More proof consoles are holding back the potential of PC.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="MicrosoftRules"]

Nobody is holding back PC, technology has it's own pace.

razgriz_101

Yes so being ten years behind is just technology's pace? So you are saying Technology is moving backwards? Why do you even try to seem right when you are this illogical?

What PC gamers fail to realise, they arent the only consumers in gaming.

Tech is moving forward and its clear, just because a maps went a bit smaller and your throwing a hissy fit like a toddler in a toy shop because your not getting your way isnt going to help you.

Way too understate the truth AGAIN!! Once again, the MAPS ARE SMALLER THAN 10 YEAR OLD MAPS!!! How does anyone not absolutely braindead, idiotic, stupid, and mentally handicapped view that as "a bit smaller"? Please leave, all this intelligent discussion iss just going to further confuse you. You are obviously mentally incapable of actually seeing the magnitude of the problem.

Consoles have been holding back PCs since 2007. Console gens should last 4 or 5 years, 6 at most.

Doesnt change the fact that console games in 2012 still look great, though.

collateral damage?

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="Cloud567kar"]

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

Jebus213

BF3 is clearly a PC game and the fact that PC version has bigger maps then console clearly shows console didn't hold back the devs. BF2 maps sucked anyways

I question if you really played BF3 all that much. Operation Firestorm and Kharg Island work very well with 64 players. Sharqi Peninsula is almost unplayable with 64 players and 64 on Strike at Karkand is also too much IMO.

I haven't played BF2 so I can't compare, but I have played 2142 for hundreds of hours, and BF3 is much much better. I can only hope for a 2143.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Yes so being ten years behind is just technology's pace? So you are saying Technology is moving backwards? Why do you even try to seem right when you are this illogical?

Stalkerfieldsis

What PC gamers fail to realise, they arent the only consumers in gaming.

Tech is moving forward and its clear, just because a maps went a bit smaller and your throwing a hissy fit like a toddler in a toy shop because your not getting your way isnt going to help you.

Way too understate the truth AGAIN!! Once again, the MAPS ARE SMALLER THAN 10 YEAR OLD MAPS!!! How does anyone not absolutely braindead, idiotic, stupid, and mentally handicapped view that as "a bit smaller"? Please leave, all this intelligent discussion iss just going to further confuse you. You are obviously mentally incapable of actually seeing the magnitude of the problem.

Armored Kill will feature the biggest BF map EVER! What do you have to say now? Haters gonna hate I guess.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Yes so being ten years behind is just technology's pace? So you are saying Technology is moving backwards? Why do you even try to seem right when you are this illogical?

Stalkerfieldsis

What PC gamers fail to realise, they arent the only consumers in gaming.

Tech is moving forward and its clear, just because a maps went a bit smaller and your throwing a hissy fit like a toddler in a toy shop because your not getting your way isnt going to help you.

Way too understate the truth AGAIN!! Once again, the MAPS ARE SMALLER THAN 10 YEAR OLD MAPS!!! How does anyone not absolutely braindead, idiotic, stupid, and mentally handicapped view that as "a bit smaller"? Please leave, all this intelligent discussion iss just going to further confuse you. You are obviously mentally incapable of actually seeing the magnitude of the problem.

i feel sorry for you, love to see you get knocked off that pedestal i sure bet its cold and lonely up there.

Honest to god i have no sympathy for people like you, come back to planet earth and get a bloody grip you cretin.

Explain Armored kill then...

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

What PC gamers fail to realise, they arent the only consumers in gaming.

Tech is moving forward and its clear, just because a maps went a bit smaller and your throwing a hissy fit like a toddler in a toy shop because your not getting your way isnt going to help you.

nunovlopes

Way too understate the truth AGAIN!! Once again, the MAPS ARE SMALLER THAN 10 YEAR OLD MAPS!!! How does anyone not absolutely braindead, idiotic, stupid, and mentally handicapped view that as "a bit smaller"? Please leave, all this intelligent discussion iss just going to further confuse you. You are obviously mentally incapable of actually seeing the magnitude of the problem.

Armored Kill will feature the biggest BF map EVER! What do you have to say now? Haters gonna hate I guess.

Like I said, DICE has already broken MANY promises, so them saying that is just talk, and talk is cheap b itself, they have no evidence to back it.

Like I also said, is that all you got? Something an unreliable (in the past few years, used to be awesome) developer says with no evidence?

Even if Armored kill will fullfill that promise, the BF3 now has maps that are...once again...SMALLER THAN TEN YEARS AGO!!! So the game is terrible in that regard right now. And making a crap vanilla game that is somewhat redeemed by extra, priced DLC releasing nearly a year later is also hardly good or acceptable at all

collateral damage?

mccoyca112

That FEMA check should be coming to PC gamers any day now....

Explain Armored kill then...

Maneil99

A probably false promise that still doesn't make up for a game that at release and for many months afterward had horrid map offerings and many other shortcomings over predecessors brought on by multiplat developement. That is the explanation.

Here let me make the sane post. Battlefield 3 on PC was not held back by consoles when it comes to map sizes. DICE have already said that they want Battlefield 3 to be more action-based than the previous main Battlefield entries. Having big maps like in Battlefield 2 would have slowed down the action and would have spent most of the time trying to get to the action, instead of being in the action. A lot of people on PC and console don't like traveling for 1 (car) - 5 minutes(walking) to get the other side of the map. This is why the maps in Battlefield 3 are more compact. :) ShadowDeathX

Squad spawning, vehicle trasport spawning, deployable spawnpoints, faster sprinting than older BF's and infinite sprint, your point is now invalid. Also, people should try expanding their attention span beyond that of a 12 year old. I'm hardly the most patient person and getting around the bigger BF maps never annoyed/bored me.

Oh look, another thread that says "proof" that has no proof.

Oh look, another thread that says "proof" that has no proof.

jimkabrhel

Look, I won't break down EVERY piece of evidence for stupid people with no reading comprehension who may also be in denial but, for example, biggest argument I made:

BF3 has smaller maps than its 10 year old predecessor.----> FACT AKA PROOF!!

There are all kinds of truths in my arguments if you read them and don't automatically dismiss them out of bias.

consolization is retarded

that like porting a nes game to an arcade in 1989 when the arcade version should be supposed to be 16 bit but is 8 bit instead.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Seeing as you could have gotten similar performance from a cheaper purchase I don't see how I didn't.

Stalkerfieldsis

GTX 590 has a similar or less price than $840 (dependig on the edition) and is comparable.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

BF3 is clearly a PC game and the fact that PC version has bigger maps then console clearly shows console didn't hold back the devs. BF2 maps sucked anyways

nunovlopes

I question if you really played BF3 all that much. Operation Firestorm and Kharg Island work very well with 64 players. Sharqi Peninsula is almost unplayable with 64 players and 64 on Strike at Karkand is also too much IMO.

I haven't played BF2 so I can't compare, but I have played 2142 for hundreds of hours, and BF3 is much much better. I can only hope for a 2143.

Consoles just hold back gaming in general...

>.>

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] This ought to be good. What cheaper solution do you suggest that runs BF3 faster at 5760x1080?lowe0

GTX 590 has a similar or less price than $840 (dependig on the edition) and is comparable.

I just saw new GTX 590 on EVGA or PNY a couple of days ago, and 3gb of VRAM is good for that resolution and who cares about it being older if it still works fine and is cheaper, plus, when that becomes obsolete you can get another 590 for SLI in the future when its probably very cheap.

Explain Armored kill then...

Maneil99

[QUOTE="Maneil99"]

Explain Armored kill then...

Jebus213

Once again, the AC130 is yet another sign of BF3 being10 YEARS BEHINDbecause BF1942 ten years ago had a fully flyable B17 full-size, multi-engine bomber which is pretty much as difficult to imlement as a fully flyable AC130.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

GTX 590 has a similar or less price than $840 (dependig on the edition) and is comparable.

Stalkerfieldsis

I just saw new GTX 590 on EVGA or PNY a couple of days ago, and 3gb of VRAM is good for that resolution and who cares about it being older if it still works fine and is cheaper, plus, when that becomes obsolete you can get another 590 for SLI in the future when its probably very cheap.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] A GTX 590 would have been VRAM-limited at 5760x1080. They only have 1.5GB per GPU. I would have been better off staying with my old 2GB 560 TIs. On top of that, they're not cheap; the cheapest listing on Google Shopper is $697, and they're out of stock. The cheapest I could find it in-stock at Amazon was $700, and that was used. So, I would have saved $140, and been stuck with older GPUs, less VRAM, and used hardware. Wow, what a bargain.lowe0

I just saw new GTX 590 on EVGA or PNY a couple of days ago, and 3gb of VRAM is good for that resolution and who cares about it being older if it still works fine and is cheaper, plus, when that becomes obsolete you can get another 590 for SLI in the future when its probably very cheap.

You got me there, I forgot you can't SLI 590's very feasibly. But from what I've seen a 590 will do you fine for your needs, and is comparable to SLI 670's.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="Maneil99"]

Explain Armored kill then...

Stalkerfieldsis

Once again, the AC130 is yet another sign of BF3 being10 YEARS BEHINDbecause BF1942 ten years ago had a fully flyable B17 full-size, multi-engine bomber which is pretty much as difficult to imlement as a fully flyable AC130.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] They finally listened? Also the AC130 is going to be on the rails...Jebus213

Once again, the AC130 is yet another sign of BF3 being10 YEARS BEHINDbecause BF1942 ten years ago had a fully flyable B17 full-size, multi-engine bomber which is pretty much as difficult to imlement as a fully flyable AC130.

Exactly, that was a player created mod 8 years ago, when a big budget 2012 game is inferior to that how isn't that pathetic?

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

I just saw new GTX 590 on EVGA or PNY a couple of days ago, and 3gb of VRAM is good for that resolution and who cares about it being older if it still works fine and is cheaper, plus, when that becomes obsolete you can get another 590 for SLI in the future when its probably very cheap.

Stalkerfieldsis

You got me there, I forgot you can't SLI 590's very feasibly. But from what I've seen a 590 will do you fine for your needs, and is comparable to SLI 670's.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

Once again, the AC130 is yet another sign of BF3 being10 YEARS BEHINDbecause BF1942 ten years ago had a fully flyable B17 full-size, multi-engine bomber which is pretty much as difficult to imlement as a fully flyable AC130.

Stalkerfieldsis

Exactly, that was a player created mod 8 years ago, when a big budget 2012 game is inferior to that how isn't that pathetic?

Consoles just hold back gaming in general...

>.>

mitu123

consoles hold handhelds back and mobile gaming?

consoles hold themselves back?

consoleception

Muahahaha, yes, yes, cower before the might of the consoles! You shall never see your precious large maps again while we're on top!DarthBilf

Muahahaha, yes, yes, cower before the might of the consoles! You shall never see your precious large maps again while we're on top!DarthBilf

We shall not be moved!

:P

...

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.

Stalkerfieldsis

Then you should not support that game instead support a game that has what you want in it, Like Arma 3.

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.Stalkerfieldsis

At this point, why do we give a sh*t Seriously, TC meet dead horse.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Consoles just hold back gaming in general...

>.>

whiskeystrike

consoles hold handhelds back and mobile gaming?

consoles hold themselves back?

consoleception

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Here let me make the sane post. Battlefield 3 on PC was not held back by consoles when it comes to map sizes. DICE have already said that they want Battlefield 3 to be more action-based than the previous main Battlefield entries. Having big maps like in Battlefield 2 would have slowed down the action and would have spent most of the time trying to get to the action, instead of being in the action. A lot of people on PC and console don't like traveling for 1 (car) - 5 minutes(walking) to get the other side of the map. This is why the maps in Battlefield 3 are more compact. :) Stalkerfieldsis

Squad spawning, vehicle trasport spawning, deployable spawnpoints, faster sprinting than older BF's and infinite sprint, your point is now invalid. Also, people should try expanding their attention span beyond that of a 12 year old. I'm hardly the most patient person and getting around the bigger BF maps never annoyed/bored me.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Here let me make the sane post. Battlefield 3 on PC was not held back by consoles when it comes to map sizes. DICE have already said that they want Battlefield 3 to be more action-based than the previous main Battlefield entries. Having big maps like in Battlefield 2 would have slowed down the action and would have spent most of the time trying to get to the action, instead of being in the action. A lot of people on PC and console don't like traveling for 1 (car) - 5 minutes(walking) to get the other side of the map. This is why the maps in Battlefield 3 are more compact. :) ShadowDeathX

Squad spawning, vehicle trasport spawning, deployable spawnpoints, faster sprinting than older BF's and infinite sprint, your point is now invalid. Also, people should try expanding their attention span beyond that of a 12 year old. I'm hardly the most patient person and getting around the bigger BF maps never annoyed/bored me.

PC gamers don't buy as many games and pirate way way more than console gamers.

Of course they're gonna get more focus.

PC gamers don't buy as many games

TopTierHustler

Do you have enough data to support this claim?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

PC gamers don't buy as many games

lundy86_4

Do you have enough data to support this claim?

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

PC gamers don't buy as many games

TopTierHustler

Do you have enough data to support this claim?

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

PC gamers don't buy as many games

TopTierHustler

Do you have enough data to support this claim?

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

PC gamers don't buy as many games

TopTierHustler

Do you have enough data to support this claim?

So, no?

Provide evidence for your claims. BTW, VGChartz doesn't provide DD sales datae :)

Q_Q

Cry moar hermits

Right, I thought I'd hear something like this...

Right, I thought I'd hear something like this...

TopTierHustler

Who cares. BF 2 is balls and so is BF3.

Actually, to be fair, I've only just bought BF2, so it isn't like I played it in its heyday. 2142 seems like it would be really cool if there were more than 80 people playing it.

Right, I thought I'd hear something like this...

TopTierHustler

Right, I thought I'd hear something like this...

TopTierHustler

Well, you'd have to have a negative IQ to not think it... You didn't provide any evidence FFS :lol: