Submitted by movements 1501d ago | news

DICE Responds To Gamers Disappointed Over PS3 Footage Of Battlefield 3

While most console gamers are more than satisfied with the PS3 footage of Battlefield 3 shown on late night with Jimmy Fallon last night, there are some who say they’re somewhat disappointed in the showing, claiming it’s a downgrade from what we’ve been seeing all along after DICE had promised it’d look the same across all platforms.

Well the developer’s responded to that, making quite clear their intentions. (Battlefield 3, Dice, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 3 4 »
pedrami91  +   1501d ago | Well said
Im a PS3 fanboy
And even i find those complaints stupid as hell.

Seriously, who in there right mind would ever expect the console version to look better than the PC version ?
blumatt  +   1501d ago
Some People Will Never Be Satisfied
That pretty much explains it. lol And, more than likely, most of the people complaining are the ones that have a $2000+ PC rig that are trying to make themselves feel better by complaining about the PS3 version's graphics. haha I personally thought the footage shown was excellent for console graphics. I'm getting it on PS3 and I'm about to get a new Mac that could play it on very high specs. Why? Because all my friends are on PS3. (And because I prefer a DualShock to a keyboard.)

Also, the graphics isn't the only thing that's been improved. The destruction looks very well implemented and the ability to help out a fallen foe is certainly a welcome addition.

Well, my statement might have been a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I'm saying. That's still much more expensive than a $300 PS3 console.
#1.1 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(55) | Disagree(40) | Report | Reply
Bolts  +   1501d ago
You don't need a $2000 PC gaming rig to make BF3 look better than the PS3. $700 should do it.
DualConsoleOwner  +   1501d ago | Well said
Agreed.... Game looks great regardless.
The game may still be the best looking multiplatform title.Having said that, i don't think they are fully using the power of the cell.

PS3 exclusives like Killzone 3, God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 looks way better than any multiplat titles out there..

I am beginning to wonder if multiplat devs will ever fully use the power of the cell.

whats up with the disagrees??
All i said was game looks great but not as good as existing PS3 exclusives... which is true.
#1.1.2 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(65) | Disagree(83) | Report
Montrealien  +   1501d ago
at least seven people clearly have no idea what it costs to build a good gaming PC since they disagreed with fanboi, and are mad.. I just did mine for 600$ granted I already had a monitor.

and lol @ saying "using the full power of the cell" in 2011
#1.1.3 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(58) | Disagree(40) | Report
theIMP  +   1501d ago
@ DualConsoleOwner
I think you're going a little far with the "WAY BETTER" thing. Also what exclusive are you talking about that’s doing half of what BF3 is? I really want to know so I can go buy it tonight. Please don't take this the wrong way. I love every game you just listed, but to compare a game like GOW3 where you can't even move the camera to a game like BF 3 that has that much stuff going on at one time is pretty sill if you ask me. Again I love GOW3, hell and 1, 2, Chains of Olympus, and Ghost of Sparta, but they are not even in the same league as this.
Montrealien  +   1501d ago
To be fair, on the PC, Arma 2 does way more then half of what BF3 does, and it looks pretty damn good. Does that count as an exclusive? since it kinda is.
Ve_Chuy  +   1501d ago
dualshock to a keyboard on a shooter hahahahaha u made my day
dyennam  +   1501d ago
@ Ve-Chuy

Dude he was just telling his opinion on what he prefers.
B00M  +   1501d ago
Montrealien - Yeh agree with what you said on Arma 2. I've tried the demo but its just so glitchy and the controls feel horrible. Graphics arent bad but it is a demanding game.
pandehz  +   1501d ago
Misleading horsecrap.

Make statements with logic and facts. Try not to mix em up with ur version of facts.

2000$? Gimme
vulcanproject  +   1501d ago
Looks amazing in the PC shots. Perfectly acceptable on console.

Anyone that thinks consoles in the later stages of their lifespan could stand up to a decent gaming PC needs their heads checking.

PC gamers will have paid more and they will get more when it comes to visuals. That is life and that is how it should be
Ulf  +   1501d ago
People love to exclude the keyboard, mouse, and OS and when they "build a custom gaming rig for under X $$$", or the coffee table you'd need to set up to use those things (in the livingroom) without a monitor and computer desk as well.

It's pretty tiresome to hear PC fanboys go on and on about how cheap a "good" gaming PC is, when its basically BS, unless you plan on scavenging components from an old PC, pirating a copy of Windows ("re-using" it is actually illegal, you know), and already have a decent monitor, desk, speakers, etc., or plan on setting up your living room to have said gaming PC -- which is a huge irritant for most people.

The PS3 version looks great for what it is. I'm not complaining, and I'm not bothering to get it on PC, despite owning a PC which can give my PS3 a performance beatdown.
#1.1.11 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(29) | Report
DaTruth  +   1501d ago
Although a $700 PC is all you need, he said he is getting a MAC; whatever you can get in a PC will cost you a helluva lot more as a MAC!
vulcanproject  +   1501d ago
@ Ulf

Probably because a keyboard and mouse are cheap peripherals and you can get them for next to nothing all the way up to uber prices as you choose. As are monitors, when you can use a HDTV same as a console.

PC is a flexible system with many options. Many are obvious and shouldn't need to be explained constantly like i find myself doing to people here who only present one side of an argument. Flexibility is one of the great assets of the system. Table? Stand? You could use a pad or wireless keyboards etc or build a small, discreet, powerful HTPC that fits on a tv stand. Same place where a console might go. Vast options to suit anyone's requirements desiring a gaming PC.

It is tiresome for me too listening to console only gamers forgetting stuff like extra peripherals for their machine, or online subscription renewals or bigger hard drives or games that are always more expensive over the life of their console ownership which would add up to many hundreds of £/$ more than PC versions...

This works both ways. Think. I have owned every major console from every generation since the late 80's and have a nice gaming PC setup. Many people now consider their PC as an essential home item and would not be without one. So i consider it extra value if the PC can also play games besides the other stuff you might always use one for.

People are going to talk about a budget gaming PC which would certainly destroy aging consoles especially when it is in a topic about a special looking PC game such as this. Other people should at least accept that is going to happen instead of launching into a tirade.
#1.1.13 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(23) | Disagree(6) | Report
Tank_Commander_E6  +   1501d ago
They're disappointed? Did they expect it to look exactly like the PC version? F***ing idiots.

BF3 looks a million times better than MW3. I can't wait to checkout the rest of the game hopefully we'll get new footage soon.


What the f**k are talking about and why do you awesome it's PS3 gamers that are complaining?
#1.1.14 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(4) | Report
HSx9   1501d ago | Trolling | show
gamingdroid  +   1501d ago
When I first saw the footage of BF3 at E3, I was like wow, that some seriously good graphics! Until my friend told me, that is PC!

Well, how the heck am I suppose to know it is PC footage if they don't say it and show it during one of the three's console manufacturers conference?

Maybe that has something to do with it? Maybe the marketing department have been talking sh!t up about new engine, Frostbite 2, and people got their expectations up? Combine that with the footage they have shown?

@Ju below:

So the PS3 is actually more similar to PC, as many games requires an installation. KB/Mouse say hello to controller.

I don't think PC will replace consoles in the near future, but they are more similar than you think.
#1.1.16 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(22) | Report
Ju   1501d ago | Trolling | show
HeroComplex   1501d ago | Trolling | show
xTruthx  +   1501d ago
All the people who disagreed with this

"You don't need a $2000 PC gaming rig to make BF3 look better than the PS3. $700 should do it. "

Have probably never build a computer part from part

"Well, how the heck am I suppose to know it is PC footage if they don't say it and show it during one of the three's console manufacturers conference"

It was pretty clear it was running on PC when they showed the guy with a keyboard and mouse right at the beginning
#1.1.19 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(4) | Report
Tank_Commander_E6  +   1501d ago
obviously I meant to write assume instead of awesome. XD
slayorofgods  +   1501d ago
Anyone that believes that it costs 2000 dollars to have a gaming pc is ignorant.

Some of you are sounding ridiculous; PS3 owners on here are acting like the PC gamers are the ones putting down the PS3 version, not true. All they are saying is it doesn't cost 2000 dollars to have a gaming PC. A 700 dollar gaming PC is very realistic, I only paid 500 for my build and it runs most games on very high.
#1.1.21 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(6) | Report
Elwenil  +   1501d ago
I think a lot of people are put off by the whole expensive PC thing. While $2k is a bit much, it's understandable for someone buying a "in the box" PC and not building it from scratch. Personally, while you can build a $700 gaming rig now, it will be damn near useless in a few years so you are probably better off to spend $2k or so to build one so it will be relevant a little longer rather than dump almost a grand every few years. I know my old Pentium 4 rig I'm on now was a compromise when I built it in '05 and now it's next to worthless for new games. I can't hope to run ARMA 3 on it as it barely ran the original ARMA on low settings. I swore my next build would be with the best tech that was available at the time so it would be a little more "future resistant". I'm not talking ridiculous $1k i7 Extreme processors but at least an i7 of some sort and a current generation graphics card and enough RAM to be useful until an upgrade is needed provided the motherboard can handle it. For me, this will require everything new except for the tower case itself, which is a shame since I hate this Ultra POS I have now. My Thermaltake 480w power supply? Useless on a modern rig. My old PATA drives? RAM? 8X AGP graphics card? P4M900 MB? All useless for a modern rig. My monitor is new but my old G15 keyboard and G7 mouse have just about had it so those will need replacing also.

So while you can build a PC for gaming for $700 for some people, you can't logically disagree with other people who say that such a PC will not fit their individual needs. $700 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I will need for my next gaming PC.
lil Titan  +   1501d ago
i thought the game looked decent being that ITS NOT FINISHED YET smh wait until the game releases
AKS  +   1501d ago
Seems like there's a lot of hate being thrown at PC gamers. I game around 50/50 PC and PS3 most of the time (and own a Wii and 360), and I have no problem with the way the PS3 verion looks. I think DICE has done a great jobs making the PC, 360, and PS3 versions of multiplatform games look great.
Aquanox  +   1501d ago
We're in the times of sli/crossfire setups (wih each GPU 4x more powerful than the ones on consoles), CPUs that easily overclock to 4.5Ghz and 8GB of DDR3 Ram now, and BF3 will most likely drain every bit of power of those setups. Why in hell wouldn't it look better than the PS3 version?
#1.1.25 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report
AKS  +   1501d ago

"$700 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I will need for my next gaming PC."

Need or want? You don't NEED to run every game at max. Perhaps you WANT to, so you will spend a lot more than you actually need to?

An overclocked Sandy Bridge i5 ($200) and decent mid to upper mid range card ($200 to $250; here's an XFX 6950 w/ STALKER Pripyat and Dirt 3 for $199 shipped http://www.newegg.com/Produ... ) will play every game on the market at respectable settings, just not always at max with the top end games.
#1.1.26 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report
Deputydon  +   1501d ago

Okay, and to get HD graphics from a PS3/Xbox 360 you need an HDTV *SHOCK*. So add that into the price of a console I suppose...

If you build your own PC (which is ridiculously easy anyways) you can get a pretty damn capable PC for pretty cheap. I just bought a new PC mainly because of BF3. I honestly have no clue if it will run the final product at 1080p on very high settings, but I'm positive it'll manage on at least high.

Nvidia GTX 560 Ti
Phenom II x4 955 BE (@3.6, easily OCed from 3.2)
8GBs of Ram
Asus M4N98TD EVO Motherboard

The reason people don't include keyboard and mouse. Do you REALLY need to buy new ones? I've used the same keyboard since CS:CZ came out. That's 7 years on the same crappy $8 crappy basic keyboard. I used a $14 Logitech Click mouse for years, best mouse I've ever used for gaming until it broke, about 6 years after I bought it.

Also, 'reusing' Windows is not illegal unless you have an OEM version. And that's because the OEM version is meant for 'system builders.' Which really means, companies looking to build system and sell them. Such as Dell. The serial number gets attached to that motherboard so it can't be reactivated on another motherboard. A RETAIL copy of Windows is free to reuse as much as you want. You just cannot have it activated on more than one computer at one time. Meaning if your household has multiple computers, in order to 'legally' have windows on each computer, you'd have to buy a copy for each PC.

In most cases you can even use the case from your old PC assuming it's not a Dell and is big enough... same with the HDD. Why would you not reuse hardware if given a chance? If the PS4 comes out and it uses the exact same controller as the PS3 just called 'Dual Shock 4' but the PS3 controller will still work on it, are you going to go out and purchase an extra dualshock 4 just because the name claims it's newer? Well, you might, I sure as hell would be happy using the old one. Just like i'm doing with my keyboard, mouse, HDD, and my RETAIL copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.

Oh, and for the record, I actually think the PS3 version looks pretty good for a console game. Not to mention I'm mainly a PS3 gamer (350+ hours of Demon's Souls). Yeah.

EDIT: I forgot to mention how much I paid for my new PC excluding all the reused things. I bought a new case as well. An Antec 300 for $60. I also bought a new PSU mainly because I wanted to, my old one was 500 watts which would have worked, but I wanted to make sure it was adaptable for the future (buying another 560 Ti for SLI down the road, which will effectively add another 2-3 years for what will be relatively cheap at that point) So I went with a 650 Watt Antec PSU on sale on Newegg for $65 That makes the total cost of my pc about $625. Excluding my HDD, Monitor (Acer H243H), mouse, and keyboard. More expensive than a console? Yes (the same price as a launch PS3 with tax....)and I get superior looking games.
#1.1.27 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(5) | Report
Elwenil  +   1501d ago

Need or want? Well that's sort of the point. I could build a new PC for about $1k to run todays game but, like I said above, I would be back in the same spot I am now in a couple years and have to do it all over again. Keep in mind that I don't overclock my PCs to keep them reliable as I work for a living and can't afford to cut short the life of anything I buy. Also since I am running a 32 bit P4 with XP, I would need a new OS and everything which just ads more to the price. And no, I do not run linux or pirated OS. I use my PC for more than gaming so it has to meet certain reasonable requirements. So is it want or need to have a PC that is relevant for more than a few years? Is it more practical to spend $700-$1k every couple years to update a PC or just spend $2k or more to build one that is good for 5 years or more?

No one can say what fits an individuals needs more than that individual. Sure, a lot of us could get by with less than we "want" but am I not already doing that by getting BF3 for my PS3? I would love to play BF3 with my old squad at Tactical Gamer on PC but $700 or $2k, it's just not in the finances right now. Maybe next year. But either way I disagree with the people saying "all you need is $700 for a gaming PC" since this may apply to someone with a fairly modern gaming rig already that just needs and overhaul or it could be a console gamer with a 10 year old laptop that will need damn near everything. So I would caution people to not criticize others for not agreeing that "all you need is $700".
mrsatan  +   1501d ago
There is no Mac that will play this game at the highest settings. Keep dreaming and get a real gaming PC.
RedDragan  +   1501d ago
You can build a gaming PC for $700, but it would not be anywhere near as good as a gaming PC that costs $2000.

But that is by the by, the thing that matters most is what you want and what you are willing to put up with.

If that means a $300 PS3, $700 gaming PC or a top of the range $2000... so be it. The magic of this world is it is all your choice and nobody can stop you.
vulcanproject  +   1501d ago
Updating a PC inside a console generation for games is not always needed, it is a choice if your machine is already faster i believe. Once its faster, its always faster than that generation...

This caught my eye from Elwenil : "Is it more practical to spend $700-$1k every couple years to update a PC or just spend $2k or more to build one that is good for 5 years or more?"

I think it is entirely more practical to spend less and update more often. Let me get this clear, i don't believe it NECESSARY, its just choice.

However, because of the speed of the technology you could spend a fortune on a machine, get all top end gear, and then within 2-3 years at very most, cheap lower/midrange hardware is far faster.

I feel it is far wiser to buy smart, buy components that are the best balance of performance and cost with the most chance of a long lifespan. Then upgrade gradually selling older parts to subsidise, and retain parts that can outlast main processors like cases and power supplies etc.

If you spend a lot of money you might find yourself with a machine dated far faster than you had hoped and parts worth far less to sell and replace with newer. This is why $700-1k every couple of years makes more sense to me than $2k every 5 years. You will almost certainly have a much better system more of the time this way.

If you had spent $2k 5 years ago you would have a Core 2 duo and a X1900XTX and still have it. If you had split it over time and spent less you would have had a slower machine then yes, but also now probably upgraded to an i5 750 and say a Radeon 4870. A far better machine.
#1.1.31 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
orakga  +   1501d ago
You don't need to "do it all over again". That argument is so flawed.

You can build a $700-1,000 system today, enjoy it for a couple of years, then spend $500 or so in the second year to extend its life for another 12-18 months. I've done that pretty much all since 2000 (before then, yes, you sorta had to "do it all over again" due to technology standards changing too fast).

Plus, don't forget that this is your PC. It's not like you own a PC for browsing, then another PC just for gaming. Everybody owns a $500+ desktop already, so you're really only adding a $100-200/year premium on top of your existing PC to make it "gaming capable".

Like others have been saying, people who use these hyperboles have no idea how PC gaming actually works.

I own two PS3s and 360s as well, so please don't go branding me as a PC fanboy. I just don't want facts being skewed unfairly in this discussion.
pixelsword  +   1501d ago
It's a multiplat, which won't look as good as an exclusive anyways, so the fact that it looks good in and of itself ought to be enough.
DatNJDom81  +   1501d ago
I'm pretty sure that the "fanboys" that are complaining are most likely the xbox camp from this site. LOL. See I can start something on the interwebz too. Hooray for me getting recognized online!
awi5951  +   1501d ago

Well when i saw the graphics its a dead give away. Did you really think a console could make graphics that crisp and clear with that draw distance. When i first saw it i knew it was pc i dont see how you would get confused. Maybe because you never had a good gaming pc maybe.
ChrisW  +   1501d ago
Everyone knows that it's impossible to get the exact same graphics across all platforms.

And IMO, it looks damn awesome on the PS3 considering that it's running at an equivalent to a nVidia 7800GTX. That is technically 4 generations behind the newest graphics card.

If they can do that good of a job with the PS3, then they did a DAMN good job!!!
ht2112  +   1501d ago
I can play PC games with a Dualshock 3 controller.
Or a Xbox 360 controller.
Or a Mouse and Keyboard.
While sitting on the couch playing on a 60' Plasma @ 1920*1080 because my computer can hook up to a TV.
Shocking! Right?
(I also own a PS3 and an Xbox 360)
Hedonism_Bot   1501d ago | Spam
badz149  +   1501d ago
most of those complaining are PC fanboys! they really feel the need to emphasize that the PC is more powerful which is common sense anyway! BF3 looks good on PS3. not PC good but still good regardless! stop whining bitches!!
ChrisW  +   1500d ago

Unfortunately younger gamers more than likely still live their parents probably aren't allowed to hook their computer up to their TV... that is, if their parents have a TV capable of hooking a computer up to.
I_find_it_funny  +   1501d ago
they lack common sense
The_Claw  +   1501d ago
Pre-Alpha build confirmed.
narked  +   1501d ago
still, it's like having a fiat and expecting it to drive like a ferrari
gedapeleda  +   1501d ago
They should downgrade graphics on consoles,and allow more players and bigger maps,cuz I dont give a $%!^ how those graphics look bc1 visuals would be good enough.
godslayer429  +   1501d ago
a dumbass
S_C  +   1501d ago
The game Looks really good for console but did anyone eles notice line on the screen when the player moves and when he run through the door way ?
The_Claw  +   1501d ago
you probably saw a bad video. some guy was promoting a 1080p video when in reality it was 720p upscaled and looked like crap. try watching it in 720p
S_C  +   1501d ago
cheers mate, shall do now :D
ILikeTurtles  +   1501d ago
"I'm a ps3 fanboy"
I stoped reading right there xD
Petro  +   1501d ago
Why did you stop reading there? Wouldn't we who own and love our PlayStation 3's be the most disappointed if game for our system looked bad? And it obviously doesn't look bad at all.
Mr Patriot  +   1501d ago
Im disappointed son :(
Jocosta  +   1501d ago
It is because Ps3 fanboys still think that the Ps3 is somehow just as powerful if not more than a good gaming rig.
Petro  +   1501d ago
No we don't. Also stop generalising like we all are single minded. Usually when we talk about games and graphics we are comparing them to other games of the same platform or to other console games. Cause its obvious that PC can do better graphics.
HSx9  +   1501d ago
Im laughing at the fact that these PS3 Fanboys are admitting their fanboyism with Gaming machines
Clarence  +   1501d ago
We all don't think like that. Pc shooters are suffering. Why do you think the top Pc shooters are coming to consoles. The market for shooters is stronger on consoles right now. I bet your pc friends already have consoles.

Go cop a PS3 or 360 so you don't have to play online by yourself.
PRHB HYBRiiD  +   1501d ago
it looked awesome...*goes to gamestop to finish payment*
Statix  +   1501d ago
The people who are disappointed by or lambasting the footage of Battlefield 3 on PS3 are either:

a) MW3 fanboys looking to bash BF3
b) PC fanboys looking to bash the console version of BF3
c) Mentally retarded
#1.8 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(31) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
DaTruth  +   1501d ago
d)all of the above.
Ser  +   1501d ago
I agree with all of the options aside from "c."

The difference in quality is there, but it's not so drastically different to the point where I would consider getting BF3 for my PC instead.
FFXI101  +   1501d ago
Agree with you Statix..
PC's vision(BF3) is looking better no doubt.

But there is no need to bash the console vision or console gamers, lot of us prefer to play on the consoles because most of our friens do.

Just be glad we have a nice, decent game to play.
#1.8.3 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Ju  +   1501d ago
Oh, I think it looks awesome on the PS3. Well, and of course it would be a big disappointment if a SLI PC wouldn't beat the shit out of it. Who knew.

And yet, for me it looks good enough to say "PC who?".
#1.8.4 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report
Kaneda  +   1501d ago
The smoke could have look a little better..

Before the car got hit by rocketpropeller..the smoke looks weird.. but they are still working on it.. :)

sorry, for complaining..
#1.9 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
frostypants  +   1501d ago
The problem is DICE's own PR people basically implied that the console version would practically be the same, as if they were going to pull off some sort of miracle. They then allowed this delusion to grow by only releasing precious few console screenshots, and sandbagging gameplay video from the consoles while they showed everyone the PC stuff at E3.

Yes, it's ridiculous to actually believe that the console version would match the PC, but at the same time, DICE (and other devs) needs to stop mincing words in their cheerleading sessions and interviews and just speak the TRUTH about these things up front. Otherwise, this is what happens: people who feel they were duped get whiney about it. I promise you their PR people did all this intentionally to drive interest in the game...for DICE to now act like they're surprised that people feel misled is a bit hypocritical and insincere.

If they would just say "the PC version will look better and there's nothing we can do about that" up front, it would shut these people up.

Anyway, that PS3 gameplay still looked FREAKING GOOD, aside from maybe the smoke effects. What do people want?! For 6 year old hardware it looked pretty epic to me.
#1.10 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
squidyj  +   1501d ago
“Our philosophy is to not to talk about things we cannot prove and this is true also when it comes to the quality of the Xbox 360 version of the game. All of the core game systems (animation, destruction, rendering, audio etc.) are the same on all platforms so there will not be a difference when it comes to the general experience of the game. Some technicalities will of course be different due to larger memory and the graphics cards you can have on the PC. We are trying to push the envelope of FPS games in general and this will be obvious in all versions of the game. Looking back to what quality we achieved with Battlefield Bad Company 2 last year we do know how to make high quality games on all platforms.”

This is what you're talking about. It doesn't say games are going to look the same, it's saying all the core systems are in all the platforms so you're going to get the same basic experience on all platforms. It does not mean that consoles are going to look the same as the PC version. Anyonw who pulled that out of this quote was deluding himself from the start.
frostypants  +   1501d ago
That's the kind of thing I mean, yes. But that's hardly the only statement they made. In any event, my point was that yes, anyone who assumed the PC version wouldn't look better was deluded, BUT DICE was not as direct as they could have been. Look at the statement you refer to...it took them a full paragraph to say what they could have said in one concise sentence: "the PC version will look better." Then, the decision to show everyone the PC version at E3 but sit on the console. Again, it's PR stuff and it's intentional. They know what they did.

In summary, yes the gamers in question were delusional. But DICE marketing/PR did everything they could to exploit it.

The funny thing is the console version looks impressive enough that just about everyone would have been happy anyway if DICE had just managed expectations better (or rather, not implicitly exploited them).
#1.10.2 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
Rainstorm81  +   1501d ago
Frosty, dude, they are in business to sell games...

They couldntve alienated all console gamers by riding the pc, the console fps market isnt small. Besides the way Dice put it is more professional than just sating "the pc version will look better"

As squidy said anyone that took out of that statement that they will all be equal was kidding themselves from the beginning..

Reading is fundemental....
squidyj  +   1501d ago
I'd challenge you to find these other statements in that case.
hiredhelp  +   1501d ago
Im concerned that more of this goes on by a silly select few ppl. Ea wont make for ps3 instead start doing ports. Please for thoes who are trying to ruin things for the rest of us stop it.

You cant get blood from a stone witch means you moan not like pc go buy a pc what do you expect.
Myself i think dont bloody amazing job.

Oh last thing if this is a stunt to knock the game to give mw3 more sales , its not working for me. Ill be buying on pc and ps3,
#1.11 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
StbI990  +   1501d ago
U mean, EA are a bunch of mofos who gives attention to every f fags complaining out there?

Don't blame the fanboys, they are just a bunch of blind spot on a already blind field, EA should take there opinions from other kind of you know, fanatics, those with constructive opinion, and not destructive like most fanfags around.
GarandShooter  +   1501d ago
The only thing that will shape EA's PS3 development plans is sales of their games on the PS3, not unrealistic complaints from losers on the internet.
MsButterbean  +   1501d ago
I'm not sure what the issue is, because the PS3 version looks incredible.

PS: Isn't it amazing that no one even mentions the xbox 360 version of the game? Which must mean, PC version > PS3 version >>> Xbox 360 version.
jetlian  +   1501d ago
360 fans are more realistic! they not trying to beat everything on the market.
SSKILLZ  +   1501d ago
No one cares about the 360 version it probably looks 16 bit
#1.12.2 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(7) | Report
MysticStrummer  +   1501d ago
@jetlian - Would those be the same realistic 360 fans that think Crysis 2 on consoles looks better than either Killzone 2 or Killzone 3?
jetlian  +   1501d ago
its the ones that know crysis 2 looks better than kz2/3
showtimefolks  +   1501d ago
its hard to please everyone
BF3 on pc is suppose to look better that's the point of having a pc that can run awesome games.

but whoever says it doesn't look good on consoles is blind

so keep up the great work dice looking forward to BF3
Jack-Dangerously  +   1501d ago
I don't think ANYONE expected it to look BETTER than the pc version. That is absolutely crazy man.

OT: Maybe the reason they expected it to look "the same" is because DICE was running their mouth about how their goal is to "make it the same across all platforms" ect ect.(hopefully that didn't come off as rude, as I am a huge DICE fan)

The more I watch it the more I like it. But my expectations were WAY too high from the get-go(though I wasn't expecting pc quality).

But after reality has sunk it, I can honestly say now that I am MORE than satisfied.

#1.14 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
finbars75  +   1501d ago
I agree 100% I didn't expect it to look as good as the pc.To be honest with you I knew it was pre alpha build but even for that the game still looks awsome and I loved the destruction i'n it very detailed.This game is still going to be a beast of a game from what I have seen so far.I can't wait unti Oct.25.So instead of complaining about it just give it until release date to decide on the graphics I'm sure it will look awsome but it's the gameplay that counts to me for this franchise.
slayorofgods  +   1501d ago

PC's don't need to be replaced every year. If you absolutely need the most cutting edge pc or a mac then you will be spending a lot of money. But for gaming purposes a 3 core processor is the magical number. So a AMD quad core for about 150 - 200 bucks will last you a long time. Personally I think the i7's are overkill. Additionally, graphics cards can be upgraded separately, and in all honesty you shouldn't need to upgrade them every time a new graphics card comes out. You'd be fine upgrading every 5 years or more and keeping up with current games. I have a amd 5770 ( a 130 dollar card) and I'm keeping it until the ps4 and new x box comes out. Previously my pentium 4 processor lasted about 7 years, the life-cycle of a console.

My build
amd x3 (unlocked 4th core and catch, it becomes a powerful phenom processor for 90 bucks)
gigabyte motherboard (70 bucks, make sure you have sata3 support)
4 gigs ram (dirt cheap right now 40 bucks)
Radeon 5770 graphics card (130 buck)
tarabyte hard drive (dirt cheap now 60 buck)
reused old case (free)
750 watt power (never skimp on this, 80 bucks)
#1.16 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
JsonHenry  +   1501d ago
I thought it looked damned good for a console port.
awi5951  +   1501d ago
Ps3 fanboys man what can i say. Consoles are old tech sorry thats what happens when you go over 5 years in the market.
likedamaster  +   1501d ago
A PS3 gamer disappointed? What's new.
trancefreak  +   1501d ago
I thought this looked fantastic really why so many complaints. Choose your weapon and play the game!

Definitely getting me a pc copy and the kids a ps3 copy. I know they will love while I ban them from being another cod game.

My 13 is already begging for the new blops map pack go figuire.
makingdamage  +   1500d ago
Yeah, I totally agree pedrami91!
What worries me though is the fact that Dice wants to create a battlefield with only 24 players! We´ve already seen that it didnt work in BC1 & 2 and now they want to repeat the same missatake!?

I´m not saying those games are bad, just that they dont give the player a sense of being involved in a battlefield and thats what the title of the game communicates.
KRATOS-PS3  +   1500d ago
you can't compare the RSX exactly to the GF 7800GTX. Actually, the RSX is faster.

Nate-Dog  +   1501d ago
Anyone complaining is deluded because it looks pretty boss to me and it's still not the finished article yet. Nice work DICE.
dangert12  +   1501d ago
Games critics are just getting stupider every minute.
I mean beta's get reviewed O_o

and then they asses the game on the beta and say the games crap.Instead of...

'this level meh and i don't like how the perks work'

where they should be saying it has potential i will get the game if they fix this, they say...' nah the games shit' but to be honest with you all the lastest beta's for games did't need beta's as player feed back has been ignored.

for example.

Killzone 3
Finally Fantasy 14? (that mmo from last yr)
Socom 4

I mean if there just going to ignore us straight do what CoD do and run no beta's tell us its internal.
Nicaragua  +   1501d ago
In all fairness KZ3 and SOCOM 4 were both released in a pretty sorry state so the critics points were justified - SOCOM still dosnt even have a party system which is pretty ridiculous for a game focused on its online multiplayer.
Ulf  +   1501d ago
You realize that changes and patches take like 2 months to get through the quality assurance pipeline, and to hit PSN, right?

Have you even bothered to download the latest patch for SOCOM 4? You know, the one that would have been the first actual response to beta feedback?

Understanding how these things work is critical to posing a valid complaint about them.
#2.1.2 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(5) | Report
frostypants  +   1501d ago
All the more reason not to release a game in an unfinished state.
dangert12  +   1501d ago
Such an aggressive response :p
I don't care how long they take to get patches to playstation network IMO
killzone 3 should not have released when it did
because it was broken if you think it is acceptable to say yes pay £40 and these 'fixes may come' then hey ho thats you. but i like something better rounded off say like uncharted 2 online
Ju  +   1501d ago
What are you going on about? Neither KZ3 nor Socom4 were broken at launch. Not like some other games which actually crash or would not connect. Stop comparing the two to those beta releases from some other developers. Both got tuned, like they usually do because more people get their hands on and the devs get more feedback. And no, a beta will never be a full representation on how the game is received at launch. All it can do is to make sure it is free of technical faults (as much as possible). I played Socom4 and KZ3 at launch, so do even think about telling me what worked or what didn't.
Ulf  +   1501d ago
Anyone who believes KZ3 and SOCOM 4 were "unfinished" at launch have, obviously, never played them. They were both extremely polished at launch -- I know, because I *did* play them at launch. The patches are simply responses to user feedback.

How anyone can complain about that is beyond me. The spoiled gamer is really a remarkable animal. You guys must be like 15 years old, or somehow have gone through life completely ignorant of the amount of human effort it takes to put large media projects, like games and movies, together. There's a good reason most game developers are < 35 years old you know... most of them quit by then, and move on to an easier job, which pays better.

I get a laugh every time someone whines about how their game design choices would be better for all the world, and how they could have made such-and-such game by burning a digital image into a disc with a magnifying glass and a cigarette in their backyard.
#2.1.6 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report
dangert12  +   1501d ago
-joining game lobbies 8 vs 2?

-bullet hit detection(dying in split 2nds)

-badges not showing up allowing stop you from using perks

-respawning into tree's you have to kill yourself to get out

-aweful map rotation when perefed is selected


search me on the kz forums played 23hrs of it then sold it if you think up above is hw games should be released, you need to check yourself out
THC CELL   1501d ago | Bad language | show
Ninver  +   1501d ago
wow are you serious? why respond. Frankly all gamers should know by now multiplats are best played on PC. PS3 shines in exclusives and the 360...well let's just say M$ is happy with their sales.

If you were expecting Uncharted 3 like graphics well then you just got trolled lol.
#4 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(21) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
pandehz  +   1501d ago

I own a gaming pc and an xbox, Unfortunately just a psp from sony side.

Whenever theres a multiplat i buy the pc version.

Various reasons for this behaviour, i dont need to explain coz pc owners know what im talking about.
superrey19  +   1501d ago
Same here, except I have a PC + ps3 combo.
MasterCornholio  +   1501d ago
Whats stupid is that there are people who believe it will look the same as the PC version. The PS3s hardware is 5 years old so its normal that a modern day PC will be able to produce better visuals than it. What you should be happy about is that the PS3s version will look good and play with a solid framerate. Unlike crysis which was in sub HD and had a terrible framerate on consoles.
Kleptic  +   1501d ago
I'm disappointed with what they showed, but not because it didn't look good...but because they barely showed anything...

This is the game that is going to bring the console vs. PC bs to an all time high for the generation...with what they showed, there is barely a discernible difference...period...the lighting looks similar, the level geometry (at least from this off screen footage) is identical, the animation was the same...etc...the particle effects where definitely lacking (the burning car looked ridiculous at one point), but that is obviously an issue of an unfinished product...

that is not to say the consoles will be the same or even close to the full blown PC version...its just they didn't show anything to really prove what the consoles can or can't do...I was hoping to see the bridge section under the helicopter...as there is way more stuff going on in that scene, and if anything of whats been shown of the game so far, that is the area that most people want to see how the consoles hold up...
Sharingan_no_Kakashi  +   1501d ago

I was pretty impressed by the grafx. They used the cell splendidly. As long as it's not subhd with a poor framerate and pop ins I'm good. Ppl shouldnt Cry over this tek.
Statix  +   1501d ago
Lol @ "Cry over this tek."
BubbleSniper  +   1501d ago
i was crying over Crytek not having DX11 ready for Crysis 2
ZombieAssassin  +   1501d ago
WTF I thought it looked as good as Crysis 2 console version but cleaner.
#7 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
andron666  +   1501d ago
Yeah. Crysis 2 looked good on console, but had very variable frame rate. I expect BF3 console versions to have a much smoother frame rate if previous console BF games are any indication.

It doesn't matter how great a game looks, if there is massive screen tearing or great drops in the frame rate that's going to impact gameplay...
Inside_out  +   1501d ago
Crysis 2 in another league...lol
What Crysis game did you 2 play...lol.

Crysis 2 showed the world that the consoles have a long way to go. Here's some 360 footage to remind the fanboys whats up...


Destruction is beautiful...especially with Crytek...


