More proof consoles are holding back the potential of PC.

Hear is another example,

The green circle shows the size of the largest multiplayer map for BF3, a game falsely advertised as PC focused but DICE admitted halfway through its developement consoles became the primary focus, the entire map is fom Zatar Wetlands from BF2, a SEVEN YEAR OLD GAME THAT PREDATES CURRENT CONSOLES!!! They also shrunk the BF2 map remakes for BF3 present in the "Back to Karkand" DLC, also seven year old maps predating current consoles. It's also notable that BF1942, a TEN YEAR OLD GAME, had bigger maps. DICE has also said that the reason for making the maps much smaller was to make them use-able on consoles (the extra area added to PC versions of maps are empty and useless, simply a lazy move to be able to say "PC maps are bigger than the console versions, see? We care PC gamers, and we also think you are stupid"). So his downgrade in map size is directly consoles fault.

You might think, "But StalkerFieldsis, why is this important?"

Well:

1. Battlefield lends itself well to big maps, and many PC Veteran BF3 players agree that current BF3 maps are too small to properly support 64 players without being cramped, and overly chaotic due to the overflow of players in an undersized area.

2. Other things had to be ruined because of this, mainly, jets in this game are distractly, immersion-breaking-ly slow, so that palyers don't quickly and unintentionally fly out of the smaller maps and their boundaries, this downgrade in jet speed and overall jet coolness would be reduced by proper sized-maps.

3.It shows how stupid console gamers are and the fact that they have no knowledge of what standards a game should meet and are therefore happy with these tiny maps. But how would they know otherwise? Older BF's with bigger maps weren't on consoles.

4. BF2 could support 128 players before it became as cramped as BF3 is with 64, if DICE continued improving from BF2 and 2142 and didn't fall into console mediocrity, we would have great 128 player maps in BF3, but that's another thing PC gamers can blame console gamers for taking away from them.

5. You also cannot say that "Well maps that big would be boring" BF2 was a smash hit and was highly praised by gamers and critics alike, no one then thought these map sizes were boring (then again back then there was not a huge market of gamers who were 12 year old Call of Duty gamers with 5 second attention spans and sub-100 I'Q.'s), and due to the fact that BF3 infantry runs faster and farther (infinite sprint, which I personally dislike, but has benefits) getting to action on these maps would take even less time if they were in BF3, further reducing any chance of boredom.

This is disgustingly unnacceptable, having consoles make a game sequel become technically inferior than its 7 and 10 year old predeccessors in some ways due to consoles should show you how intensly consoles negatively effect hardcore gaming, and the technological progression of games in general.

This is disgustingly unnacceptable, having consoles make a game sequel become technically inferior than its 7 and 10 year old predeccessors in some ways due to consoles should show you how ntensly consoles negatively effect hardcore gaming, and the technological progression of games in general.

Stalkerfieldsis

It's called consolization and it's happened alot before, this isn't new.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

This is disgustingly unnacceptable, having consoles make a game sequel become technically inferior than its 7 and 10 year old predeccessors in some ways due to consoles should show you how ntensly consoles negatively effect hardcore gaming, and the technological progression of games in general.

GD1551

It's called consolization and it's happened alot before, this isn't new.

I know, I'm just trying too show console fanboys how bad the gaming systems they support are for gaming in general. I never said this was a new or radical idea, I just wanted to show a recent and severe example.

Yeah,what a shame.

lol.

.

dont see how this is holding you back...considering there are bigger maps on the PC version of Bf3.

Silly hermits being silly.

blame the developers bud they are the ones who made the game/s. stop crying to console players as if it's their fault.

Look Pc Players Are Douchebags And Console Players Are Scumbags PC FTW!!!Treyarch115z

All gaming platforms and communities have douches and scum, its just that:

PC gaming has : Douches and Scumbags that play better games and know what they are talking about more often and often raise their voice against games being worsened or by companies trying to rip them off.

Console Gaming has: Douches and Scumbags that defend worse gaming experiences, often don't know what they are talking about, and often childish (because they are often actual children rather than just childish adults), they also let their consoel dev's and companies screw them over while still defending them.

PC's A-holes are the lesser of two evils.

dont see how this is holding you back...considering there are bigger maps on the PC version of Bf3.

Silly hermits being silly.

razgriz_101

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

dont see how this is holding you back...considering there are bigger maps on the PC version of Bf3.

Silly hermits being silly.

Stalkerfieldsis

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

dont see how this is holding you back...considering there are bigger maps on the PC version of Bf3.

Silly hermits being silly.

Stalkerfieldsis

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

And do i honestly give a crap.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and just play the goddamn game.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

dont see how this is holding you back...considering there are bigger maps on the PC version of Bf3.

Silly hermits being silly.

senses_fail_06

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

Your so cool bro, I wish I could bash people for making sense and telling the truth, maybe then I could be a wothless a-hole like you.

Do we really need more proof? I think we already have enough.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

dont see how this is holding you back...considering there are bigger maps on the PC version of Bf3.

Silly hermits being silly.

razgriz_101

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

And do i honestly give a crap.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and just play the goddamn game.

Yeah, that's it, let the gaming companies sell you worse and worse games like a good little sheep, don't demand improvements or anything.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

dont see how this is holding you back...considering there are bigger maps on the PC version of Bf3.

Silly hermits being silly.

razgriz_101

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

And do i honestly give a crap.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and just play the goddamn game.

Other people do lol.

.

senses_fail_06

Why cant you read tho?

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

Cloud567kar

And do i honestly give a crap.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and just play the goddamn game.

Other people do lol.

He's got a good point though, we should totally not be insulted by gaming companies giving us worse and worse products for our money...Oh wait!!! That's insanely idiotic!! Nothing a little "U Mad Bro?" GIF's can't cover up amirite console trolls?

BF3 on PC has bigger maps......so no consoles aren't holding PC back.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Read the article:

THE PROBLEM IS THESE MAPS ARE SMALLER THANTEN YEAR OLD MAPS!!!!

I swear you idiots read only what you want to see.

Stalkerfieldsis

And do i honestly give a crap.

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and just play the goddamn game.

Yeah, that's it, let the gaming companies sell you worse and worse games like a good little sheep, don't demand improvements or anything.

I do expect improvement, but this honestly has no effect on you, its not holding YOU back on your oh so superior PC.

Just another angry hermit and that time of the month, thats all im getting from you and your attitude.

What I've learned in Console Wars:

1. Rationality, reason, and manners are a myth.

2. PC gamers are generally asses on this forum, even if we all know they do have prettier graphics(Do I care...?)

3. If you're not boasting graphics, but praise gameplay, story, or anything BUT graphics, then GTFO.

4. If you don't advocate sticking the newest, priciest hardware into a console, then GTFO, and screw business sense.

5. It's my way, or the GTFO way.

I agree though I don't see why map size is such a big deal...

BF3 on PC has bigger maps......so no consoles aren't holding PC back.

Harisemo

No, its slightly larger than consoles and the added area is empty crap, like I said, these maps are far smaller thanTEN YEAR OLD MAPS FROM THE SAME FRANCHISE!!!!

Can you guys not see the problem? Are you that braindead? I paid $60 because I wanted an even better and more advanced BF game, what I got was a game ten years behind in certain aspects. How is thatNOT a problem?

BF3 on PC has bigger maps......so no consoles aren't holding PC back.

Harisemo

Did you read his post? The maps even on PC arent anywhere close to BF2 maps.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

BF3 on PC has bigger maps......so no consoles aren't holding PC back.

Cloud567kar

Did you read his post? The maps even on PC arent anywhere close to BF2 maps.

I would hate to stereotype, but don't bother trying to explain it to him, he's clearly a complete idiot like most console gamers seem to be.

I agree though I don't see why map size is such a big deal...

parkurtommo

Because bigger maps are better than smaller maps.

TC, don't be foolish. The reason for that isnt because the hardware can't handle those old maps, its because the new remakes are much more complex in terms of the graphics, with building destructability, and land deformations, and general garbage added all over the place, that having such a large map isn't possible. Sure, if they directly ported the maps with the old foliage and model details, they could run maps 10x larger.

Its also completely possible that they discovered that some of the maps were just too big and it hindered the fun instead of making it better. It may have been a developers choice instead of a console limitation. Since you just don't know, your argument sounds foolish.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

I agree though I don't see why map size is such a big deal...

Cloud567kar

Because bigger maps are better than smaller maps.

