Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

69. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 11, 2011, 06:38 Muscular Beaver
Jerykk wrote on Jul 11, 2011, 05:38:
Its not hard to say, since DICE already said they will be 4 x 4 km max.

Okay. That sounds pretty big to me but I'm not very good with metrics. How big were the maps in BF2?

BTW, where did you get those numbers from? According to this (and several other) sites, the PC version of BF3 will have larger maps than the console versions. That makes sense, given that it will support more than twice as many players.
Big? 4x4 km dont allow that much of tactical options, especially with vehicles and planes.
BF2 maps were smaller. PR maps were about as big.
That info is running around in forums. I read it myself in some interview myself but I dont remember where. That size was for the PC version.

As for the simultaneous release not suggesting a lead platform: How has it been done in the past 5 years since consoles are the lead platform and how was it before when there were still games that had the PC as lead platform? Go figure.

Back when PC was still the lead platform for a lot of genres, multiplatform development was pretty rare. The vast majority of games were initially platform-exclusive. Ports were eventually made, sure, but they were always significantly delayed. This applied to both PC-to-console and console-to-PC ports. These days, ports are developed while the game itself is being developed. That's what multiplatform development means. A simultaneous release does not equate to console being the lead SKU any more than it suggests that PC is the lead SKU. The only thing it suggests is that the ports were started early in the dev cycle.
Youre mixing things up. PC to console games were only delayed because they were planned and started later, based on PC sales. Yes, the PC was actually used for that at some time.
Console to PC games were delayed because at that time developers actually still tried to make it a good PC experience, and that took its time. Of course there were the rare occasion where people whined so much that they decided to make a PC port afterwards, which then turned out to something like Halo.

No its not based on that argument. You just put it that way. Stop putting that crap in my mouth and read my posts again. Those were examples and things that for me define the typical console game. There are a lot of other things that make a PC game out of something. Especially the gameplay and use of power potential. BF3 isnt using anything of it. Its a simple console shooter tweaked a bit for the PC.

You've repeatedly cited linear and highly scripted level design as proof of a console focus. That's simply not true, as proven by that long list of linear and highly scripted games I listed that used PC as the lead SKU.

There are many things that are symptomatic of consolitis: QTEs, huge text and icons, text-based inventories, radial menus, low-res textures, 30 FPS framerate caps, lack of mouse and hotkey support, etc. Linear and highly scripted level design is not one of those things.
Sorry if it came over that way, but for me console games are all easily recognizable by their simple gameplay. And that includes the stuff I mentioned most of the time.
That list consists of very old games except for one. Thats no proof for anything, if at all its proof for my side.
As I said you completely ignore the PC ACTUAL potentials. You cant compared them to the PC from that timeframe. I mean if that logic was true, we would still play Doom 2-like games.

I don't know if you've been to E3 recently but pretty much all multiplatform games are shown exclusively on console. You'll see X360 and PS3 versions of the games all around but PC? Not so much. Seriously, you won't find any kiosks showing off the PC version. Not a single one. Except for BF3, that is. That was the only multiplatform game being shown on PC. Not only that, but it was only shown on PC. That alone is a pretty good indication that PC is the lead SKU.

Ive never been to E3. Its a little too far from here.
Even if that is true, I dont see it being an indicator for anything except a try to show the game from its best side. I never said the PC version would look as bad or worse than the console version. I mean they said they would put more effort in the PC version. So, if thats true, they are just showing the best side of their product. But with the generic games today I completely understand to not show it on the PC since it looks almost the same on PC as it looks on consoles, and its much less effort and actually cheaper to bring a console to an exhibition instead of an PC. Not to mention for gameplay testing purposes, since especially in the US PC gaming is just a small fraction of console gaming.

Im just saying that there have been more than enough claims in the last years that this or that game has the PC as lead platform or that extra work has been put into the PC version, but almost all of them exposed as just superficially tweaked console ports or PC games with very noticeable console limitations. And those that actually were real PC games, came from developers that were known to make only PC games anyway.
Avatar 12928
Waiting for BIS to come back to their senses and do a real ArmA 2 successor.
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo