We'll see. It's all speculation at this point. WE DON'T KNOW what their plans are and they might not either.

If Dice makes BF3 a lead PC platform title it will be their first in how many years? Dice is going to make BF3 a lead sku on the consoles and port it to the PC like every other game they've done over the last few years. (Lead sku for consoles, some titles never make it to PC)

BF1943 is probably going to be a preview of BF3. It appears to maintain the legacy gameplay we saw in 1942, BF2, 2142, where each army fights to control the map from one end to the other. At this point there is just no way that BF3 would be a PC title exclusively, or even as a lead for the multiplatform game.

If anything the PS3 with that MAG game seems better suited to recreating a 64+ player server to really bring the BF2 gameplay to consoles. I'd like to see that concept exploited on the xbox as well...

But BF3 on the PC? EA would never spend the money on a PC game when they can make more on a console game. BFBC2 is going to sell huge numbers, and they will keep making games for the consoles and making more and more money each time.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 13:40.

You're assuming that DICE still has an interest in making games for the PC. Even if they do, money is law and no publisher with a choice will choose to reduce potential profits. In this case, EA owns DICE so DICE doesn't really have any say in the matter.

DICE could be thinking that they have the current console generation engine in a polished state for BC and BC2. BF3 could be seen as a development foundation for the next generation consoles which will likely have DX11 technology, etc. So maybe they have no intentions to develop BF3 for the current consoles. We'll see. It's all speculation at this point. WE DON'T KNOW what their plans are and they might not either.

While having EA axe an admittedly inefficient way of making games seems the most likely choice normally, they may just let them have their way.

You're assuming that DICE still has an interest in making games for the PC. Even if they do, money is law and no publisher with a choice will choose to reduce potential profits. In this case, EA owns DICE so DICE doesn't really have any say in the matter.

I think there's a chance that we'll get a real Battlefield game on the PC.

While having EA axe an admittedly inefficient way of making games seems the most likely choice normally, they may just let them have their way.

The thing is, 360 is usually the most polished version because it's almost always the lead SKU. The other SKUs don't even get touched until milestones and even then the PC version doesn't get any attention until the end of the project.

All platforms are developed equally! That's why we use 360 for all the trailers, screenshots and presentations! Cocksuckers.

To me that speaks to the lunacy of modern marketing, that they would pick a lesser platform with a lesser control system to promote a game. The X360 has a lower resolution, lower texture detail, lower AA/AF, lower view distances, less accurate controls and simply doesn't compare to a decent spec PC running the game on high details. It's like Valve demonstrating L4D2 on the X360... WTF is that about? Same with Far Cry 2 during the run up to its launch. The irony is that many console exclusive games - Halo 3, Killzone 2, Halo Wars - used high resolution renders not possible on the actual consoles to promote the games.

Marketers need to put away the glue and get the sensible stick out.

Midway and BoB are completely unique FPS experiences. I love piloting a battleship one minute and a torpedo dive-bomber the next. Midway is somewhat aimless, I'll give you that, but it's about the sandbox experience, playing with all these awesome vehicles and seeing what can happen.

Flying a German bomber in formation with 3-4 other planes, dodging flak and Spitfires, is good fun. Again, completely unique FPS experience. There are plenty of "traditional" FPS games with just a bunch of guys running around with rifles. Even BF2 feels tame in comparison to its predecessor.

But midway and guadalcanal, bad maps? You're off your rocker, they have it all; air, land and sea.

So does Wake Island. The difference is that Wake Island doesn't suck ass. Having just a whole bunch of water doesn't actually take map design skills. Designing land does and that's where Midway and Guadalcanal fail, they're horribly designed. There's a reason they were the least played maps in clan wars and it had nothing to do with the availability of ships.

This comment was edited on Jun 11, 2009, 13:20.

BoB was a unique map, saved from poor gameplay by good production values. But midway and guadalcanal, bad maps? You're off your rocker, they have it all; air, land and sea.

Coral sea was fun too.

I don't get the fascination with "pure" maps, though; all air or all infantry. Battlefield is about combined arms, none of the pieces by themselves feel particularly awesome. The planes are nice and arcadey, infantry movement and firing is solid, and vehicles work well, but they all complement each other.

After playing 73 Eastings, Midway, Iwo Jima, and Battle of Britain in 42/DC

Seriously, I can't believe you mentioned Midway and Battle of Britain as good maps. All you're missing here is Guadalcanal and Coral Sea to list the absolute worst maps for BF1942. Then again there always was an overwhelming amount of plane-tards on moron-servers so I guess the odds always were high to see something like that. It's still baffling though.

They're probably thinking that the mere existence of BF3 will excite PC gamers, even if the game is being designed for consoles. Oh wait, that's right, there is no lead SKU. That seems to be the popular line these days. All platforms are developed equally! That's why we use 360 for all the trailers, screenshots and presentations! Cocksuckers.

lmao!!! Jerykk you're such a tit. But I couldn't have said it better myself.

DICE has said that PC gamers would be excited about their next announcement.

They're probably thinking that the mere existence of BF3 will excite PC gamers, even if the game is being designed for consoles. Oh wait, that's right, there is no lead SKU. That seems to be the popular line these days. All platforms are developed equally! That's why we use 360 for all the trailers, screenshots and presentations! Cocksuckers.

This comment was edited on Jun 11, 2009, 01:34.

These fond dreams of a PC-only Battlefield 3 will be crushed happily by Electronic Arts.

DICE has said that PC gamers would be excited about their next announcement. My guess is that BF1943 and Bad Company 2 are their console-centric titles; BF3 will be a "proper" sequel with 64+ players per server.

I have my suspicion that BF43 will be the bone throws to the console crowd, but this will lead on PC. Just guessing here; probably completely wrong.

I am also guessing that the PC version will be a genuine PC game, not a port.

That would be ideal... but I don't see it happening. My guess is 360 will be lead SKU with PC and PS3 being ports.

Too bad DICE's game are the buggiest games that are lousy with hacks/cheaters of any games out there. Otherwise their games would rock. I don't think DICE even has a QA department.

Yeah the naval combat was fun as well on occasion. Shame they can't leave it in and rely on vote kick/ban option to get rid of people who do that kind of stuff.

I really liked the naval combat a lot myself but it's likely never coming back. DICE nixed it in BF2 due to griefing in 1942 (people getting into the ship driver's seat and then driving it off the map, depriving teams of spawn points, prematurely ending rounds, etc).

Homing missiles are no fun, though.