I've been waiting for the console footage from Dice and I don't think that was it. I think that was the PC in " console " mode...lol. I'll wait for someone to break down the footage in terms of frame rate and resolution.
ZombieAssassin  +   1501d ago
LOL @inside_out calling people fanboys.

Yea Crysis 2 looked good but like andron666 said it's frame-rate was all over and had some screen-tearing, not to mention I'm sure the levels where smaller, gameplay was pretty bland too.
gcolley  +   1501d ago
another day, another bunch of whinging gamers
PS360PCROCKS  +   1501d ago
Hahaha wow. Some people's kids I swear. Perfect response from Dice, if your not smart enough to understand the PS3 is less powerful than modern PC's you deserve an answer that makes you feel stupid.

The footage looks great but come on PC's are and always will be more powerful than consoles.

Also sweet jesus the next person who utters "Ya on a $2000 PC" can you please leave your address so I can come smack the shit out of you one by one? PC's are NOT expensive, enthusiasts make them expensive. A system that maxes BF3 with a GTX 580 would run you about $8-900
DoomeDx  +   1501d ago
and about $500 if you want to play with some settings on HIGH, which will already be better then the console versions.
So indeed, not expansive.
Even though i have an $1000 PC, ill buy it for PS3. Laying down on the couch while playing with my friends through PSN is a must for me
BlackKnight  +   1501d ago
But I play my PC on my couch and HDTV too...Wireless mouse and keyboard FTW.

If there is any multiplat game to get on PC, it's BF3 man!
LOOK_AT_THIS_I  +   1501d ago
You cant get sweet graphics without a $2,000 gaming rig

Ill be waiting for you, heres my address :)
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
PS360PCROCKS  +   1501d ago
I had to read that address a few times lol good one
LOOK_AT_THIS_I  +   1501d ago
lol...i tried to get someone to do us all a favor :)
BeastlyRig  +   1501d ago
If you keep watching pc footage then watch ps3 footage it brings expectations very high!

I think this one of those situations where pc gamers pay more & should get more! Makses sense to me anyway..

on ps3 it looks better than anything else on consoles!
sourav93  +   1501d ago
Better than anything on consoles? hmmm....
DoomeDx  +   1501d ago
It doesnt beat exclusive games like Killzone 3 and uncharted, BUT lets not forget that BF3 has alot of destructible enviroments which is a resource hog already, and it already looks better then Crysis 2 anyways
MARKUS_MAX1MUS  +   1501d ago

With dynamic lighting, dynamic environmental destruction, Animation, textures, realisim it looks way better than anything on console so far.
sourav93  +   1501d ago
I'm not saying it isn't better than anything on consoles. It's just that we've only seen a pre-alpha demo. I want to see how the whole game plays out, with all the destruction and everything, and if it still maintains the framerate without loss of visual quality, then we're talking. I won't make any judgments like Beastly before I play the full game.
orange-skittle  +   1501d ago
@ DoomeDx
Killzone 3 did not look THAT great. It looked really good, but not to the level you're praising it on. Halo, MW, and BF games are still beating it online because it's just what it is. There's nothing there that says I GOTTA PLAY THIS EVERY DAY. The fact that the terrain in BF changes in every game is a factor. When the environment changes, the strategy changes. When the window or bush you hid behind to snipe is no longer there...now what? When you go up against a team of guys that can fly the hell out of those copters or planes as opposed to guys that can flank you with humvees and tanks, you change the battle plan. It keeps you on your toes. Defenders Leveling the terrain to get a better visual of the enemy is also a problem you have to deal with when attacking.
pandehz  +   1501d ago
Yep the ps3 footage for BF3 is so immersive. More than any static PS3 game.

Not played too many PS3 games, as I mostly play them on my friends place. But yea considering uncharted, gow and killzone2/3, this makes these others look so static and game-like.
Bonobo12345  +   1501d ago
Watching this?????
This video does no justice to the game itself.
also from this video Uncharted definitely looks more visually accomplished..
But I'll wait till October to finalize this judgement (bear in mind I am talking about the ps3 version only..)
#10.2.1 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report
Statix  +   1501d ago
I'll give Battlefield props for the destructibility, but I still think that there are a few PS3 exclusives that look better and more impressive overall. Killzone 3 and Uncharted 2 just have more shader effects and visual fidelity overall, such as per-pixel motion blur, parallax mapping, high-quality shadow filtering, and much sharper and crisper textures. All these things are missing in BF3 (at least on the PS3 version).

Also, KZ3 has a lot of destructibility as well; just perhaps not quite to the level of Battlefield 3.
#10.3 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
squidyj  +   1501d ago
You have to recognize this is pre alpha footage, I think they're still working on getting things working on console. There isn't any form of dynamic AO from what I've seen either
orange-skittle  +   1501d ago
KZ3 DOES NOT have a lot of destructibility. The only close to this destructibility is BFBC2 and they made that too. Just because a crate or piece of a wall breaks off, doesnt mean squat. BF games put holes in walls to walk through. It levels structures and foliage. KZ3 does not do this. KZ3 scale is also small in comparison to BF maps. They put this type of action on a large scale compared to a box. People are mentioning GoW with it's linear focus and fix camera compared to a free flowing all out war game.
vandal GAB  +   1501d ago
And what was the pc version?
Tapioca Cold  +   1501d ago
Morons! Of course the PS3 footage will be inferior. man, people gotta control the hype machine. Good Lord!
Soldierone  +   1501d ago
I was expecting it to not look "as good" as the PC version, but I wasn't expecting it to look that noticeably different. Alot of the textures changed, and to me it seems the depth of field is different. I dont know.

There is just something there that I can't put my finger on that is bugging me. Either way it still looks good, a lot better than a majority of other shooters, but I dont know if it even surpasses Medal of Honor right there...
solar  +   1501d ago
and the cry baby generation continues....
X4life   1501d ago | Spam
Fishy Fingers  +   1501d ago
Hmm... Who expected ageing console hardware to compete with bleeding edge PC hardware? That's almost as stupid as the people who think a decent PC costs £4000.
#15 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
qwertyz  +   1501d ago
ps3 fanbiys really think teh cell can compete with high end pcs LOL ignorance is destruction. by the way you can build a high end pc for 900 like mine and I'm packing 4gb ram, i5 2500k and a gtx 570 superclock so high end pcs don't cost $2000. yes my pc does cost 900 which is 3 times as much as a ps4 but its also at least 30 times more powerful so I'd say the difference is worth it
Netic  +   1501d ago
I have a Core i5 750 OC to 3.6ghz, 8gb of ram and a Gtx470 and run everything maxed out in 1080p

It cost me 850$ without the LCD and mouse keyboard back in early 2010.
#16.1 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
qwertyz  +   1501d ago
built this new one like a month ago.its amazing how some people actually think their ps3 can match pc. even a $300 pc today will destroy the ps3. As of 2006, pcs where more powerful than ps3 so the ps3 was basically outdated in the hardware department when it launched lol. i know not all ps3 fanboys are ignorant but the ignorance some of them display is astonishing.
#16.1.1 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
pixelsword  +   1501d ago

That's not entirely correct, unless you can give me side-by-side footage of a racing game that blows-away GT5, which was said by (a website that only reviews racing games) that GT5 is better looking than any game they've seen on consoles or PC.

... but don't take my words for it.


It's about 33:30 into the video if I'm not mistaken.

If you disagree, please, make me eat my words with a side-by-side comparison; I've asked this for months with no proper response. I know I won't get one, because everyone's been trying to do a comparison since any media came out on the game, but I like to give the people who hit the disagree button something to think about, as they know the only thing they can do in terms of a retaliation is hit the button without revealing whom they are because they already know it is not possible rather than reveal how wrong they would be to even attempt to try.
#16.2 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
pixelsword  +   1499d ago
lol 2 days later and no response.

Just like I said.

matey  +   1501d ago
ill wait 4 WiiU version 1080p and better frame rates and graphics even with minimum spec custom HD4890 thats rumoured in japenese mag would mean High Settings on WiiU but AMD have said in not so many words there best graphics tech is going in WiiU check Toms Guide google it.
RugbyGod  +   1501d ago
Showing Pre-Alpha builds with 4 months before gold.....hmmm, color me unimpressed. I weep for the 360 version.
nitrogav  +   1501d ago
Can't wait to see the PS Vita footage next . It might even be a bit better than the PS3 version !! . Thought the PS3 looked good anyway . Just think cross platform playing between the two Sony consoles !! .
NYC_Gamer  +   1501d ago
they are doing their best with the hardware infront of them
#20 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
spektical  +   1501d ago
they are doing their best with their knowledge of the hardware infront of them.

*fixed. first party exclusives still run circles around everyone else in getting amazing effects/gameplay/etc.
Emilio_Estevez  +   1501d ago
Thought it looked pretty good. There is a 1080p vid on youtube.
#21 (Edited 1501d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Legionaire2005  +   1501d ago
Looks great to me and this is just alpha build. Looks almost identical to the PC Version, not too much different.
Olvipoika  +   1501d ago
jimmy fallon show ( bt3:ps3 build is pre-alpha ) btw
CrazyRap  +   1501d ago
We are satisfied.
-End of statement
Convas  +   1501d ago
Honestly folks, EA is to blame a bit for this. They advertised the PC version of Battlefield 3 on live Television. So if the average consumer had no idea that that was PC footage (Even though it had the words at the bottom "Pre-Aplha PC footage".
Phantasm  +   1501d ago
I've been one that's been bitching about no console footage. Well, I watched the HD footage on You Tube, and thought it looked very nice... I can't complain.

I think Dice/EA should be a little concerned about getting the the 360 version done right as well. A lot of shooter fans over with the Xbox brand.
Zontar  +   1501d ago
Everyone I know on 360 plays at least a couple of shooters. I think it will look really good on 360, for what it has left in it, but i trust dice.
BLAKHOODe  +   1501d ago
5 seconds after firing this game up on the PS3 this October nobody is going to care that the PC version might have better graphics. The game LOOKS amazing! If graphics being a smudge better on PC bothers you THAT much.. then buy the PC version of the game and shut up!
Ve_Chuy  +   1501d ago
High end Pcs always has had better graphics than ps3 even in 2006 when ps3 was new.
Venjense  +   1501d ago
Anyone expecting the console version to match the PC is lving in a dream world. That being said, B3 is looking to be one of the best looking console shooters especially when up consider destructible environments.

I was very please with what I saw; it looks a lot better than BFBC2.
ninjagoat  +   1501d ago
Some people really need to pull there heads outta there arses that is a great version of the game for console. I was expecting less than this tbh.

The pc version was always gonna win out console just does not have the tech to keep up.

Thats why i have a gaming pc aswell so i can have best of both worlds. But on viewing this ill be getting this game for both my PC and PS3 now without fail.

The game looks fantastic on both. Im pretty sure the xbox will come up with a A grade version aswell that will match the ps3 version. Why did people expect what they saw at E3 on pc to be what they where going get on console?.
« 1 2 3 4 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

BioShock and Batman: Arkham Knight Pop! figures announced

6m ago - More characters join the Pop! Vinyl collection with Funko's announcement of several from the BioS... | Culture

StickTwiddlers Podcast 72: Mods & Medical Mishaps

1h ago - Alan, Ben and Jamie talk about the past, present and future of modding as well as how much you ca... | PC

A Closer Look at Cuphead

Now - Its aesthetic and theme is inspired by classic 1930s-era animation from Fleischer Studios, classic Disney and notably, Ub Iwerks (Mickey Mouse) and... | Promoted post

Arcade Game Mechanosaur Hijacks the Moon Launching This Week On The App Store

1h ago - TTP:" A new really interesting arcade game is going to be released on the App Store this week, a... | iPhone

Multiplayer Game Battle Of Balls Now Available On The App Store

1h ago - TTP:" If you’re into simple casual games, there’s a good chance you know about Battle Of Balls, a... | iPhone

Tower Defense Game Tap Quest: Gate Keeper Now Available On The App Store

1h ago - TTP:" A really charming tower defense game is now available for download for free on the App Stor... | iPhone