No way bro! The player limit is one pro, I'll give you that. Support I don't care about. BF1943 and BFBC2 get plenty of support as it is, we don't need any more than they already give us
Holy crap! It's 12 full minutes of gameplay! The destruction as expected looks awesome! EDIT: Okay, didn't realize it was already on the first post
Well it's a a fact that the designers at dice are adding way more to the Pc version than the console. When the developers flat out state "Yes, the console versions will have smaller maps than PC" your not getting the "true" battlefield experience like you will on pc. Battlefield is one of the few games designed fpr PC first and then ported to console. Not to mention battlefield is meant to be played with massive amounts of players, it's what gives it that true sense of being in a true combat scenario. I'm sorry but 12vs12 is not a war so to speak, that's a paintball match. Now 32vs32 that is something! Not to mention PC will get future updates most likely the console won't even see a bug fix. Also to add console always puts in aim assist due to having to use a joystick. The pc version would never, because real skill requires accuracy, not auto assist. Not to mention the pc will be optimized to use dx10 and will (depending on your pc) have much better graphics than console. I've played every battlefield on console and pc and I'm sorry bit pc Battlefield TRUMPS console every time. Just google BF3 PcVsConsole, there's some really good developer commentary that can explain it much better than I. They flat out state themselves PC is the way this game was meant to be played. I'm not knocking you for liking the console versions of Bf, I'm just saying if you've never played a true 64 man server on PC then you've never truly experienced what real battlefield gameplay should be. I'll send ya a link to the commentary if you like?..
No thanks, I have experience with Battlefield on all platforms BFBC2 is living proof that console experiences are still riding high. As I recall it even looked better than the PC version which suffered from a dreadful screen door effect. Oh, and if you need the help of a mouse to give you enough accuracy to shoot a guy, you can't be terribly good
LOL! Console controllers have aim assist...I have a PS3 and killing someone and sniping are much easier on console, since the reticle is guided towards your enemy. However I stick to the PC version because the mouse controls just feel more natural and smoother. And the screen door effect was fixed in an update. After they patched in DirectX 11, he PC was obviously ahead, it has soft shadows, better HBAO, etc.
Ever heard of turning assist off? I've never considered a mouse to be realistic. More accurate yes, but humans can't snap 180 degrees in the blink of an eye, neither do they have pixel perfect aiming. As I mentioned on a front page comment, this idea that super-human accuracy is realistic is utterly strange. The most fun aspect of a firefight is the bit before one of you dies. This is why Halo sucks, there are no firefights, it's just a bunch of people popping heads instantly and ending battles before they've even begun. The real entertainment comes from missing the enemy, taking cover, running out of ammo, drawing his fire, using team tactics and then getting a kill after all that has happened. The better you make your accuracy, the less likely you are to engage in a realistic and lengthy fight.
Maybe aim assist is a bad choice of wording. Console has a hitbox about twice the size of pc, to make it easier for players with joystick. Try and use a 360 controller on BC2 pc and you'll get wasted ten times over. As for graphics, BC2 looks way better on my pc than on PS3 or 360, and yes I owned it on ps3 and pc. Pc looks way better. @Midian, Help with a mouse? Laughable to say the least, on console the players hit box is larger, and ther hence less skill to hit a target. PC you have to actually be on your target not in the general vicinity. And furthermore Bc2 DOES have aim assist on the Mp games. I can prove it. Can you disprove it? Anyways I didn't mean to turn this into a Pc vs. Console debate. Just stating BF3 is being made FOR PC then being ported to console with smaller maps, aim assist, and almost as good graphics as Pc. So yea I will be enjoying my Bf3 on the Pc, they way (even according to the developers) it was meant to be played. Enjoy your aim assist and tiny maps ladies...
There's no aim assist in mp for me... idk what your talking about. There is AA in the campaign though.
Feel free to prove whatever you like. A mouse makes FPS games easy, you lose the realistic error margin you get when firing a gun in real life, firefights are over faster and therefore less fun. Simple as that PC gaming is dying anyway, you're welcome to make the most of the few bones it gets thrown these days but acting as though it somehow means you'll enjoy the game more than other people is incorrect. You might as well just recommend erotic asphyxiation while you play, that'll make the whole experience one hell of a lot more enjoyable and then the platform you play on really will be irrelevant. The whole "real way to play" argument is slightly ridiculous when we're talking about a multi-platform game.
