Ohh just great, Battlefield 3 is going to be multi-platform AKA console port?

A

AMD_Gamer

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
18,287
Just great, sounds like BF3 is going to be multi-platform, now from here until it is released I am going to worry that it will be a shitty port. This game should be PC only.:mad:

http://www.medalofhonor.com/battlefield3

BATTLEFIELD 3 BETA DETAILS

Beta offer is contingent on Beta availability within 12 months of Medal of Honor release. Beta will be available for a limited time only and offer expires upon close of Beta events. Participation in Beta requires acceptance of Beta Agreement. Must be 18+. Xbox GOLD membership required for Xbox users. Visit www.ea.com/beta for details, including availability.
Click to expand...
 
Should be no surprise. It was the consoles that gave birth to Bad Company. They lost both my interest and money at that point.
 
BF2 was available on consoles as well. I can only hope that once again they'll keep them separate and not limit the PC version to the console specs as they tend to do lately.

If it turns into a console port... it will be... a depressing day...:(
 
lol always fun watching the omg its a console port band wagon before its even released.. especially on a game thats a sequel to an already multi-platform game like KatalDT mentioned.. until theres video's or trailer's or even a beta its all garbage.. DICE did a damn good job with BFBC2 and sticking to the roots of the original game so i expect them to stick with what made the battlefield series what it is..
 
DICE already proved they could do multi-platform pretty well with BC2...

I'm not worried about BF3...

It's funny though... you buy BC2 to get beta access to MOH, then buy MOH to get beta access to BF3... silliness..
 
meh battlefield has always been PC centric. I think they get the hint that competitive play will keep people buying a title for a long time after initial sales drizzle.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
lol always fun watching the omg its a console port band wagon before its even released.. especially on a game thats a sequel to an already multi-platform game like KatalDT mentioned.. until theres video's or trailer's or even a beta its all garbage.. DICE did a damn good job with BFBC2 and sticking to the roots of the original game so i expect them to stick with what made the battlefield series what it is..
Click to expand...

As long as they keep the scale and modding openness of BF2 for the PC version, I think it will be alright. Let's just hope they don't disable modding or at least make it very difficult with no SDK or tools (a very popular premise nowadays) to make room for paid DLC.

Blazestorm said:
DICE already proved they could do multi-platform pretty well with BC2...

I'm not worried about BF3...

It's funny though... you buy BC2 to get beta access to MOH, then buy MOH to get beta access to BF3... silliness..
Click to expand...

Well... BF:BC2 is multi-platform in that it is essentially the same game over multiple platforms. Very similar. We get good PC support though, like graphics options and control schemes - so it's not a bad console port. It's a well done console port.

What I don't want for BF3 is a console port *AT ALL*. With BF2, there were essentially two separate versions of the game - one for the console, and one for the PC. While they had a lot of similarities, they were in essence very different.
 
I doubt they'll screw up BF3... It's probably near completion by now anyways...
 
I think the whole cross-platform issue is somewhat overblown. For instance the issue with graphics being pushed less due to being cross platform, the most demanding game graphically (from a technical perspective) is Metro 2033, which is oddly cross platform. While supposedly major PC only titles like SC2, TF2, Civ 5 and etc. are not exactly pushing graphics.
 
I'm colored officially concerned but it's too early to pass judgment. Lower expectations going in are always good for higher reward coming out. :D
 
limitedaccess said:
I think the whole cross-platform issue is somewhat overblown. For instance the issue with graphics being pushed less due to being cross platform, the most demanding game graphically (from a technical perspective) is Metro 2033, which is oddly cross platform. While supposedly major PC only titles like SC2, TF2, Civ 5 and etc. are not exactly pushing graphics.
Click to expand...

I agree that often to much is made of consolitis by PC gamers, and I detest consoles. Sure there are some games that are crappy ports but there are plenty of multi-platform games that do take proper advantage of the PC. Metro 2033, it supports DX 11 pretty well and is 3D Vision Ready. Batman AA is almost a totally different game on the PC with PhysX and 3D Support and great mouse and keyboard controls for a game that I would say is more naturally suited for console controllers.

It really is all about how much effort goes into the PC version, not a game is multi-platform. I've actually been pretty happy with the effort in supporting the PC in a number of great games over the last year.
 
PC only first person shooters are a thing of the past. The market is just so big on consoles that the developers would be dumb to ignore it. With portal 2 going to console, I would be surprised if HL3 doesn't follow the same route. Games like civ and starcraft don't translate well to console, so those will still be pc only, but rpg, fps, action, etc. will likely have console versions from here on out. Some pc games will suffer as a result, but overall the industry will be better off.
 
Plague_Injected said:
BFBC2 is hardly a port. Have some faith and stop catastrophising.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say have faith but I would agree that you shouldn't "catastrophise" either.

There would be no reason to be surprised if it came out in a BF2 style format - more open, modding is welcome, etc. But nobody should be surprised if they opt for enclosed maps, little or no modding support, and paid DLC as the primary options of expanding content. We don't know yet. Just don't preorder it until you know. :)
 
I don't think it will be any worse than BC:2, and BC:2 is pretty fucking awesome, so I'm definitely stoked for BF3
 
bc2 does not feel like a console port....cant wait to see some gameplay vids of bf3
 
Lame :/

BFBC2 was good but BF3 will never reach its true potential if it's a multiplatform title.
 
Multiplatform games make PC games graphically limited and less innovative.

I sure as hell hope Half Life 3 isn't multiplatform because it will look like ass if they have to design it for PS3, 360 as well as PC.
 
About all I want out of BF3 is to at least go back to the BF2 64 player limit or even increase it beyond 64. :D
 
KatalDT said:
As long as they keep the scale and modding openness of BF2 for the PC version, I think it will be alright. Let's just hope they don't disable modding or at least make it very difficult with no SDK or tools (a very popular premise nowadays) to make room for paid DLC.
Click to expand...

I had to read this twice because the first time through I missed the "don't" in the part about modding. Luckily I caught it the second time or I would have called you crazy :p

My main concerns with BF3 is they will follow the same route as BC2 and not allow private dedicated servers or development tools.

DICE was mocking MW2 for not having dedicated servers, but then BC2's dedicated servers are not exactly well-suited for longevity. With private dedicated servers, a person can keep it running for as long as he wants, but when you have to rely on certain hosting companies to continue providing servers for the game, there is bound to eventually be a large drop-off of companies providing servers to rent.

As for the development tools, I will wait and see how MoH is handled before I make a firm prediction. I am still very displeased that the so-called "map packs" for BC2 are nothing more than "mode packs". We have not had an actual new map since the game was released, and the only hint of actual new maps is coming in the form of an expansion. If MoH does not have tools, it will probably end up going the same route in which case I will have lost faith in DICE.
 
As long as there are huge maps with 32 vs 32, the good ole' ticket system gameplay, dedicated servers and LAN options, I'll be happy. However, with the track record of these multiplatform game ports, I'm not holding my breath.
 
KatalDT said:
BF2 was available on consoles as well. I can only hope that once again they'll keep them separate and not limit the PC version to the console specs as they tend to do lately.
Click to expand...

But as you point out, BF2 was ported to consoles, not the other way round.

sirmonkey1985 said:
lol always fun watching the omg its a console port band wagon before its even released.. especially on a game thats a sequel to an already multi-platform game like KatalDT mentioned...
Click to expand...

KataIDT also mentions that BF2 was first developed on PC and then ported to xbox. The hardware limitations of consoles had no bearing whatsoever on the development of the PC version.

Blazestorm said:
DICE already proved they could do multi-platform pretty well with BC2...
Click to expand...

Yeah, smaller maps, limited player count, class bastardization, regenerative health, removal of prone, etc was really a huge step forward from BF1942 and BF2. :rolleyes:
 
defiant007 said:
But as you point out, BF2 was ported to consoles, not the other way round.

KataIDT also mentions that BF2 was first developed on PC and then ported to xbox. The hardware limitations of consoles had no bearing whatsoever on the development of the PC version.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing we don't know definitively yet the story on what platform BF3 is being primarily developed on yet?

That's going to tell the tale on the whole thing I would think.
 
MAG has already proven that you can have massive multiplayer FPS action with over 100 players in any one game. It had to sacrifice a lot of graphics power to do it, but the point is that it can be done on console. There's no reason to believe BF3's size limits should be lowered because of being multiplatform. BF1943 and Bad Company 2 were primarily designed for consoles, so the fact the map sizes and player limits are smaller is natural.

The console players already play fairly awful-looking versions of Bad Company 2, so I doubt they'll care about crappy graphics for BF3 to get the army sizes the franchise is known for. This can mean the PC audience gets the proper Battlefield experience.
 
Plague_Injected said:
MAG has already proven that you can have massive multiplayer FPS action with over 100 players in any one game. It had to sacrifice a lot of graphics power to do it, but the point is that it can be done on console. There's no reason to believe BF3's size limits should be lowered because of being multiplatform. BF1943 and Bad Company 2 were primarily designed for consoles, so the fact the map sizes and player limits are smaller is natural.
Click to expand...

That's really not the point. MAG obviously showed that large scale can take place on consoles, albeit with very toned down graphics. The main concern is not whether the machine can handle it, but whether the community can, and by that I mean it's already hard enough to get 16-24 people to work together, just imagine 64+. It would be a complete shitstorm of rambos. The console community is vastly different from the pc one, and DICE will probably keep that in mind and cater to the lowest common denominator.

There's also the issue with map size and lack of ram on the consoles.
 
MAG is a hell of a fun game. It does a lot of things right IMO, especially for being a "console only" title.

I'd love to see that get the royal port to the PC.

I'm definitely hoping for the best for BF3. :)
 
What's the difference between Battlefield BC and just Battlefield ... map sizes ... other than that I don't know. Why does it matter what platforms it's on?
 
long at it stays true to the way 1942,V,2,2142 worked and played... it will rock. if they start dumbing it down and make it quasi BC2-ish...it will suck balls..
 
Well, here's how I see it:
- Dice claims that BF3 would blow people away
- Dice claims that BF3 will use the Frostbite 2 Engine (whereas I believe BC2 uses Frostbite 1.5) so it will have more destruction and hopefully better utilize DX11.
- Dice also claims that it will be a 'traditional' Battlefield game

Now adding that it will also be on consoles does not necessarily mean that their initial claims will be false. As others have pointed out, MAG did higher player count multiplayer on consoles, and considering DICE uses dedicated servers, there's no reason they can't do the same.

My main concerns with this announcement are:
- Map design. When they said that it would be a traditional BF game, I'm hoping that implied that they would be making large, open maps again, versus the noticeably more linear ones in BC2.
- Player count differences between PC and console. Say they do give us at least true 64 player modes, but have to limit it to 32-48 players on consoles due to technical limitations, I'm concerned that this would negatively affect level design. Anyone who's played BC2 knows that the maps can feel a little cramped with a full 32 player game since they were designed with the console versions only having 24 players max.
- Getting it 'right' on PC. Please tell me they've learned from BC2 and will have all the PC features working at launch, with working server browsers and low lag. Plus, setting the FOV correctly from the get go would be nice too (it only takes editing a line in the .ini file so there's no excuse for it to ship with a narrow console FOV).

Other than that, I'm going to wait until we know more information before drawing any conclusions.
 
This is some very depressing news for me too. They better not fuck this up. BF2 is my all time favorite and I was looking forward to some BF3 action but now I guess i'll have to wait and see how it turns out. I really hope they won't fuck this up.
 
Plague_Injected said:
MAG has already proven that you can have massive multiplayer FPS action with over 100 players in any one game. It had to sacrifice a lot of graphics power to do it, but the point is that it can be done on console. There's no reason to believe BF3's size limits should be lowered because of being multiplatform. BF1943 and Bad Company 2 were primarily designed for consoles, so the fact the map sizes and player limits are smaller is natural.

.
Click to expand...
thats because xbox live is p2p gaming on most game while ps3 uses dedicated servers
 
heatlesssun said:
It really is all about how much effort goes into the PC version, not a game is multi-platform. I've actually been pretty happy with the effort in supporting the PC in a number of great games over the last year.
Click to expand...

Yes the game should really be judged based on its own merits, not simply written off because it is cross platform.

Metro 2033, Batman: AA, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Mirrors Edge, Bad Company 2 and many more titles were cross platform, were they all terrible games on the PC? I think not.
 
limitedaccess said:
Yes the game should really be judged based on its own merits, not simply written off because it is cross platform.

Metro 2033, Batman: AA, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Mirrors Edge, Bad Company 2 and many more titles were cross platform, were they all terrible games on the PC? I think not.
Click to expand...

But most of those games where dumbed down. I think you are really missing the point here. When you have a game cross platform on a pc, you sacrifice a lot of things a pc can do and a console cant.

Player count, mods, proper dedicated server(Quickly becoming a thing of the past) etc etc.

Oblivion and fallout 3 where great only because of the mods, mirrors edge is shit and not worth £££ for 2 hours of gameplay, Mass effect has low res textures and looks like a shoddy port graphicaly, BC2 has low ass player count, tiny maps, regen health FTW, only 4 classes and so on.



Originally Posted by NISMO View Post
I still play the original BF2 most nights after racing, i just prefer it to BFBC2 for some reason and it's still just as awesome. I don't really care if it's multi platform to be honest.
Click to expand...
i prefer bf2 too.

The reason why i care is because consoles cant even handle bf2 let alone bf2 remade in the frostbite engine.

I am 99.9% certain they wont up the player count to 64 and leave the console at 32 at most because not only is the player count different between the two platforms but the Maps and gamemodes will have to be drasticaly different between the two. You do that and both games are pretty much entrely different just like battlefield 2 for pc was compared to battlefield 2 modern combat and do you honetsly think dice would make two complete different games?

hell no so this is BAD news. ****ing terrible. Dont expect large scale battles, mod support and large player counts in BF3.

expect something closer to bad company 2. umm it actually wont surprise me if they renamed BF2 to BC3 In other words mate, you should care unless your happy to play BC3 which sounds like you are not and rather a BF2 type game.

edit: i personaly think cross platform games are not as good as exclusive games and that goes for console excluisves.

i prefer exclusive games like heavy rain, god of war, gears of war, uncharted, forza, alan wake, metal gear to cross platform games such mas MW, BC, GTA etc.

Exclusive games from a pc, or a 360/ps3 seems to always bring out the best on each system
 
Why don't you try playing the fucking game before automatically dismissing it as bad because it will be on consoles as well as PC? There are plenty of good cross-platform games on the market, and a "PC port" when done right is just as good as a PC exclusive. It's a reality of the gaming market that most games nowadays are going to be cross-platform, and it's time to accept that instead of whining about it all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top