Battlefield 3 developer DICE has issued some encouraging words for PC gamers fearful of getting a "consolized" version of the shooter.
Yeah? Just like there was 'prone' in BC2, right? I'll believe it when I see it. None of your recent works have given me any impression that you care about PC. You probably just want another BC2-like hype among PC fans. Unfortunately, this time you won't have any IW controversies to help your cause. "I think it is an error to have different core gameplay on console vs PCs." And that's where you're wrong.
They should just port BF2 to Frostbite 2.0 and work on improving that, BF3 isn't going to be the epic game we all hoped for like bigger maps, more players, etc., sounds like BF3 should be BF2:BC3 as BC2 is already pushing the limits of the consoles.
They'll probably sacrifice the map/player size to implement some visual improvement to make up for console limitations, and call it "creative constraints".
BC2 isn't pushing anything on the consoles!it's a great game and i love it but there's space for improvements..
@caffo01 you should look at the PC version and then talk, there is a huge difference between the console version and PC version. Consoles are most definetly maxed out with the last game. Even running at low/med settings both the consoles are limited to 720p acheiving a mere 28fps both of them, If there was any juice in any of these old machines they would certainly be pushing higher RES and FPS.
All consoles continue to improve over time...that's been the say it has been for decades. Uncharted 2 is better than Uncharted 1....and Uncharted 3 will be better than Uncharted 2. Infamous 2 will be better than Infamous 1. BFBC2 was better than BFBC1....and I'm betting that when/if BC3 comes out, it too will be better. That doesn't sound like "maxed out" to me, imvix
So why arent the Console versions performing close to the PC version, and before you console users throw a fit and point out PC gets updated hardware. No i dont mean PCs with current hardware. BC2 even with 4yr old PC looks superior to console versions and runs at higher FPS. If consoles did have power left over. They would atleast be beating 4yr old PCs. In regards to Uncharted 2 and 1, they look about the same, both run at 720p 30fps, why wasnt uncharted 2 running in 1080p? if PS3 had so much power left over?. When I mentioned jumps in graphics i ment such as the one between Quake 2 and quake 3, or the one between half life 1 and half life 2, those are big jumps imo. Changes between infamous 1 and 2 are just art design changes. Not graphical leaps at all.
There are technical changes between Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 1. Play the games. While Drake's Fortune has great visuals, Among Thieves really ups the texture count and the physics effect of the game. The set pieces are larger and more destructive. The explosions are more realistic and have more particles. There is a very high quality depth of field that you don't see in UC1. The use of hand-drawn textures allowed the developers to create very life-like environments in the forefront while using less resources in far-away landscapes. UC2 also has almost zero texture pop-in, whereas as UC1 had very noticeable texture pop-in at the start of every level. UC2 also has 0 percent torn frames while UC1 had a significant percentage of frame-tearing. UC2 also has better motion capture animations, and much better water effects. The water in UC2 is one of the best on consoles, and the levels with rain are amazing. You're pointing out the obvious fact that there aren't multi-generational leaps in game visuals on one gen of console. That's not fair. PCs experience new generations of raw power increases every 2 or 3 years. Of course the difference between Half Life 2 and HL1 are great. HL1 was released in 1998 on PC and HL2 was released in 2004. That's like a 6 year difference. How can you compare that to UC2 when it came out 18 months after UC1? PS3 games in 2012 will look a shit ton better than PS3 games from 2006. Killzone 3 looks a whole lot better than Resistance 1, doesn't it?
"Of course the difference between Half Life 2 and HL1 are great. HL1 was released in 1998 on PC and HL2 was released in 2004. That's like a 6 year difference. How can you compare that to UC2 when it came out 18 months after UC1?" Because of huge GPU advancements on PC. The different between HL1 and HL2 are HUGE, basically like a leap to a new console gen. The different from Uncharted 1 to 2 is there, but it's not THAT big, they both still look like they would be on the same console. It's called optimization. It's the reason console games look a bit better over the years, because devs learn new tricks and coding to make things run smoother, and they cut graphics in other areas. Say, Uncharted 1 was rendering an unnecessary sharp texture in an area nearby that you'll never see. What do they do? They learn in the next game to lower the texture resolution in nearby areas that aren't even seen by the player, and implement texture streaming. Or maybe some sharply rendered real-time shadows from buildings in Uncharted 1 look nice, but it's hurting the performance more than they would like. In Uncharted 2, they figure out that buildings and certain other objects are completely static anyways, and so is that light source over their. Why don't we just bake those shadows to save FPS? It's little things like that. On PC, I think their optimization style is a bit different, where they'll mainly focus on optimizing the highest settings and work their way down from there, saying "hmm in medium settings that lighting will be static and those textures will be the same, but a bit blurrier. And on low, there will be no dynamic lighting at all". There's a LOT more to it than that, and every dev does things differently, but that's really the basis. Of course the focus will always be on optimizing the engine and shaders themselves, since those are honestly the biggest factors in how something will look and run. "All consoles continue to improve over time...that's been the say it has been for decades. Uncharted 2 is better than Uncharted 1....and Uncharted 3 will be better than Uncharted 2. Infamous 2 will be better than Infamous 1. BFBC2 was better than BFBC1....and I'm betting that when/if BC3 comes out, it too will be better. That doesn't sound like "maxed out" to me, imvix" Yes, but those differences won't be looking like a completely different generation, where on PC, we don't exactly have generations, and we just get used to games looking better on their own after time. Every once in a while, we'll have a year or two where every game seems to get a huge graphics leap (2003-2004, 2007, possibly 2011). But Battlefield BC2 looks miles better than the console version, almost like the remastered HD PS2 releases, except the differences are a LOT bigger than just a resolution and texture increase. We get nicer shaders, post processing effects, better lighting, self-shadowing, ect.
I'm looking forward to this game more than any other shooter right now for "military" shooters.
@ Letros, BC2 has pushed the capibilities of the 360, not PS3. Console gamers never asked for games to be easy, so I'm not sure why any developer would change any console version from the PC version.
To be fair, Bad Company is a console series. It's the version of Battlefield that's made for consoles, and number 2 just happened to get released on PC.
I agree. When has EA ever let us down with a Battlefield game?
To be fair Consoles have only gimped the FPS genre. Not only have they gimped it, consoles have ensure the same rehashed crap is rereleased again and again. Take the example of COD. Before Consoles we never had yearly releases. MW1 - Black ops are essentially the same games. Hardly any graphics differences. Gamers get milked for a 60usd game. Later only to pay for maps they already own in the previous game. When black ops releases, i can assure you maps from MW1, MW2, WaW will be sold as DLC. Of course this has a spill over effect and effects the PC market as well. The same can be said for EA, they just gave us BC2 in march, 5months later they are out with MOH which is essentially the same game. BF3 will be released few months later. Games just dont get supported the way they used to. Ill be sticking with TF2, free user created maps constant updates and support from Valve.
prone is not a matter of "consolisation" but a matter of drop shotting. Get your facts straight.
if i was a dev/pub i would want to make PC version either. all your hard work gets stolen as soon as some pirate torrents the image of your game across the world.
you are ill-informed. like most people who hate PC gaming. if the game is good, worth a buy, PC gamers buy it. we dont buy everything that is shovelware pushed to us. make a game worth buying, it will be bought in droves.
To Maxcer: No. Sincerely, Zinc
consoles out right now have some type of piracy as well....jailbreak/firmware..bl ack-ops is being played on what right now?..bottom line pc/console both have pirates...
another developer promise. we will see.
Will there be 64 player matches, or better 64 vs. 64? Will there be big maps, Battlefield 2 style? The game WILL be released on consoles, and I would be VERY surprised if the consolization didn't leave a big, fat ugly mark on the PC version.
Now if they can remake Jalalabad map from BF2 to BF3 with the destruction of BD2... with lots of tanks, players, and those vehicles.
consolized WTF DOES THAT EVEN MEAN
It's also know as MW2'ing... It's when a developer makes a game for consoles but also releases aPC version which usually ends up suffering from Poor optimization Lower framerate Worse quality Lack of feature such as DX11 and all the fancy stuff PC's do No dedicated servers You get the idea.
