DICE: "We Aren't Stupid"

True. But apparently people on the BF3 forums do not understand that. Maybe they think Microsoft and Sony break into their house every now and then and upgrade their consoles or something with some sort of magical console fairy.DarkLink77

Same people that believe there's "hidden power" in the PS360s no doubt.

[QUOTE="noxboxlive"]

[QUOTE="ABCarmine"]

Couldn't care what happens to the Battlefield 3 console version, they could turn it into a my little pony game for all I care, as I will be getting it on the PC. That's the sytem it was meant to be played on. :P

ABCarmine

there you go :P

did I read "we would make love to 64 players on the console" ? haha

Why do you all even play games?

WarTornRuston

[QUOTE="Kan0nF0dder"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]last week there was a big planetside 2 reveal that was covered in the gamespot news section in which i said basically the same thing and it got a bunch of negative comments from the fans.

i went back 2 days later and the total amount of comments about the big unveiling of the most popular massive battle game of all time had a grand total of 65 comments.

i can't think of anything that backs up my observation about the faddish nature of massive battlers that that.

the battlefield games support what? 64 players? i don't really call that a massive battle game on the scale of like planetside or mag.

Riverwolf007

i won't touch cods crappy run and gun gameplay.

i like to hunt.

i'm saying those huge 120 something per side shooters didn't work years ago and hardly anyone plays them for over a few weeks because they don't work and are not fun.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

Joke?

BF2/BF2142/BC2/BFHeroes/Planetside

All played constantly, in large numbers.

Birdy09

i went back 2 days later and the total amount of comments about the big unveiling of the most popular massive battle game of all time had a grand total of 65 comments.

i can't think of anything that backs up my observation about the faddish nature of massive battlers that that.

the battlefield games support what? 64 players? i don't really call that a massive battle game on the scale of like planetside or mag.

Hermits have been in tears since this gen started about how devs should not worry about things like paying rent, making money, and cater to them. There is a reason companies like ID, Epic, Bethesda, and Bioware make console games. $

Consoles are perfectly capable of making the games you all seem to think should be made. The reason they don't? $

There is also a reason why some devs have either left PC gaming completely or treat it like an after thought. The reason why? $

Why do you all even play games? You are never happy? Perhaps if you actually played the game instead of pitching a hissy fit over what it does not have you may actually get some enjoyment from it.

Best games this gen has been on console anyways.

WarTornRuston

[QUOTE="WarTornRuston"]

Why do you all even play games?

mitu123

Console users actually thought they didnt have garbage hardware?

So what? If they are limited by consoles they could still sell an superior version on Pc with 64 players and superb graphics. It's not like my PC couldn't handle it ^^

I think the next generation of consoles need to allow for expansion slots or, dare I say, even allow the substitution of aftermarket graphic cards. I mean, include the latest and greatest, but when time goes on for 3 years or so, allow the customer to swap in a new video card that is maybe 1/4 to 1/3 the price of a new console.

Doesnt even have to be any ol' video card, it could be a specific Xbox "video upgrade" or something; just price it reasonable, and make it universally compatable.

"It's not that we are evil or stupid, we did not choose not to have more players -. we would make love to 64 players on the console, but then we would have to cut away so much. Otherwise the players would get upset that the console version looks much worse and worse playing. Moreover, one would need to remove the vehicles. The cards will also turn out a little more compactly: If we say that they are smaller does not mean that we have halved it."

ehussein1379

i don't see how that would be possible given the surface area of consoles this generation.

Considering BC2 is only 24 players and works just fine I don't see why everyone is hating DICE. Sure, it's not 64 players, but it'll still be fun to play.

I havent seen a whole lot of complaining 12 v 12 with smaller maps is not bad...

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="WarTornRuston"]

Why do you all even play games?

WarTornRuston

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

"It's not that we are evil or stupid, we did not choose not to have more players -. we would make love to 64 players on the console, but then we would have to cut away so much. Otherwise the players would get upset that the console version looks much worse and worse playing. Moreover, one would need to remove the vehicles. The cards will also turn out a little more compactly: If we say that they are smaller does not mean that we have halved it."

CaseyWegner

i don't see how that would be possible given the surface area of consoles this generation.

the real answer is they don't want 32 snipers vs 32 snipers, which pretty much what happened with the first battlefield game on consoles...well when ever I played

gamer-adam1

Pro-mod on CoD4 has limited classes, only 2 SMGs and 1 sniper allowed each team (consisting of 5 players). More devs should put this in use as it balances the game a lot.

Even when playing BFBC2, I'm not always in games that are at full capacity. The BF3 community will be around for a while, but to think that there will always be enough people playing for there to be 32 vs 32 is naive. It makes so much more sense for them to limit the game to less players, regardless of the hardware. Jurassic85

Console gamers notoriusly switch games; on PC it will be 32v32 for ~8 years.

BC2 on PC is PACKED still. Hell, Quake 3 is still packed.

PC has game staying power baby.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

24 players is good with me, less snipers.

lundy86_4

Nothing worse than playing BC2, and having half your team using Recon as solely ****ing snipers :x

Get in there :P

I had a whole team in BC2, that was recon, and we where defending lol...well except for me and my squad, it was painful

[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

the real answer is they don't want 32 snipers vs 32 snipers, which pretty much what happened with the first battlefield game on consoles...well when ever I played

araksik

Pro-mod on CoD4 has limited classes, only 2 SMGs and 1 sniper allowed each team (consisting of 5 players). That's a great way of balancing the game.

and also a good way of making it boring.

[QUOTE="araksik"]

[QUOTE="gamer-adam1"]

the real answer is they don't want 32 snipers vs 32 snipers, which pretty much what happened with the first battlefield game on consoles...well when ever I played

ROFLCOPTER603

Pro-mod on CoD4 has limited classes, only 2 SMGs and 1 sniper allowed each team (consisting of 5 players). That's a great way of balancing the game.

and also a good way of making it boring.

Balanced game = boring? Yeah, no wonder nobody liked CS 1.6 and Quake....oh wait :roll:

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[QUOTE="araksik"]

Pro-mod on CoD4 has limited classes, only 2 SMGs and 1 sniper allowed each team (consisting of 5 players). That's a great way of balancing the game.

araksik

and also a good way of making it boring.

Balanced game = boring? oh wow

Forcing people to play with things they don't like? Also, this whole "balance" thing is absolutely ridiculous. Balance does not mean the same.

[QUOTE="araksik"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

and also a good way of making it boring.

ROFLCOPTER603

Balanced game = boring? oh wow

Forcing people to play with things they don't like? Also, this whole "balance" thing is absolutely ridiculous. Balance does not mean the same.

It doesn't force you to anything. If I need a sniper for my team, I'll recruit a sniper player, I won't force an assault player into playing something else. Unless you're talking about PUBLIC matches. Public matches usually have less limited classes, so that everyone gets to play their class. No problem whatsoever.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

24 players is good with me, less snipers.

gamer-adam1

Nothing worse than playing BC2, and having half your team using Recon as solely ****ing snipers :x

Get in there :P

I had a whole team in BC2, that was recon, and we where defending lol...well except for me and my squad, it was painful

:lol:

It's the worst. I seriously can't stand those guys :P

Then again, anyone whos interested in the game won't get it on consoles anyway.

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[QUOTE="araksik"]

Balanced game = boring? oh wow

araksik

Forcing people to play with things they don't like? Also, this whole "balance" thing is absolutely ridiculous. Balance does not mean the same.

It doesn't force you to anything. If I need a sniper for my team, I'll recruit a sniper player, I won't force an assault player into playing something else. Unless you're talking about PUBLIC matches. Public matches usually have less limited classes, so that everyone gets to play their class. No problem whatsoever.

I was talking about public matches. In a private match you can just ask people to play whatever you want them to, so havingrestrictions is meaningless.But forcing people to play something in public games would ruin the game.

I was talking about public matches. In a private match you can just ask people to play whatever you want them to, so havingrestrictions is meaningless.But forcing people to play something in public games would ruin the game.

ROFLCOPTER603

No it wouldn't. You have no clue of what you're talking about if you think that.

Go play League of Legends.

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

I was talking about public matches. In a private match you can just ask people to play whatever you want them to, so havingrestrictions is meaningless.But forcing people to play something in public games would ruin the game.

Mograine

No it wouldn't. You have no clue of what you're talking about if you think that.

Go play League of Legends.

How is LoL similar to BF or CoD, besides competitive MP?

[QUOTE="araksik"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

Forcing people to play with things they don't like? Also, this whole "balance" thing is absolutely ridiculous. Balance does not mean the same.

ROFLCOPTER603

It doesn't force you to anything. If I need a sniper for my team, I'll recruit a sniper player, I won't force an assault player into playing something else. Unless you're talking about PUBLIC matches. Public matches usually have less limited classes, so that everyone gets to play their class. No problem whatsoever.

I was talking about public matches. In a private match you can just ask people to play whatever you want them to, so havingrestrictions is meaningless.But forcing people to play something in public games would ruin the game.

Having restrictions is not meaningless. If pro-mod did not have class restrictions, the game would be ruined. Imagine 5 snipers versus 5 assault players on the District map. The assault team would be DOMINATED. Or a team of SMGs versus a team of snipers on the Vacant map, same thing. And as I said, there's little to no restrictions on public matches, as public matches are usually unbalanced anyways, so a little more chaos won't hurt. The restrictions are the main difference between CoD and pro-mod, and look at how bad CoD is in competitive gaming, yet pro-mod is looked upon by many as the modern 1.6. This has gotten a bit out of hand, so this'll be my last post.

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

[QUOTE="araksik"]

It doesn't force you to anything. If I need a sniper for my team, I'll recruit a sniper player, I won't force an assault player into playing something else. Unless you're talking about PUBLIC matches. Public matches usually have less limited classes, so that everyone gets to play their class. No problem whatsoever.

araksik

I was talking about public matches. In a private match you can just ask people to play whatever you want them to, so havingrestrictions is meaningless.But forcing people to play something in public games would ruin the game.

Having restrictions is not meaningless. If pro-mod did not have class restrictions, the game would be ruined. Imagine 5 snipers versus 5 assault players on the District map. The assault team would be DOMINATED. Or a team of SMGs versus a team of snipers on the Vacant map, same thing. And as I said, there's little to no restrictions on public matches, as public matches are usually unbalanced anyways, so a little more chaos won't hurt. I've played at a high level in many games (people in my team has played in ESL, and so on), I know what I'm talking about;)

Why wouldn't you just ask the people on your team to play with what's best for the situation? Why would you need restrictions?

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

24 players is good with me, less snipers.

gamer-adam1

Nothing worse than playing BC2, and having half your team using Recon as solely ****ing snipers :x

Get in there :P

I had a whole team in BC2, that was recon, and we where defending lol...well except for me and my squad, it was painful

[QUOTE="araksik"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

I was talking about public matches. In a private match you can just ask people to play whatever you want them to, so havingrestrictions is meaningless.But forcing people to play something in public games would ruin the game.

ROFLCOPTER603

Having restrictions is not meaningless. If pro-mod did not have class restrictions, the game would be ruined. Imagine 5 snipers versus 5 assault players on the District map. The assault team would be DOMINATED. Or a team of SMGs versus a team of snipers on the Vacant map, same thing. And as I said, there's little to no restrictions on public matches, as public matches are usually unbalanced anyways, so a little more chaos won't hurt. I've played at a high level in many games (people in my team has played in ESL, and so on), I know what I'm talking about;)

Why wouldn't you just ask the people on your team to play with what's best for the situation? Why would you need restrictions?

First of all, people can't play ALL classes. If I recruit an assault player, I will want to have him as assault only. Second of all, you missed my entire point. Restrictions are there so the classes won't be abused. If there were no restrictions, you could have ridiculous comps like 4 snipers + 1 SMG, and so on. Or a match full of snipers. There wouldn't be any strategy, tactics or thinking in general involved, just aim vs aim. The game would simply just be a mess. Do I need to make more examples?:?

Did people really think Dice only put out 24 players on the console version because they felt like it? lawlessx

Yup. I am astounded with how many 'teh cell' posts that were on BF3 forums.

I loved it personally, the comedy was gold.

I thought we all knew this?

What did we need a confirmation?

[QUOTE="Jurassic85"]Even when playing BFBC2, I'm not always in games that are at full capacity. The BF3 community will be around for a while, but to think that there will always be enough people playing for there to be 32 vs 32 is naive. It makes so much more sense for them to limit the game to less players, regardless of the hardware. ehussein1379

Console gamers notoriusly switch games; on PC it will be 32v32 for ~8 years.

BC2 on PC is PACKED still. Hell, Quake 3 is still packed.

PC has game staying power baby.

That was my point, you are just being a hermit right now (I was recently told by moderator CaseyWegner that 'hermit is the acceptable term to use, don't be offended, that is not my intent). I do agree with you though that 32v32 on console would be a bit much.

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

But those games aside, its hard to take you seriously TC. It sounds like nothing but denial, trying to insult consoles that are stillkeeping up to medium settings standards after 6 years, something pretty much no PC is capable of. Try getting a 2005 PC to play BF3 on any setting, consoles can do it. I think this speaks volumes about how scared PC gamers are that they have to quote one guy from one (aminly PC) developer saying one thing in the face of other proof and games that have been made.

Seriously, if that's the issue then I guess you should throw out the quote where DICE says "we could have, but it was a bandwidth issue". Its just something to stroke the ego of Elitists would want to feel like their system will always be superior.

Sometimes, I hate being a PC gamer, if only because I don't want to be stereotyped like this.

SPYDER0416

MAG and Frontlines had horrible graphics and effects. It was obvious massive cuts had to be made to make those games work with more than 24 players. BF3 has much better graphics, much better effects, and fully destructible environments all mixed in with more complex gaming mechanics.

Yeah so, I guess MAG and its vehicles and 256 players doesn't count? Or Frontlines: Fuel of War either?

SPYDER0416

They don't..because both games look terrible don't have nearly as much destruction as BF3. Don't even know why people continue to bring those two games up