"TC, don't be foolish. The reason for that isnt because the hardware can't handle those old maps, its because the new remakes are much more complex in terms of the graphics, with building destructability, and land deformations, and general garbage added all over the place, that having such a large map isn't possible. Sure, if they directly ported the maps with the old foliage and model details, they could run maps 10x larger."

Then I guess the game ARMA 2 with a destructible COUNTRY as a map doesn't exist huh (or the upcoming ARMA 3 or Planetside 2)? Because clearly a map as large as the BF2 ones are impossible with current graphics and physics being implemented into them accoridng to you.

"Its also completely possible that they discovered that some of the maps were just too big and it hindered the fun instead of making it better. It may have been a developers choice instead of a console limitation. Since you just don't know, your argument sounds foolish."

Do any of you EVER fully read posts? BF2 was never considered boring with these maps, plus infantry would be even more exciting on these sized maps in BF3 because infantry in BF3 has unimited sprint unlike BF2 and infantry run faster in general. Plus, even if they were still boring, they could just enable 128 players for them, but they were too busy making a crappy console experience.

BF3 on PC has bigger maps......so no consoles aren't holding PC back.

Harisemo

[QUOTE="Cloud567kar"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

I agree though I don't see why map size is such a big deal...

parkurtommo

Because bigger maps are better than smaller maps.

Okay, let's suppose that the console versions were never produced. There went half the revenue, perhaps a bit more. Do you really think EA was going to devote the same level of resources to making the game? If you want the larger budgets that multiplatform releases can earn back, then you're going to have to accept that games will be made to run on everyone's hardware. If consoles didn't exist, then you'd have the same situation with games needing to run on integrated graphics in order to reach a large enough audience to recoup their budgets. Or, you can play ARMA 2 and 3, from a studio that caters exclusively to your platform. No one's stopping you. Play Team Fortress 2. Play Planetside 2 when it comes out. We're not holding those games back... how could we?lowe0

Do you really think that once the engine and gamepaly is developed, it cost any major ammount of money to make the maps bigger? I bet the mony spent on adverisements is multiple times greater than what they would spend on making them aps much larger, plus, if the game was more up to PCstandards, the PC version would see even more sales than it has already so while it would still take a decrease from exlcuding consoles it would likely see a large boost in PC sales.

And yes, you are right I could just play those games you listed, but...I have loved BF for years, and I can see how easily BF3's shortcomings could be avoided, as well as the fact that this is just unfair, this was PC's franchise, it was better, why do you consoles have to take our franchises and ruin them? Would you not be upset if hypothetically alot of console exclusives got ruined somehow directly because dev's made it for PC as well? It's a legitimate complaint, PC was the platform where the franchise worked best, PC was the platform that supported the growth and success of the franchise, why turn their backs on PC and disappoint them when the disappojntment could be reasonably avoided?

TC, don't be foolish. The reason for that isnt because the hardware can't handle those old maps, its because the new remakes are much more complex in terms of the graphics, with building destructability, and land deformations, and general garbage added all over the place, that having such a large map isn't possible. Sure, if they directly ported the maps with the old foliage and model details, they could run maps 10x larger.

Its also completely possible that they discovered that some of the maps were just too big and it hindered the fun instead of making it better. It may have been a developers choice instead of a console limitation. Since you just don't know, your argument sounds foolish.

Phazevariance

[QUOTE="Cloud567kar"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

I agree though I don't see why map size is such a big deal...

parkurtommo

Because bigger maps are better than smaller maps.

ARMA 3 has high tech graphics and physics, and a 300+ square kilometer map with thousands of enterable buildings and destructible objects, its e3 build (less optimized than the full game will be) runs on a PC with 8 gigs of RAM, a last gen i7 motherboard, and a gtx 670 or 580 graphics card, specs that I (a not very rich college student) beat in every category but graphics carsd, which I don't beat, but I exactly match (I have a GTX 580). So no, seeing that even if BF3 had maps bigger than BF2 and 1942, it would still be far smaller scale than ARMA 3, its ludicrous to think it wouldn't be able to run on reasonable gaming PC's.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Okay, let's suppose that the console versions were never produced. There went half the revenue, perhaps a bit more. Do you really think EA was going to devote the same level of resources to making the game? If you want the larger budgets that multiplatform releases can earn back, then you're going to have to accept that games will be made to run on everyone's hardware. If consoles didn't exist, then you'd have the same situation with games needing to run on integrated graphics in order to reach a large enough audience to recoup their budgets. Or, you can play ARMA 2 and 3, from a studio that caters exclusively to your platform. No one's stopping you. Play Team Fortress 2. Play Planetside 2 when it comes out. We're not holding those games back... how could we?Stalkerfieldsis

Do you really think that once the engine and gamepaly is developed, it cost any major ammount of money to make the maps bigger? I bet the mony spent on adverisements is multiple times greater than what they would spend on making them aps much larger, plus, if the game was more up to PCstandards, the PC version would see even more sales than it has already so while it would still take a decrease from exlcuding consoles it would likely see a large boost in PC sales.

And yes, you are right I could just play those games you listed, but...I have loved BF for years, and I can see how easily BF3's shortcomings could be avoided, as well as the fact that this is just unfair, this was PC's franchise, it was better, why do you consoles have to take our franchises and ruin them? Would you not be upset if hypothetically alot of console exclusives got ruined somehow directly because dev's made it for PC as well? It's a legitimate complaint, PC was the platform where the franchise worked best, PC was the platform that supported the growth and success of the franchise, why turn their backs on PC and disappoint them when the disappojntment could be reasonably avoided?

Don't hate the player bro. It's your own devs who have sold out.Overlord93

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Okay, let's suppose that the console versions were never produced. There went half the revenue, perhaps a bit more. Do you really think EA was going to devote the same level of resources to making the game? If you want the larger budgets that multiplatform releases can earn back, then you're going to have to accept that games will be made to run on everyone's hardware. If consoles didn't exist, then you'd have the same situation with games needing to run on integrated graphics in order to reach a large enough audience to recoup their budgets. Or, you can play ARMA 2 and 3, from a studio that caters exclusively to your platform. No one's stopping you. Play Team Fortress 2. Play Planetside 2 when it comes out. We're not holding those games back... how could we?lowe0

Do you really think that once the engine and gamepaly is developed, it cost any major ammount of money to make the maps bigger? I bet the mony spent on adverisements is multiple times greater than what they would spend on making them aps much larger, plus, if the game was more up to PCstandards, the PC version would see even more sales than it has already so while it would still take a decrease from exlcuding consoles it would likely see a large boost in PC sales.

And yes, you are right I could just play those games you listed, but...I have loved BF for years, and I can see how easily BF3's shortcomings could be avoided, as well as the fact that this is just unfair, this was PC's franchise, it was better, why do you consoles have to take our franchises and ruin them? Would you not be upset if hypothetically alot of console exclusives got ruined somehow directly because dev's made it for PC as well? It's a legitimate complaint, PC was the platform where the franchise worked best, PC was the platform that supported the growth and success of the franchise, why turn their backs on PC and disappoint them when the disappojntment could be reasonably avoided?

A summary of my Theoretical PC exclusive BF3:

A very popular, beloved exclusive PC franchise sequel coming years since its last PC installment with lots of fans.

Sounds like Diablo 3, which made millions in its first week, if you make a game that isn't watered down console crap and disappointing, it will sell just fine, remember, PC almost makes more than all consoles combined, and makes more than any single console, you are once again under the false belief that PC is far too small to bring in crazy sales, a very ignorant belief, like I said, the budget would not be anywhere near big enough to ruin profit.

Don't cry man we always have Planetside 2 :D

Don't cry man we always have Planetside 2 :D

NoodleFighter

I know, but I've gotten so much enjoyment out of BF for years, its frustrating to see it go to crap.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Don't hate the player bro. It's your own devs who have sold out.Timstuff

More like $600 PC with a single graphics card that is useful for more than just gaming and is an all in one online and entertainment device that can be hooked up to an HDTV and surround system (and controller if that's your thing) with ease. So yeah, its a dumb move to not buy something like that especially when it has a much more positive influence on gaming's future.

If consoles hold back PC then so do the 95% of PC gamers who can't/won't upgrade. It might seem like there are a lot of people on this forum who have solid rigs but they are a minority when you consider the whole of PC gaming, albeit a vocal one.

Cry harder dude, I'm sure that will change things and make what you say true instead of, you know, the childish whining it actually is.