DICE: "We Aren't Stupid"

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

SPYDER0416

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]Have you guys heard of sarcasm?Mograine

Sarcasm is supposed to be a witty remark about something, and possibly a hilarious or funny remark.

Not a completely wrong information.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

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.

casharmy

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.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you are trying a little too hard to push your opinion here.

How are the graphics horrible? they are at least as good as Halo 3 a game that only has 16 players online and sub-HD and it was praised for it's graphics by alot of fans.

MAG with 256 players it's in HD and it looks fine. With the arguments I'm seeing here you would thinkg this game wouldn't even exist: nice gameplay trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2z7Tg5_LY&feature=related But here it is.

saying the game has horrible graphics just doesen't hold up, it's 256 vs 24 we are talking about. of course there is going to be some sacrafice but being able to put 256 players in a game with as nice of graphics as MAG has kind of smashes the argument that someone couldn't do it with 64 players.

I don't really care about the players thing I just dislike how some of you are trying to disregard facts in order to support jaded opinions. MAG with 256 players is 3x the amout of players the PC verions has for this game...3 times. And MAG came out last year, yep it would be impossible to do a game with 64 players on consoles just impossible!

2 cent.

what does the year MAG releasing have anything to do with BF3? The only people here that are disregarding facts here are the people bringing up MAG and resistance as if they are even close in comparison to Battlefield 3 in terms of visuals and scale. Now if MAG had visuals and destruction like BF3 or even BC2..then you'd actually have a decent argument lawlessx

When MAG(or another console game with more than 24 players) can do as many graphical/technical feats as BF3 with it's player count let me know.

It actually annoys me that consolites feel like DICE owes them the same amount of players. THEY DO understand console hardware, with the BC games they have tried it out. 32 players is pretty big for console players anyway, so quit crying.

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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.

mitu123

I'm sorry but it sounds like you are trying a little too hard to push your opinion here.

How are the graphics horrible? they are at least as good as Halo 3 a game that only has 16 players online and sub-HD and it was praised for it's graphics by alot of fans.

MAG with 256 players it's in HD and it looks fine. With the arguments I'm seeing here you would thinkg this game wouldn't even exist: nice gameplay trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze2z7Tg5_LY&feature=related But here it is.

saying the game has horrible graphics just doesen't hold up, it's 256 vs 24 we are talking about. of course there is going to be some sacrafice but being able to put 256 players in a game with as nice of graphics as MAG has kind of smashes the argument that someone couldn't do it with 64 players.

I don't really care about the players thing I just dislike how some of you are trying to disregard facts in order to support jaded opinions. MAG with 256 players is 3x the amout of players the PC verions has for this game...3 times. And MAG came out last year, yep it would be impossible to do a game with 64 players on consoles just impossible!

2 cent.

really, that awesome, I remember it was being hyped as one of the best looking game

Why are people even bringing MAG up? Sure it was some good fun but look at the graphics

And it looks even worse in motion, everything looks so static.

Less players isn't a bad thing if they scale the maps accordingly, which they are.

I was fine with 24 on BFBC2, i'll be fine with 24 on BF3. More players doesnt = better game and some PC elitists need to get that through their thick skulls.

I don't even care about having less players.

Lto_thaG

I was fine with 24 on BFBC2, i'll be fine with 24 on BF3. More players doesnt = better game and some PC elitists need to get that through their thick skulls.

dachase

really, that awesome, I remember it was being hyped as one of the best looking game

gamer-adam1

Whoever hyped MAG as one of the best looking games was just a major fanboy. MAG wasn't impressive becasue of it's graphics.

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]Have you guys heard of sarcasm?Lto_thaG

Sarcasm is supposed to be a witty remark about something, and possibly a hilarious or funny remark.

Not a completely wrong information.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

Kan0nF0dder

I gave my 2cent you don't have to agree.

And just to be clear MAG is AA here at gamespot, if it was really has horrible is you make it out to be I'm sure would not be rated so.

casharmy

*facedesk* He wasn't saying the game is bad.He was stating facts of how Batllefield 3's engine is so much more demanding...it's not an opinion.I mean by just looking at footage from BF3 and comparing it to MAG,it should be common sense as to why more than 24 players would not work on consoles.I guess not.Ignorance sure is thriving in here.

[QUOTE="dachase"]

I was fine with 24 on BFBC2, i'll be fine with 24 on BF3. More players doesnt = better game and some PC elitists need to get that through their thick skulls.

mitu123

Don't have an opinion and you won't be called elitist, right?

I was fine with 24 on BFBC2, I'll be fine with 24 on BF3. More players doesn't = better game and some PC elitists need to get that through their thick skulls.

dachase

It doesn't necessarily, but when the game is being designed with that in mind it does make the game better

I'll only be playing Rush mode anyway, so the higher Conquest player count does ****-all for me.lowe0

What's the big frustration with 24 players? Uncharted does 10! BC2 did 24 and the best part about that was that your squad could personally effect the outcome of the battle. I don't know why people want 2000 players in a single game. Why is it fun for you when you, or even your team rake in tons of kills and capture every possible objective you can within your means, yet still taste loss because your team doesn't have the right stuff. Sure, if your playing with a bunch of really poor players, its almost impossible for your squad to win there, but why would making teams better make it more rewarding for vets. IMHO, it doesn't reward teamwork, someone else can do the job while you shoot.

TBH, I'd be OK with DICE saying 24 was the max because console players have enough trouble working together as is.

ONly those idiots that belive optimization is magic that will get you anything would believe they could get 64 players on consoles with no noticable compromising.

**** dice cmon, your **** ruining the game to the consoles, i was all **** exited but then i head this crap that it will just be 720p and 30fps, half the users in the multiplayer game and maps that are allot shorter

i dont want to **** buy a **** 2000€ computer to play this game as it should be, make it 1080p and 60fps on the **** consoles
TMetalFromHell 6 days ago

[QUOTE="lowe0"]I'll only be playing Rush mode anyway, so the higher Conquest player count does ****-all for me.Iantheone

I don't think fewer players per game on consoles is a major issue; I am a lot more upset at the lack of mod support on the PC version. The leaders of DICE might not be "stupid", but they are at least somewhat foolish.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="lowe0"]I'll only be playing Rush mode anyway, so the higher Conquest player count does ****-all for me.lowe0

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="lowe0"]I'll only be playing Rush mode anyway, so the higher Conquest player count does ****-all for me.lowe0

"we would make love to 64 players on the console '

ehussein1379

What is this... i dont even...

Do people on SW even compain about the number of players in the console version? Most just say they're fine with it, and will have fun anyway.

I'm not sure what version I'll get. If my friends are playing on 360, then I'll get that version. If I have the money, I'll upgrade to a whole new PC(except gpus) and get both versions.

"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."

With the ridiculous amount of consolite posts accusing DICE of "not understanding console hardware" they finally released a statement about their choice to 'limit' the console version.

Turn out ... it wasn't much of a choice, but a reality of OLD HARDWARE.

I feel bad for DICE, they are brilliant devs, and it seems that people with a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology works are trying to 'tell them their business'

ehussein1379

:lol: LMAO consoles just can't handle it.

bf3=bad company 2bongpock

Why should I care at all about this?

[QUOTE="bongpock"]bf3=bad company 2bleehum

[QUOTE="bleehum"][QUOTE="bongpock"]bf3=bad company 2bongpock

[QUOTE="bongpock"][QUOTE="bleehum"] Nope.bleehum

**** dice cmon, your **** ruining the game to the consoles, i was all **** exited but then i head this crap that it will just be 720p and 30fps, half the users in the multiplayer game and maps that are allot shorter

i dont want to **** buy a **** 2000€ computer to play this game as it should be, make it 1080p and 60fps on the **** consoles
TMetalFromHell 6 days ago

NoodleFighter

Um no.
Consoles would NEVER be able to handle more than 24 players smoothly on BF3, the engine is intense. All you consolites quit your whining, us PC gamers have been tired of console ports for years, and franchises once dear to us being consolised these past few years. The one time a game is showing TRUE LOVE to Pc gaming and consolites START WHINING.

30FPS? pretty much ALL console games play at 30fps Noodle, same with 720p

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

**** dice cmon, your **** ruining the game to the consoles, i was all **** exited but then i head this crap that it will just be 720p and 30fps, half the users in the multiplayer game and maps that are allot shorter

i dont want to **** buy a **** 2000€ computer to play this game as it should be, make it 1080p and 60fps on the **** consoles
TMetalFromHell 6 days ago

OB-47

Um no.
Consoles would NEVER be able to handle more than 24 players smoothly on BF3, the engine is intense. All you consolites quit your whining, us PC gamers have been tired of console ports for years, and franchises once dear to us being consolised these past few years. The one time a game is showing TRUE LOVE to Pc gaming and consolites START WHINING.

30FPS? pretty much ALL console games play at 30fps Noodle, same with 720p

I agree completely.

I do not care at all about how the console version turns out.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

**** dice cmon, your **** ruining the game to the consoles, i was all **** exited but then i head this crap that it will just be 720p and 30fps, half the users in the multiplayer game and maps that are allot shorter

i dont want to **** buy a **** 2000€ computer to play this game as it should be, make it 1080p and 60fps on the **** consoles
TMetalFromHell 6 days ago

OB-47

Um no.
Consoles would NEVER be able to handle more than 24 players smoothly on BF3, the engine is intense. All you consolites quit your whining, us PC gamers have been tired of console ports for years, and franchises once dear to us being consolised these past few years. The one time a game is showing TRUE LOVE to Pc gaming and consolites START WHINING.

30FPS? pretty much ALL console games play at 30fps Noodle, same with 720p

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

**** dice cmon, your **** ruining the game to the consoles, i was all **** exited but then i head this crap that it will just be 720p and 30fps, half the users in the multiplayer game and maps that are allot shorter

i dont want to **** buy a **** 2000€ computer to play this game as it should be, make it 1080p and 60fps on the **** consoles
TMetalFromHell 6 days ago

OB-47

Um no.
Consoles would NEVER be able to handle more than 24 players smoothly on BF3, the engine is intense. All you consolites quit your whining, us PC gamers have been tired of console ports for years, and franchises once dear to us being consolised these past few years. The one time a game is showing TRUE LOVE to Pc gaming and consolites START WHINING.

30FPS? pretty much ALL console games play at 30fps Noodle, same with 720p

Notice that it's frm the guy in bold I just copy and pasted it to show ignorance from the console community when it comes to PC gaming and PC being ahead.

[QUOTE="bleehum"][QUOTE="bongpock"] Yep gameplay is exact same.bongpock

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

**** dice cmon, your **** ruining the game to the consoles, i was all **** exited but then i head this crap that it will just be 720p and 30fps, half the users in the multiplayer game and maps that are allot shorter

i dont want to **** buy a **** 2000€ computer to play this game as it should be, make it 1080p and 60fps on the **** consoles
TMetalFromHell 6 days ago

NoodleFighter

Um no.
Consoles would NEVER be able to handle more than 24 players smoothly on BF3, the engine is intense. All you consolites quit your whining, us PC gamers have been tired of console ports for years, and franchises once dear to us being consolised these past few years. The one time a game is showing TRUE LOVE to Pc gaming and consolites START WHINING.

30FPS? pretty much ALL console games play at 30fps Noodle, same with 720p

Notice that it's frm the guy in bold I just copy and pasted it to show ignorance from the console community when it comes to PC gaming and PC being ahead.

OMG now I look like the biggest idiot.

I was wondoring what that meant, but didn't really think what it was. Apologies man, aplogogies.

[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."

With the ridiculous amount of consolite posts accusing DICE of "not understanding console hardware" they finally released a statement about their choice to 'limit' the console version.

Turn out ... it wasn't much of a choice, but a reality of OLD HARDWARE.

I feel bad for DICE, they are brilliant devs, and it seems that people with a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology works are trying to 'tell them their business'

-Renegade

:lol: LMAO consoles just can't handle it.