Have poor optimization and low frame rates when your rig should be more then capable. Worse quality? really so every single pc only game is the greatest quality known to man seriously don't kid yourself. An the lack of direct 11 before hand was because it was still new almost every major release is supporting it now. An no dedicated servers is a choice the developers make a bad one when having a game on pc but still their choice. Both PC and console have their great games, I should know playing both PC and PS3. Assuming you had a high end enough pc to run anything. It still doesn't have some automatic make this game fun button. Better frames and other things are nice when your pc can produce it but acting like it makes a game better then it really needs to stop.
optimization is definitely one concern with PC games but tell me the PC only games that have this problem, they are few and there are many console games that also have the same problem, also that's just one issue with "consolization" also the lack of certain features like prone or lean in FPS games, no dedicated servers or LAN support and minimal if negligible graphically updates from console version which usually means a direct port without care for utilizing the possible power of a PC. Look at Dead Rising 2, while it was a better looking game on PC (not by much though) you had no way of customizing control scheme, imagine a PC game without control setup, the only way was to edit an .ini(or dll cant remember) file and even then it was annoying and did not change the visual prompts in the actual game. Thats what "consolized" means
Dumbed down and simplified to work on/fit on one dvd9 disk and 512megs RAM
Consolize - To make play like CoD. With tiny ass, shitty looking maps, and generic gamplay.
so what about bc2 with big open nice looking maps with non generic gameplay
nickjkl. Really. bc2 is not nearly as open as Battlefield 2. In BF2 you have 64 players aiming for multiple objectives(4-10) with convoys of tanks infantry, jets, choppers and PRONE all at the same time. Worst thing is that BF2 is OLD and should be outdated by the new battlefield(Bad company). but it's just not. I love Bc2 but it's no upgrade to the 2005 game.
i agree BF2 had bigger maps, 64 players, etc, but with the updated graphics, physics, and shher destructability, id say it was a pretty nice upgrade. i hated shooting buildings in BF2 witha tank, and after the explosion, the building was pristine. im sure if you took out the destruction, and bumped the graphics down to bf2 level, you could do more than 64 players and have bigger maps
The map size is mainly down to memory limitations. Even with worse graphics, 256 MB of system memory wouldn't allow for more epic battles.
It better not! The consoles dont really even offer anything on the scale of BF2/2142. BF3 shouldn't end up just a better looking version of the console game.
what do you mean by scale?
Scale - size. It would take a good 5-15 minutes to walk from one side of a map to another. If BF3's maps aren't AT LEAST as big as BF2's, then I will be extremely disappointed.
Yeah, I loved Battlefield 2 but the series has gone down hill since Dice started focusing on consoles.
Any of you guys has ever played MAG? I mean MAG maps on domination can host 256 players and are HUGE. Are BF2 maps bigger than those?
Can someone please explain to me why Raztad is trying to hold MAG up to BF2? I am very much confuzzled.
is one seriously dated looking game as a result. I own the PS3 and MAG looks like a first gen release in order to deliver the gameplay mechanics they were after.
He's comparing their maps because they're both known to have large maps. We know at least the PS3 can handle large maps, but DICE can't take advantage of it. I swear if you just pay attention Clizzz...
WTF Cliff? Fishy Finger said: "The consoles dont really even offer anything on the scale of BF2/2142" And I was wondering if that is really true. I even asked Fishy what he meant by scale, just to make sure he was actually talking about map size or number of player, number of vehicles, or whatever related to scale. Regardless your opinion about MAG, something is true is that MAG has HUGE maps. Even if the visuals are not the best ones. With all that said. I dont see why PC version of BF3 should suffer at all. A worthy sequel should be capable of hosting 60 players. If I remember well that was the cap.
@Raztad If Mag has crappy graphics, then thats the compromise with having larger maps. Clearly the PS3 hardware is dated and cant handle large maps and good graphics at the same time. If you dont think PS3 is dated, then go on please tell me 1 first person shooter on the PS3 that runs in 1080p @60fps. keep looking there are none. This is due to the fact that first person shooters are the most resource hungry genre. Consoles simply dont have the hardware to handle these games in anything beyond 720p. Previously when consoles didnt get PC games. Games actually used to progress in graphics. Newer hardware would be needed to play newer games. Since the release of consoles and games being made with consoles in mind, even 4 yr old pc hardware plays anything consoles can and better this was simply not possible before, as newer games always looked better and demanded more powerful hardware. Thus the current misconception that PC needs upgrades every few years (or how some console fanboys keep spouting crap like updates needed every 6months).
Mag had to make some serious graphical concessions to achieve that high of a player count with large maps. Battlefield 2 on the other hand was amongst the best looking games when it came out, and as a result had some pretty high RAM requirements.
You mean scale on a game like MAG?? It takes that much time to get from end to the other on its 256 players maps. It can be done on consoles if done correctly...
but when do you actually fight in a battle that large? never.
@solar That's a gameplay decision, not a technical limitation, your point?
Solar: When you play MAG. Your team is the whole team spread out over the whole map. And your team win if the whole team plays well so you are indirectly involved in the fight in a battle that large. And that is, to me, the greatness of the game, you feel like your part of a much bigger team and fight than your average FPS 16 person team. And also that you make progress, moving forward your troops, in the game, something you dont see in the average fps game.
DICE has failed with Bad Company 2. Time and time again they have lied about VIP and let us down with lack of support for the game. I doubt anyone is actually listening to what they have to say anymore.
Hopefully the only focus should BF3 being better then BF2. I didn't care much for bad company series only because it wasn't better then BF2 IMO.
Sweeeeeet, about time we don't have to lower our standards, how about raising them for consoles now ^^ Whats with all the BC2 haters? It's not true Battlefield but it's still a good game?
We do love it, it is great, just not a worthy successor to Battlefield 2. Hence the term consolised.
Kinda like how a lot of PS3 owners feel about the Final Fantasy and GTA series being on 360.
Except GTA being on 360 didn't make the game any worse for PS3 owners.
True because 360 and PS3 are very simular in hardware power. Yes there might be small differences. However in comparison even entry level PC hardware of today is generations ahead of the PS3 or the 360.
I cant wait to play this on my ps3. Yay.
THANK GOD BF2 is still probably the best online FPS, i just love the size of the maps and JETS :)
i'd love to believe this but history has proven otherwise this gen
I like how people will argue with devs, who 9/10 times know more than they do about game development.
Yeah, because most dev teams working under EA are always so trustworthy, right? /s
So now DICE is untrustworthy... I'm about tired of these paranoid gamers I keep meeting. "That journalist is biased! Those devs are sneaky, underhanded mofos! Nintendo/Sony/MS are douchebags!" Also, I was speaking of the user who was contradicting the DICE employee on the forum, if that means anything. Some people seem to think everything is always about attacking or backsliding. Sheesh...
Did specifically mention any dev name? I just said "most devs under EA". Maybe DICE and Bioware are the exceptions, or maybe not. Who knows?
Battlefield 3 shouldn't be on consoles period.
Yes it should
wtf? Why did i get disagrees for wanting to play this game? Sheesh.
Probably cause many that saw this article are PC gamers and they don't like your kind. XD
lol, so pretty much what your saying is that you guys disagree with me because I dont game on pc? LOL! Wow you guys are a bunch of losers. I do game on pc, just not that often since my gaming rig took a big ol dump. I probably wont game on pc cause it cost too much, and its not worth it considering I have 2 ps3's that play almost every game that comes out, including Battlefield 3 now. My new lap top cant even play Empire Total War, a game I bought on steam. So ya, again, I cant wait to play Battlefield on my ps3. If yall dont like it, thats too friggin bad. For pc users, yall bunch of immature little kids.
troll and fantard
bc2 didnt push much on consoles.. lots of room for improvement. im still wondering what bf3 will be like.. basically bc3? or no destructibility?
If they can give you consoles jets, that alone will make it 100x more fun then BC2 - map wise you should get a BF2 size. For us PC gamers, we need a little bit bigger size maps then what BF2 had (only a little) to support hopefully 48-64 players. Why? It's more fun that way with medium size battles taking place on different parts of the map.