More proof consoles are holding back the potential of PC.

Boof*ckinghoo

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[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.

Stalkerfieldsis

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.

Bad for gaming in general?

Or your own selfish needs.

Silly Hermits.

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

TopTierHustler

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

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.

Stalkerfieldsis

Yes, and similar slaes could be achieved on PC if DICE gave us a truly quality product.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

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

GOGOGOGURT

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.

Bad for gaming in general?

Or your own selfish needs.

Silly Hermits.

Guess what Hermits. Nothing is stopping developers from making games you a-holes approve of. I guess developers really could care less about you guys.

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.

Stalkerfieldsis

Guess what Hermits. Nothing is stopping developers from making games you a-holes approve of. I guess developers really could care less about you guys.

WarTornRuston

lol true

Most high profile devs dont give a fvck about PC gaming anymore. You hermits must accept your opinions are worthless to them. You only relly on indie and "stick it to the big men (i.e. big corps.)" because they dont give a fvck about you. Thats why you're turning into gaming hipsters: Cause no one gives a fvck about what you think

[QUOTE="WarTornRuston"]

Guess what Hermits. Nothing is stopping developers from making games you a-holes approve of. I guess developers really could care less about you guys.

4dr1el

lol true

Most high profile devs dont give a fvck about PC gaming anymore. You hermits must accept your opinions are worthless to them. You only relly on indie and "stick it to the big men (i.e. big corps.)" because they dont give a fvck about you. Thats why you're turning into gaming hipsters: Cause no one gives a fvck about what you think

Since when do PC games solely rely on Indie? I guess we should tell Activision/EA/Ubisoft/Valve to go stick it, eh?

[QUOTE="WarTornRuston"]

Guess what Hermits. Nothing is stopping developers from making games you a-holes approve of. I guess developers really could care less about you guys.

4dr1el

lol true

Most high profile devs dont give a fvck about PC gaming anymore. You hermits must accept your opinions are worthless to them. You only relly on indie and "stick it to the big men (i.e. big corps.)" because they dont give a fvck about you. Thats why you're turning into gaming hipsters: Cause no one gives a fvck about what you think

if what hermits say is true pc market is soo much bigger and generate alot more revenue than console. there no way console have that much influence .

if what hermits say is true pc market is soo much bigger and generate alot more revenue than console. there no way console have that much influence .

legol1

The lack of perception some people have here truly scares me. Never have I seen so much wrong come from both sides of an argument.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

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

GOGOGOGURT

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.

Bad for gaming in general?

Or your own selfish needs.

Silly Hermits.

Wanting quality and improvements for products I buy=selfish?something that holds back the technology and progress of the industry is not bad for gaming?I see, so its the norm to just pony up for mediocre sh*t and be the game developers b*tch. I'll take note of your frighteningly backwards logic as proof that console gamers are predominantly becoming complete idiots.

You people see the uncomfortable truth in fornt of you and what do you do? Instead of do something to fix it or address it you just attack me. You really are a bunch of butthurt idiots in denial who are too lazy to try to demand something better and get into a better platform.

if what hermits say is true pc market is soo much bigger and generate alot more revenue than console. there no way console have that much influence .

legol1

The answer, the big three companies oversaturate marketing and bribe devs to exclude PC's or other platforms, PC is big, there just isn't some single oppressive corporation shoving that fact doen your throat like Sony, MS, and Nintendo do, except ironically, PC is the only truly quality gaming device out of those choices.

I mean really has gaming come to this?Bewareoffalling

You mean people defending mediocrity? Yes.

Look, I don't disagree with you, I really don't. I agree that consoles are holding back the PC, which sucks for people who bought expensive rigs only to have their experience dampered by the 99%. I feel ya, first world problems.

But your argument is terrible. Look at the GTA series. GTA: VC was bigger than GTA III, and GTA: SA was bigger still. But GTA IV was smaller than GTA: SA. What was holding GTA IV back?

Battlefield is just like that, there were a lot more details in the game world. I'm sure the PS3 could run Battlefield 2's maps, so sheer size of maps isn't the best example of consoles holding back the PC.

Crysis 2 however, now THAT is a perfect example.

[QUOTE="WarTornRuston"]

Guess what Hermits. Nothing is stopping developers from making games you a-holes approve of. I guess developers really could care less about you guys.

4dr1el

lol true

Most high profile devs dont give a fvck about PC gaming anymore. You hermits must accept your opinions are worthless to them. You only relly on indie and "stick it to the big men (i.e. big corps.)" because they dont give a fvck about you. Thats why you're turning into gaming hipsters: Cause no one gives a fvck about what you think

us consolites dont care about pc's potential

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

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.

Stalkerfieldsis

Bad for gaming in general?

Or your own selfish needs.

Silly Hermits.

Wanting quality and improvements for products I buy=selfish?something that holds back the technology and progress of the industry is not bad for gaming?I see, so its the norm to just pony up for mediocre sh*t and be the game developers b*tch. I'll take note of your frighteningly backwards logic as proof that console gamers are predominantly becoming complete idiots.

You people see the uncomfortable truth in fornt of you and what do you do? Instead of do something to fix it or address it you just attack me. You really are a bunch of butthurt idiots in denial who are too lazy to try to demand something better and get into a better platform.

its laughable you call us butthurt, with your attitude of personal attacks, the childish arguements and the typical self entitled attitude most hermits on here possess especially yourself.On this board you idiots seem to think the industry should revolve around you and discredit anything that doesnt go in your favour.

Also the fact you've steam rolled over a few plausible arguements with the b-b-b-but a 10 year old game has biggger maps is equally as laughable and honestly still makes you look like the self entiled,selfish little cretin of a human being you really are.

[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.

You can play on servers that only allow squad leader spawn.

Vehice transport spawning was in 2142 as well.

Deployable spawnpoints was in 2142 as well, and is a GREAT tactical option, if used properly.

Faster spriting and infinite sprint is a good thing, it's boring to move slowly.

BF3 is great as it is, and it's the best in the series.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] It's pretty obvious you never played BF2. I bet you never even touched a game on PC. As I said before, the vanilla maps are marginally bigger on PC. Adding 1 or 2 flags and increasing the boundaries slightly is nothing drastic. The only true 64 player maps in BF3 are the B2K maps. Unless you've played both versions of the maps. I suggest you shut the **** up. Jebus213

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.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that prefer BF3 to BF2/2142.

Snipers are never a big issue in BF3. They usually cancel each other.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Do you have enough data to support this claim?

Jebus213

Then look at how developers treat the PC as a tertiary platform.

You think THEY don't have the data?

It's their business to know what sells where.

Game costs X dollars to make.

They're not gonna focus on the PC where they'll make the least money.

They'll focus on consoles, and then port to PC for additional revenue.

That's how it is.

Big companies direct this industry in search of profit.

Not in search of the best result for you.

Think about this.

On the Xbox360, Microsoft makes a cut off EVERY GAME SOLD.

They make subscription money.

They make advertising money.

What do they make off PC? Nothing.

So of course they focus on the consoles, and strategically they force developers to focus on consoles.

If you are going to blame consoles you might as well get your torches and pitchforks out to protest every PC gamer who has a GPU weaker than a 9800GT. Oh, but then that would ruin your agenda. Magescrew

That too.

Protest people with low spec PC's for ruining the experience on your expensive rig.

Bottom line, technological progress doesn't HAVE to be a breakneck pace.

In fact it's worse for the %99 when that happens.

The %1 want faster harder more.

The %99 are ok with more mediocre specs.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]just look at vgchartz

ZombieKiller7

Then look at how developers treat the PC as a tertiary platform.

You think THEY don't have the data?

It's their business to know what sells where.

Game costs X dollars to make.

They're not gonna focus on the PC where they'll make the least money.

They'll focus on consoles, and then port to PC for additional revenue.

That's how it is.

Big companies direct this industry in search of profit.

Not in search of the best result for you.

Think about this.

On the Xbox360, Microsoft makes a cut off EVERY GAME SOLD.

They make subscription money.

They make advertising money.

What do they make off PC? Nothing.

So of course they focus on the consoles, and strategically they force developers to focus on consoles.

So they don't make money off PC Gamers getting their OS?

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] VGChartz doesn't include everything especially Digital Download and the NPD just added Wal-mart. VGChartz is incredibly unreliable. Console sales aren't even accurate. NoodleFighter

Then look at how developers treat the PC as a tertiary platform.

You think THEY don't have the data?

It's their business to know what sells where.

Game costs X dollars to make.

They're not gonna focus on the PC where they'll make the least money.

They'll focus on consoles, and then port to PC for additional revenue.

That's how it is.

Big companies direct this industry in search of profit.

Not in search of the best result for you.

Think about this.

On the Xbox360, Microsoft makes a cut off EVERY GAME SOLD.

They make subscription money.

They make advertising money.

What do they make off PC? Nothing.

So of course they focus on the consoles, and strategically they force developers to focus on consoles.

So they don't make money off PC Gamers getting their OS?

You'll get their OS whether you play on the system or not.

They don't make anything from you playing games on Windows.

Eventually they'll find a way to charge a subscription and get a cut off every game in the Windows environment.

At which point they might drop their console and just focus on PC gaming.

We'll see what happens with Windows 8 and Xbox720.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] VGChartz doesn't include everything especially Digital Download and the NPD just added Wal-mart. VGChartz is incredibly unreliable. Console sales aren't even accurate. NoodleFighter

Then look at how developers treat the PC as a tertiary platform.

You think THEY don't have the data?

It's their business to know what sells where.

Game costs X dollars to make.

They're not gonna focus on the PC where they'll make the least money.

They'll focus on consoles, and then port to PC for additional revenue.

That's how it is.

Big companies direct this industry in search of profit.

Not in search of the best result for you.

Think about this.

On the Xbox360, Microsoft makes a cut off EVERY GAME SOLD.

They make subscription money.

They make advertising money.

What do they make off PC? Nothing.

So of course they focus on the consoles, and strategically they force developers to focus on consoles.

So they don't make money off PC Gamers getting their OS?

Crysis 2 however, now THAT is a perfect example RandomWinner

[QUOTE="legol1"]

if what hermits say is true pc market is soo much bigger and generate alot more revenue than console. there no way console have that much influence .

Stalkerfieldsis

The answer, the big three companies oversaturate marketing and bribe devs to exclude PC's or other platforms, PC is big, there just isn't some single oppressive corporation shoving that fact doen your throat like Sony, MS, and Nintendo do, except ironically, PC is the only truly quality gaming device out of those choices.

[QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

[QUOTE="legol1"]

if what hermits say is true pc market is soo much bigger and generate alot more revenue than console. there no way console have that much influence .

legol1

The answer, the big three companies oversaturate marketing and bribe devs to exclude PC's or other platforms, PC is big, there just isn't some single oppressive corporation shoving that fact doen your throat like Sony, MS, and Nintendo do, except ironically, PC is the only truly quality gaming device out of those choices.

I wouldn't mind that, for example, if DICE made BF3 on PC and Bad Company 3 on consoels than niether games could bre ruined by trying to please two different platforms. and like I said saying people with weak gaming PC's hold back gaming is stupid, I can't think of an example of a PC game ruined by catering to people with weak PC's, maybe most games aren't catered to the absolute top tier gaming rigs, but still, the hardware limitation devs deal with on PC is a moving target, the hardware gets better and the limitations shrink every year.

And like I said, why is wanting good games or at least ones better than in the past selfish? Isn't that just asking for common progression? Aren't all things supposed to get better in substance as time goes on?

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

[QUOTE="legol1"][QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

The answer, the big three companies oversaturate marketing and bribe devs to exclude PC's or other platforms, PC is big, there just isn't some single oppressive corporation shoving that fact doen your throat like Sony, MS, and Nintendo do, except ironically, PC is the only truly quality gaming device out of those choices.

Stalkerfieldsis

I wouldn't mind that, for example, if DICE made BF3 on PC and Bad Company 3 on consoels than niether games could bre ruined by trying to please two different platforms. and like I said saying people with weak gaming PC's hold back gaming is stupid, I can't think of an example of a PC game ruined by catering to people with weak PC's, maybe most games aren't catered to the absolute top tier gaming rigs, but still, the hardware limitation devs deal with on PC is a moving target, the hardware gets better and the limitations shrink every year.

And like I said, why is wanting good games or at least ones better than in the past selfish? Isn't that just asking for common progression? Aren't all things supposed to get better in substance as time goes on?

Why did this thread get this many replies?

Wasdie

TC kept lashing out at everyone who disagreed with him. :P

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Wasdie

Wouldn't it be easy to prove or disprove the TC's premise by comparing the Karkand map from both Battlefield games?

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Wasdie

What the f*ck else do you want as proof? That's a HELLUVALOT smaller and this is PROOF!

BF3's map is LITERALLY just the distance between three bases on a map wirth 8 spread out bases. It's right there, just because you SAY I have no proof doesn't change that I do.

[QUOTE="MicrosoftRules"]

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

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?

This has nothing to do with logic. Technology has its own pace, anyone in robotics will tell you that computing power doubles every 18 months; fact.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Stalkerfieldsis

What the f*ck else do you want as proof? That's a HELLUVALOT smaller and this is PROOF!

BF3's map is LITERALLY just the distance between three bases on a map wirth 8 spread out bases. It's right there, just because you SAY I have no proof doesn't change that I do.

Wow, you're thick.

You posted the same map that has no merit. It's a paint map, no size comparisons at all.

Just stop, you really look stupid.

Wouldn't it be easy to prove or disprove the TC's premise by comparing the Karkand map from both Battlefield games?

jun_aka_pekto

Those were shrunk down...considerably, in fact it would be more pathetic because Strike at Karkand is much smaller than Zatar wetlands, but it was still shrunk down because of consoles, heres another demonstration.

[QUOTE="legol1"][QUOTE="Stalkerfieldsis"]

The answer, the big three companies oversaturate marketing and bribe devs to exclude PC's or other platforms, PC is big, there just isn't some single oppressive corporation shoving that fact doen your throat like Sony, MS, and Nintendo do, except ironically, PC is the only truly quality gaming device out of those choices.

Stalkerfieldsis

I wouldn't mind that, for example, if DICE made BF3 on PC and Bad Company 3 on consoels than niether games could bre ruined by trying to please two different platforms. and like I said saying people with weak gaming PC's hold back gaming is stupid, I can't think of an example of a PC game ruined by catering to people with weak PC's, maybe most games aren't catered to the absolute top tier gaming rigs, but still, the hardware limitation devs deal with on PC is a moving target, the hardware gets better and the limitations shrink every year.

And like I said, why is wanting good games or at least ones better than in the past selfish? Isn't that just asking for common progression? Aren't all things supposed to get better in substance as time goes on?

Hmm...seems appropriate. :cool:

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Stalkerfieldsis

What the f*ck else do you want as proof? That's a HELLUVALOT smaller and this is PROOF!

BF3's map is LITERALLY just the distance between three bases on a map wirth 8 spread out bases. It's right there, just because you SAY I have no proof doesn't change that I do.

What map is this? It's not in vanilla BF3 or B2K. Never played it.

Wow. I have to say that TC is a total idiot. The maps in BF3 are not that small, this whole thread is based upon a false premise. His "proof" is some map made in Paint that has no merit.

He just hates BF3 and needs some false excuses to justify his hate. Why did this thread get this many replies?

Wasdie

The maps in BF3 are not that smalWasdie