I'm taking the developers word and getting on PC as according to them will be how it's meant to be played. I will admit I'm bias, I've never enjoyed FPS on console. And you saying Pc is dying has been used for YEARS. If it's dying dice wouldn't have sold more copies of Bc2 on pc then on console combined almost! And aren't consoles essentially becoming more and more like PC's every generation?! LoL Enjoy your 12 man (maybe 16 man) servers. I'll be having a true battlefield experience with 32 man teams. And yes that makes a HUGE difference in the game especially multiplayer. As for the control issue it's all preference but console does add some tweaks to make it easier for console, if everyone is using the same controls the issue is essentially negated. I enjoy the feeling of aiming a headshot and having to be perfectly on target than being able to aim 3 ft. To the side of someone and it still registering. I do agree with you on the "twitch" factor with mouse bs joystick. But it's all based on preference. My original point still stands though. BF3 console will be a watered down version of the PC version. While it still will kickass on console. This game was designed FOR PC (not my words, the developers). Just like Bf2, 2142, Vietnam, and 1942. All designed for Pc. Bad company one was for console only. I like Bc2 on pc but it feels like a console port which it was. Finally dice has pulled their head out of their ass and come back to designing first and foremost for PC because they realize BC2 and BC1 were essentially COD with a battlefield flair to it. And to top it off BC2 sold more on pc anyways. Sorry I just can't play Bf on console, I've tried all of them from modern combat to 1943. None of the console versions of Bf do the franchise justice like they do on Pc, and a lot of that has to do with the map sizes and multiplayer. BC2 didn't even have a commander?! That's not battlefield any way you spin it. I'm stoked for Bf3 but the thought of you guys sitting there telling me the console version will be just as good is driving me looney!! I know some people even use the argument I don't want 64 man servers. Well that's battlefield. From Bf2 and up there has ALWAYS BEEN 64 man servers. Anything less is just a console port.
Well I see the option for it, all I know is that in my experience and according to everyone I've talked to the general consensus is yes there is aim assist. Not as noticeable as COD, but I feel like it's turned on for me and so do my friends. As you move over a target it "grips" more on them and I can guarantee the hitbox is way different than PC. If I had never played the PC version before the console I would probably be defending the console as fiercely as you guys. But coming from PC BF, and then playing on console just makes me realize how much more fun an optimized the PC versions really are. Bad company is not "true" battlefield no matter how you spin it. It was made to compete with and appeal to the COD gamers. BF3 is returning to it's roots. PC. Multiplatform or not, PC doubles the players on multiplayer, and battlefield is about one thing and one thing only. Multiplayer. I'm shocked they even decided to put in a SP campaign, it's the first real battlefield to do that.
Correction: 24 players servers on console and 64 on PC. You say this like it's a bad thing. I don't think console players care much for what "a true battlefield experience" is as long as it's a good game. Yes, because the battlefield series ALWAYS has to stay the same, right? No need to modify it here and there.
Realistic margin of error? Have you ever fired a gun before? Margin of error comes from bullet spread and recoil, not how accurately you can shoot. If you've ever actually aimed down sights with a gun, the movement you can achieve is actually better than per-pixel. Also...WHAT? PC GAMING IS DYING? I cringe every time I hear someone say that. Just compare the growth in Steam accounts over the last 2 years vs. growth in XBOX Live and PSN accounts. Growth in PC Gaming recently is more than growth on both consoles combined. Crysis on PC sold more copies than Killzone 2 on PS3 and almost as many as MGS4. Battlefield Bad company 2 sold more copies on PC than either of the 2 consoles...which is why DICE is catering to the PC users this time by only giving PC Footage and designing their engine to make the best of DirectX 11 and subsequently look like ass on 2005 hardware consoles. Battlefield 3 on PC will be the next Crysis graphically. The game that will make console gamers stop and drool. Crysis 2's graphics are terrible honestly...worse than the original. And did you check EA's sales from last year? 20% of sales were from PC. Obviously console numbers are higher but considering how much money they made that's no small number and far from "dying."
12vs12 or 32vs32 That's not even the same game... Your right it will still be great on console, just nowhere near as great as on PC. Ghost Town on Bf2 with 64 players is 1000x more fun than the same map with 32 players. Now we're talking 8 less than that for console! But your right console gamers will not miss the "true" battlefield experience, as they will still have a very fun game. But this release is one of the only few in the last couple years I'm glad they are designing with pc in mind first. I was so pissed about BC2 being a port, now dice is making up for it. I'm not trying to change anyones mind about which version to get, you get what suits you best either your pc can't run BF3 or you just prefer to have it console for the controls, whichever choice is going to yield a great game. But you can't really compare the 2 when your talking about such a substantial difference in players in game. I concede though midian we could go on all day mate, I think your point about the mouse not being "realistic" is a fair one. BUT mouse requires more skill IMO... I'll tell ya what, let's wait to see which version gets better reviews. I'll put Money down on PC coming out on top, with At least 5 reviewers saying that the PC version is how it's meant to be played. But the console version will have smaller maps which wont be nearly as fun as some of the massive maps pc version will have. For instance tank and jet combat. Not nearly as much fun on a smaller map. I am interested to see how different the maps really will be for now my arguments regarding map size are based on developer commentary and my own speculation... Oh yea and one last thing regarding your post about PC dying, this comes straight from the GM of dice "We fixed that with Bad Company 2. Now it's Battlefield 3 and we thought, "Now it's time to give some extra love to the PC community." But also, we strongly believe in PC gaming. Two years ago, maybe one year ago, people talked about "the decline of PC gaming." Or "the death of PC gaming." These kind of words were thrown around and, honestly, that's bullshit." http://www.shacknews.com/article/67683/battlefield-3-interview-dice-gm
