-Graphics were way inferior to the PC version which they showed off. The graphics were pretty poor on consoles IMO. DICE and EA tricked a lot of people with those trailers they showed of the PC version, and then the console version came out and looked bad. PC version looks better obviously but the difference really isn't that big.

-32 player battles on huge maps = boring and no action. Not true, player count was fine and maps like Operation Metro felt overcrowded.

-Lots of patches meant they screwed up with the original game. Sorry, but I want a game that works decently when I buy it.... not 6 months later. Was it any different on PC?

-Snipers were helpless against Vehicles. No C4, no Mines, nothing. Is it not same on PC?

-Forced downloads of DLC, even if you didnt buy them. For people with bandwidth caps, this is absolute **** as it used up bandwidth when we never even bought the DLC. Bad for ppeople with bandwidth caps but I don't really consider this a negative point.

-Campaign is the epitome of generic. Nothing interesting at all in the campaign. Again was it any different on PC

-Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was a better game on consoles. Agreed, one of the greatest MP game ever

-Shooting mechanics are still inferior to COD. Even Far Cry 3 has better shooting mechanics. same on PC

-The entire game seemed to have a teal tint to it. No different on PC

-Destruction was not very impressive at all. Actually seemed like a step back from BFBC2.

I'm a PlayStation fanboy... but even I have to admit Battlefield 3 was garbage on consoles. People hyped it up as the "COD Killer" and EA put a massive marketing campaign behind it. Unfortunately the game itself was trash on consoles.

Harisemo

Meh, CoD is still the King. Am I right?

Yep just like every other multiplatform game.

Hell freakin no. Regardless of it's inferiority to the PC version, the console version is still better than most FPS from recent years.

Yes, I agree.

And I played it on console.

Yes, I agree.

And I played it on console.

Sagem28

Battlefield 3 is a terrible game, PC and console.

Maybe I'm just very sentimental about 1942, 2 and 2142, but they've all been rubbish since 2142.

1943 was ok.

I would not say that BF on console was terrible no. It was better on PC; but it was a good game on console :|

Pretty much all multiplats are better on the PC, by the start of a console generation, the difference is minimal, and at the end the difference is night and day, its faily logical.

BF3 came out late in a gen, but to discount the console version based on the PC version, is pretty foolish, at its own merits it were good. Judged against the PC version well, look above.

I will give that the console version should have had 64 players, even 50 would be in the "good enough" area. IN that area they fumbled since some maps does not play as well with such the amount of players they have.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Can we all agree that all multiplats are beter on PC?drakekratos

... yeah tv... yeah dual shock controller.. yeah can be done on pc too.

Battlefield 3 is a terrible game, PC and console.

Maybe I'm just very sentimental about 1942, 2 and 2142, but they've all been rubbish since 2142.

1943 was ok.

NirdBerd

Liking 2 over 2142 makes no sense to me.

The idea's of 2 were great and when it first launched it was fine, but years later it is a terrible experience. Unbalanced maps, horrible hit detection, cone of fire, ridiculously overpowered aircraft, grenade spam that ruined the game, the list is fairly long.

2142 addressed the majority of these problems and is flat out a better game in every single respect. 

BF3 is a better core game than any BF game in the past, and it's probably my favorite but it does lack a lot of the features thta made 2 and BF2142 stand out. 

[QUOTE="NirdBerd"]

Battlefield 3 is a terrible game, PC and console.

Maybe I'm just very sentimental about 1942, 2 and 2142, but they've all been rubbish since 2142.

1943 was ok.

Wasdie

Liking 2 over 2142 makes no sense to me.

The idea's of 2 were great and when it first launched it was fine, but years later it is a terrible experience. Unbalanced maps, horrible hit detection, cone of fire, ridiculously overpowered aircraft, grenade spam that ruined the game, the list is fairly long.

2142 addressed the majority of these problems and is flat out a better game in every single respect.

BF3 is a better core game than any BF game in the past, and it's probably my favorite but it does lack a lot of the features thta made 2 and BF2142 stand out.

You know, I have been thinking about this quite a few times (and I still like BF2 alot you know :P)

I think the older games with the cone of fire and more careful movement, ment that there were this certain game of chance when fighting as inf. You always felt vulnurable, and you always felt the need to rely on teamm8s, this in part were also that thre were more classes with all had 1 speciality, now everyone has 2.

So as the engines progressed, netcodes reworked, and kinks ironed out, the player recived far more control over the soldier and the weapon, the time it took to unlock items were shorter, you could move faster. Tanks and vehicles became less attractive because. To be blunt, unlike then, vehicles are deathtraps now, due to how precise weapons are despite how they got tougher.

Engines evolved and maps were made with some destructability in mind. I still dislike newer maps as opposed to the older ones in the older games. I am unsure of tha difference in preference.

Ultimately I don't know, but I liked BF2 and 2142 the most of the BF series and sub series, ever since, I liked the games a little less. Too much equipment, too little difference, too fast unlicks, and it still irks me how every single unit can hold thier own in the most cases, meaning that teamplay is far less importnat. Not to mention that if there is something I AM quite annoyied by, it is the squad mechanics in BF3... Oh lord.

.

-32 player battles on huge maps = boring and no action. 

-Snipers were helpless against Vehicles. No C4, no Mines, nothing.  

-Shooting mechanics are still inferior to COD. Even Far Cry 3 has better shooting mechanics. 

-Destruction was not very impressive at all. Actually seemed like a step back from BFBC2.

drakekratos

-The maps weren't huge. 24 players are fine. Anymore would be too much. You just want "insta-gratification" and "press X to win".

-Learn how to use the class dumbass.

-CoD still has shooting mechanics? There's no recoil on the guns in CoD at all...

-Step back? All BFBC2 had was small cube buildings all over the place.

Console gamers are fvcking stupid.

[QUOTE="Sagem28"]

Yes, I agree.

And I played it on console.

mitu123

My pc sucks :(

PC guys always talkin' about games being better on PC. But that ain't true. They're better on "some" PCs. They certainly wouldn't be better on mine.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Sagem28"]

Yes, I agree.

And I played it on console.

Sagem28

My pc sucks :(

[QUOTE="Sagem28"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]Get it on PC.:x

mitu123

My pc sucks :(

Call of Duty's better anyway, right? :P

Yep, Battlefield 3 was disappointing, especially on consoles. Bad Company 2 was a better and more polished console game.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Sagem28"]

My pc sucks :(

Michael0134567

Call of Duty's better anyway, right? :P

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]Dammit!:P

mitu123

Call of Duty's better anyway, right? :P

Console Domination Continuation. :P