| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (71)

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:34AM KillaPat said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
They should just release the SDK as is after release. I think they would be rather surprised how smart some people are.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:36AM Pod42 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Really hope this does good.
Avid fan of BF2, I've tried CS, MW, BLOPS, AA3, but I always come back to BF2.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 2:14PM Paragon8 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Pod42
When it comes to PC shooters, Battlefield is the reigning king.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:41AM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it's nice that the PC crowd is getting the most attention but I wonder if he regrets saying he is going to fiddle with it to make it work on consoles.

he probably should have worded that better. now I'm a little cautious.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:12PM Hunter141072 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@eat it


and why???the problem with console users is that they don´t want to accept a simple fact.....p.c´s have more power... they ALWAYS WILL, you don´t need to use this as an excuse to find problems on a game that is going to be made for a console and for the p.c. I´m glad dice is a company that accepts the fact that p.c. will always be more powerful than a 5 years old console, and I´m NOT insulting consoles, but you need to face certain facts.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:21PM Integral said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Hunter141072

I think you just completely missed the point of what "eat it" said man
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:37PM Dizazter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Integral

Yeah I think it was bad wording.
But the reality is that it's gonna be a PC to console port. But no one likes ports. PC people hate console to PC ports, and Console people hate PC to console ports.

Borderlands is a good example of that. It was a console to PC port, and multiplayer, a key part of the game, was full on broken on release. Unplayable. Didn't get fixed for MONTHS.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:56PM Cleric said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dizazter

Too bad there's FAR more console to pc ports. Looks like consoles will have to bite the bullet once. Last time they had to bite a bullet was all the way back in 2009 with Dragon Age and look what happened there.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 2:42PM Prboi said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Cleric

The reason for that is that (Depending on the console) it's easier to develop for than PC. PC's are always changing constantly. In the lifespan of the 360 & PS3, the PS3 has been upgraded more than 10 times at least in terms of graphics. If consoles were able to be upgraded (Which I hope to god they don't) then they will compare. PC's are harder to develop for because you have to take into consideration what the player can do. A developer can make a PC game with an extremely powerful computer but it would help sales if people couldn't play it. That's my main problem with PC gaming, the investment that comes with it. I can easily go to the store & buy a PS3 or 360 & be able to play the games I like for a reasonable price. But with PC exclusive titles, I would really need to powerful computer. Granted, a 300 dollar console looks way more appealing than a 600 - 1000 dollar gaming computer. I know many people will tell me that I can buy parts for cheap but why should I have to snoop around for each individual part? I'm not saying consoles are better, but the convenience of not having to worry about individual parts. Developing for consoles is easier because you know what you can do with it. With PC, there is no limit so it makes it hard to determine whether a should go be all it can be at the risk of people not being able to play it.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 2:46PM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hunter141072

I agree a strong PC is more powerful than a console, but I'm pretty sure my power PC Mac Laptop from 2002 will not run this.

knowing that I'm getting a port that is going to be "fiddled with" makes me a little cautious about this game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 3:20PM Hunter141072 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Integral

well, i don´t see any other reason for being "cautious".....
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 5:40PM Hunter141072 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@eat it
I never understand that argument about the NEED of having a state of the art p.c. to run top titles otherwise they won´t work, my p.c. is 4 years old, i have a radeon 38000 hd card, hardly something you can call state of the art, right now you can get those cards here in mexico for less than 50 dollars, that means you can get one on the USA like this one for an empty cereal box and 3 peanuts. To THIS day I´ve played ALL the great titles that have come for the p.c.. dragon age, black ops, arkham, etc... no one has ever gave me any troubles, i keep the requirements for the game very, very high even though i don´t have a top card, and the games work great, sometimes i lower things like shadows, or other small things like particles, but i can tell you the games look 3,000 times better on my old system than on any console that i have seen, so why i can, but other users ( most of them who live in the states and have better and cheaper technology) are always complaining about having to get the latest card for the p.c. otherwise the game won´t work?? because i can tell you that´s crap.
So i do agree that a lap top might not be powerful enough, but you can build a p.c. with a small amount of money and have the best experience that you could get from any of the current consoles.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 7:34PM Hedgeson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hunter141072 It's not about the players having the need to have the latest hardware. The problem is for the developers to make their game compatible with all the different hardware variations. Even for some games that are really stable, there's a hardware combination that will make it crash.
Reply

Posted: Feb 9th 2011 12:32AM Hunter141072 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hedgeson


I don´t really know if it is so difficult to test or not but i was talking about comments like this one on this same thread:

I would really need to powerful computer. Granted, a 300 dollar console looks way more appealing than a 600 - 1000 dollar gaming computer.


and i have seen LOTS of comments like this one, sometimes i wonder if this guys really know what a gfx card is????

Reply

Posted: Feb 9th 2011 12:37AM Draugdraugr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hunter141072

I always get a kick out of it too, it always boggles my mind. I have 3 or 4 friends who were in this mindset, finally I convinced them to put some inexpensive gaming PCs together and they couldn't be happier, and now we get to play games together :)
Reply

Posted: Feb 9th 2011 9:13AM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hunter141072

All I said was the dude probably should have worded his statement better. haha. I'm glad you can game on a cheap PC. I however have no need for a new PC at the moment. so even a cheap one is out of my budget. not to mention the game selection on consoles is more appealing.

Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:47AM Jack Kevorkian said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Arent all EA games on dedicated servers? Terrible dedicated servers?

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:58PM docholoday said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jack Kevorkian
I think they mean dedicated servers like BC2. People could run their own but there were also EA run servers as well. I'll agree that most of the EA servers were lag-fests, but most privately run servers I played on were just fine. The only thing that always worries me is the "server browser" which has always been terrible. Small price to pay.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 7:38PM Hedgeson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jack Kevorkian Dedicated just means you don't need a client to host a game. Dedicated like CounterStrike, BF2, CoD4 etc.
I hope they're more open than they were with BC2. From what I understand, you were forced to get a server from a licensed provider.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:50AM Killerlampshade said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The more I hear about this I feel assured that this really will be the Battlefield 3 we've been waiting for.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:56AM Ninjasoup said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I want to get hyped for this game, but no commander, only four classes, and no assurance on mod tools make this seem more like a sequel to the Bad Company spin-offs than a true Battlefield game. The inclusion of a single-player component to something that's largely a multiplayer experience also worries me.

I hope DICE can prove me wrong.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:00PM Chumley Marchbanks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ninjasoup I think DICE are trying to evolve the series rather than making Battlefield 2.5. Admittedly, the streamlining is probably for the benefit of the console versions (sorry, but it's true), however the many of the classic Battlefield elements are going to be there with some additions that could go either way.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:17PM LazyLemming said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Ninjasoup They've been doing the reduced number of classes since 2142. You just get a lot more customization in each class. BC2 definitely had a lot more options on what you could take, instead of rigid classes determining exactly what gear you had.

All the classes from BF2 can built, it's just not automatic. For example Sniper and Special Ops basically get combined so you can build it either way, or if you so choose, do a sniper with C4 instead of claymores.

I would however have liked to see Commander's fixed rather than removed. Buddy and I were discussing this the other day, and I think a streamlined commander system would be awesome, where they can issue orders like the old days. However, things like artillery strikes and vehicle drops have to be called in by players and then approved. IE for an artillery strike, a player would have to actually paint the target and then the commander would have decide "Yeah that's a good place." or "No that's a stupid target, I'm going to save it."
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 6:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ninjasoup Have they confirmed no commander for this game already? That'd be a huge disappointment :\ Commanders really help tie all the squads together. I can't imagine BF2 without commanders.

I CAN imagine 24 player, lame console shooters without a commander, since most of them probably don't use much teamwork across squads anyways, but it's a pretty big deal with 64 players on huge maps. A team with a commander versus a team with no commander had a HUGE advantage, especially with squads that actually listened to the commander.

I really hope their new squad system is more than 4 players per squad as well. Atleast 6. Again, more players, needs bigger squads. Plus, 4 is just painful for clans and whatnot trying to get together and play.

It sounds like they've got something new in store. Hopefully their new system supports more than 4 per squad and at the same time somehow manages to effectively replace the commander system.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:56AM Mogwai 279 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now if only I could get it for 360 and get a steam copy for free.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:08PM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mogwai 279

Why would you get that?
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:13PM edtheshed said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@eat it possibly a reference to portal 2 and ps3?
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:20PM Mogwai 279 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edtheshed Correct

All my friends play on 360 but I just built my computer so it would be nice to get a copy for that as well.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:32PM Jack Kevorkian said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@eat it Other products do this. Like blurry copies of movies. They come with a DVD copy and a download code I believe.

That would be really cool if developers took that direction. I think you'd see a sales jump in software and in hardware as more people would explore pc options.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 3:00PM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edtheshed

oh I know about portal but, the same people that own portal own steam, so it's basically free advertising for their steam service, in hopes of bringing in PS3 users.

So while they are giving something away they are hoping to sell more games to new users. They're not just being nice. It's like best buy selling CDs at a loss in hopes of getting other sales.

I mean why not ask for a PS3 version with your 360 purchase? doesn't that sound goofy?
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 3:04PM eat it said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@eat it
also wouldn't people just buy the game to get the steam version and then take it back to the store.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 6:13PM Grand Kerfuffle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@eat it

Or just buy the PC version?
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:57AM Chumley Marchbanks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Battlefield 3 is definitely shaping up to be a great resurgence for not only PC shooters but a fantastic series that been shy of the mark for some years. Bad Company 2 was a great game but it just didn't have the scale as the main series; this should set that straight.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:57AM d3sc3nd3ncy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Everyone develops PC first - even games that are not going onto a PC.

It's 1000000000000000000000000 times easier to debug and test a PC vs a console.

Once you get rid of all of the generic bugs, you then go to console specific ones.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 1:51PM Guhungus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@d3sc3nd3ncy

I wish they did that for Alpha Protocol. You'd swear they had the consoles in mind the whole time!
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 6:55PM This Little Man Says His Name Is said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Guhungus

Except the console version is just as shit.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 11:57AM TheCabbage said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm curious as to what the PC specs will be?? And a release date....

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:00PM Ospov said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
BC2 is the first BF game I put a lot of time into, but I'm sure I'll be playing this one a ton. I really want it on PC, but all my friends are on the PS3.

I'll probably end up buying it twice.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:03PM MrKr3w said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ospov Yeah same im getting it on the 360 because all my friends are on that but I may have to buy a new pc and get it on that too lol
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:19PM Ospov said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MrKr3w

Yeah I just now built my first computer so I'm going to be getting a lot more games on PC now. I already have a decent collection on Steam, but I just don't have the friends to play them with so I prefer my PS3 most of the times.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:31PM MrKr3w said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ospov Yeah I got some of the essential steam games, and every battlefield game ever made on the pc but in the last couple years ive stopped playing pc game completely and gave it to my brother and kinda switched to consoles only. although theres nothing like 32V32 battlefield on a pc lol
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 1:52PM Ospov said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MrKr3w

Oh I'm sure. That's why this is probably my most anticipated FPS right now :)
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:02PM MrKr3w said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow I hope they have planes in the console version. I swear I would pay 60$+ for a purely multiplayer battlefield game with up to 32v32 huge maps and planes dedicated servers etc

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Once mod support takes place =

Project Reality in Frostbite 2. My god.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:29PM MrKr3w said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Project reality is hands down my favorite battlefield experience to this day.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:52PM phinn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) actually I was hoping for Desert Combat mod. Granted that may not be needed with how much will probably be in BF3 to begin with.
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:42PM Red Deer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've slowly come to notice all the FPS games i've played and enjoy thouroughly all run off Dedicated servers.

To the point its become natural for me to only lag once in say a 5 hour session. Then i play a game without them and quickly realise why i stopped playing that game in the first place, yes; that second ones a reference to CoD on PS3.

And as a PS3 player (even though i slightly envy it) Its nice to see them focusing the attention on the PC audience which got the series to where it is today.

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:53PM theydidntnameme said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i dont get it. they dont need to dumb down their development tools for public release. they could release it without any documentation whatsoever. and people will still figure out how to use it and create phenomenal new battlefield experiences. alot of people that mess with these tools are the type that end up being hired by these companies because their work is so spectacular.

Posted: Feb 9th 2011 7:58AM DarkRamint said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
True
Reply

Posted: Feb 8th 2011 12:58PM iceveiled said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Prove it's a TRUE PC game: Price it $49.95

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW