Battlefield 3

i'm really looking forward to this, never got round to picking up battlefield 2 even though i loved the demo,
but reading how everyone is still enjoying the second one and how great the third actually looks,
i pretty sure this will be a first day purchase, just me or does the tanks move faster than the previous one?
just from memory, they were fairly slower
 
Yep but I believe theres tweaking to be done...its not even the beta, its an alpha footage...So IMO I wont take those little detail to seriously. but yea they do move faster =p ahah
 
I always liked battlefield and used to play it with my brother every now and then.

But all this PC hype. Is the gameplay actually better on the PC or is just better graphics.

Excuse my ignorance but what i never understand with PC players is they go on about PC being the best but, aren't they just playing console games with far better graphics? I mean if the AI is better, fine, but just the same as the console but with better graphics and modding capabilities?
 
well first of all...on console the max player capacity for a game is 24, while on pc its 64. On PC its way easier to play with a team since most player have mic and can easily use the chat system to communicate, while on console its only mic and 70% of players doesnt use it.

Also its way easier, and better to play an fps with a mouse and a keyboard, the graphics are better...theres no modding in battlefield but most fps have modding tools. You can host your own servers on the pc, have join the server YOU want instead of the game automatic and random server connect that is on console. So its easier to make friends and join and be a regular on a server and have a community feel to it. Some servers play with different modes and some sticks to a specific map.

the possibility on pc is already wider than on console...
 
lazyForken said:
well first of all...on console the max player capacity for a game is 24, while on pc its 64. On PC its way easier to play with a team since most player have mic and can easily use the chat system to communicate, while on console its only mic and 70% of players doesnt use it.

Also its way easier, and better to play an fps with a mouse and a keyboard, the graphics are better...theres no modding in battlefield but most fps have modding tools. You can host your own servers on the pc, have join the server YOU want instead of the game automatic and random server connect that is on console. So its easier to make friends and join and be a regular on a server and have a community feel to it. Some servers play with different modes and some sticks to a specific map.

the possibility on pc is already wider than on console...
Click to expand...


well said. plus free yes free MP online unlike xbox 360 who have to pay to play online for 12 months or whatever they chose for their gold accout service whilst Steam and now Origin is FREE yes FREE to use and prove the exact same features+ more then any of the consoles.

cross game chat? yep
game invites? yep
buddy list? yep

The list goes on. To think its just "graphics and mods" that make pc gaming appealing is nothing. there's lots of reasons.
 
Yeah but you still have to have a decent enough PC to get the best out of the game. To buy even a half decent PC these days is a few hundred pounds. The 360 and PS3 are already optimised for gaming straight out of the box no upgrades needed. Console gaming is way more cost effective IMO.

There's plus points on both sides. For me, I'm getting it on the PS3 as my experience with BF:BC2 was great.
 
mjsmith2k said:
Yeah but you still have to have a decent enough PC to get the best out of the game. To buy even a half decent PC these days is a few hundred pounds. The 360 and PS3 are already optimised for gaming straight out of the box no upgrades needed. Console gaming is way more cost effective IMO.

There's plus points on both sides. For me, I'm getting it on the PS3 as my experience with BF:BC2 was great.
Click to expand...

Hi MJ, Nowadays i find that you could build your own pc to a high entry level spec for around the same cost of a ps3, and then you have the added bonus of cheaper software. So if you normally buy quite a lot of games,say over a 3 year period you will save a fair bit. But i suppose it depends on the individual, dont think how i used to "sitting uncomfortable huddled around a monitor" think relaxing in your lounge with it running on your big screen.
 
This game looks shit hot

Can't wait for this now to replace the ageing and never changing COD/MW series
 
mjsmith2k said:
Yeah but you still have to have a decent enough PC to get the best out of the game. To buy even a half decent PC these days is a few hundred pounds. The 360 and PS3 are already optimised for gaming straight out of the box no upgrades needed. Console gaming is way more cost effective IMO.

There's plus points on both sides. For me, I'm getting it on the PS3 as my experience with BF:BC2 was great.
Click to expand...


Yea theirs plus points for both sides but which one has MORE plus points? IMO pc has far more plus points then a 360 and ps3.

Besides intitial cost of the console, i cant see many other reasons that favour gaming on a console rather then a pc.

Cost is not even a problem for me personally so that plus side of a console being cheaper doesnt benefit me at all.

IMO you get what you pay for. buy cheap and you can expect it to perform better then something more expensive and this applies to most things.

Dont forget that a pc can do FAR more then what a console can do. Consoles can in theory "just play games and movies" whilst a pc can do loads of things. A pc can even make you money mate unlike a console, i.e (pc's used for softare developers? graphics designers? music producers?) List goes on and on and how much can be achieved on a pc.

Its unfair to look at a pc for just playing games. I doubt ANYONE buys and owns a pc purely for gaming mate.

Buzzyhead said:
Hi MJ, Nowadays i find that you could build your own pc to a high entry level spec for around the same cost of a ps3, and then you have the added bonus of cheaper software. So if you normally buy quite a lot of games,say over a 3 year period you will save a fair bit. But i suppose it depends on the individual, dont think how i used to "sitting uncomfortable huddled around a monitor" think relaxing in your lounge with it running on your big screen.
Click to expand...


Sorry but that is not valid anymore. you can hook up your pc and play in your big TV with better Eye candy and framerates.
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Yea theirs plus points for both sides but which one has MORE plus points? IMO pc has far more plus points then a 360 and ps3.

Besides intitial cost of the console, i cant see many other reasons that favour gaming on a console rather then a pc.

Cost is not even a problem for me personally so that plus side of a console being cheaper doesnt benefit me at all.

IMO you get what you pay for. buy cheap and you can expect it to perform better then something more expensive and this applies to most things.

Dont forget that a pc can do FAR more then what a console can do. Consoles can in theory "just play games and movies" whilst a pc can do loads of things. A pc can even make you money mate unlike a console, i.e (pc's used for softare developers? graphics designers? music producers?) List goes on and on and how much can be achieved on a pc.

Its unfair to look at a pc for just playing games. I doubt ANYONE buys and owns a pc purely for gaming mate.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point mate I'm not comparing a PC to a console for any other reason than for just playing Battlefield 3...

I personally don't have the spare money to upgrade my PC to play the latest games at anywhere near the framerate/experience I currently get on my PS3 or 360. So I would have to upgrade my PC AND buy the game to be able to play Battlefield 3, which would inevitably cost more money than just simply buying the game for my PS3 which I already own and will work straight out the box.

That's one of the major plus points for console gaming - convenience. All the games are optimised to work straight out the box, you're controllers are set up, online is enabled and optimised, it's incredibly easy to connect with friends - there's no faffing about.
 
Buzzyhead said:
Hi MJ, Nowadays i find that you could build your own pc to a high entry level spec for around the same cost of a ps3, and then you have the added bonus of cheaper software. So if you normally buy quite a lot of games,say over a 3 year period you will save a fair bit. But i suppose it depends on the individual, dont think how i used to "sitting uncomfortable huddled around a monitor" think relaxing in your lounge with it running on your big screen.
Click to expand...

I dunno mate, you can get a second hand PS3 for about £150 these days. Then all you need is the game, so you're probably looking at just under £200 starting from scratch.

I doubt I'd be able to get set up with a decent enough PC to run B3 well for that sort of money and it'd be a lot more faffing about setting it all up. If I had the money and time though I'm sure it'd be worth doing, it would certainly look a lot better with a proper rig and of course PES and it's various patches would be significantly better than the console variant.
 
mjsmith2k said:
I think you missed my point mate I'm not comparing a PC to a console for any other reason than for just playing Battlefield 3...

I personally don't have the spare money to upgrade my PC to play the latest games at anywhere near the framerate/experience I currently get on my PS3 or 360. So I would have to upgrade my PC AND buy the game to be able to play Battlefield 3, which would inevitably cost more money than just simply buying the game for my PS3 which I already own and will work straight out the box.

That's one of the major plus points for console gaming - convenience. All the games are optimised to work straight out the box, you're controllers are set up, online is enabled and optimised, it's incredibly easy to connect with friends - there's no faffing about.
Click to expand...


cool i understand your point. a shame as i know before you would love to build a gaming rig but if money is the issue then of course consoles are a variable alternative and because you already have a console, your good to go matey.

You game more on 360 or ps3? Aint seen you much on psn nowadays.

i would personally get this game on the 360 instead of the ps3 as LIVE is tad bit better
 
Last edited:
lazyForken said:
well first of all...on console the max player capacity for a game is 24, while on pc its 64. On PC its way easier to play with a team since most player have mic and can easily use the chat system to communicate, while on console its only mic and 70% of players doesnt use it.

Also its way easier, and better to play an fps with a mouse and a keyboard, the graphics are better...theres no modding in battlefield but most fps have modding tools. You can host your own servers on the pc, have join the server YOU want instead of the game automatic and random server connect that is on console. So its easier to make friends and join and be a regular on a server and have a community feel to it. Some servers play with different modes and some sticks to a specific map.

the possibility on pc is already wider than on console...
Click to expand...

I think everyone's missed my point. I'm talking about the AI intelligence and the amount of game functions being such a Xbox or PS3 simply cannot handle it. As in a PS2 can't play ps3 games and son on.

I know PC's have better graphics, much better frame rates and more capabilities online but with the actual gameplay in terms of AI, can PC process games now which are so advanced in tech. The Xbox/PS3 will fry if you tried to play it?
 
klashman69 said:
I think everyone's missed my point. I'm talking about the AI intelligence and the amount of game functions being such a Xbox or PS3 simply cannot handle it. As in a PS2 can't play ps3 games and son on.

I know PC's have better graphics, much better frame rates and more capabilities online but with the actual gameplay in terms of AI, can PC process games now which are so advanced in tech. The Xbox/PS3 will fry if you tried to play it?
Click to expand...


Look at Arma 2. current consoles cant run Arma 2 as the AI is quite advance and none scripted on a massive game world 10x the size of liberty city in GTA4.

todays pc hardware can just about max that game mate. very AI dependant.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Look at Arma 2. current consoles cant run Arma 2 as the AI is quite advance and none scripted on a massive game world 10x the size of liberty city in GTA4.

todays pc hardware can just about max that game mate. very AI dependant.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, thanks for showing me an example of AI too advanced for consoles

YouTube - Arma 2 Huge Battle Over 1500 AI!!!

Excuse my ignorance but is this down to memory size being an issue or do you have to have a computer with the latest chip to play it? (Intel quad core etc..)
 
I was enjoying the ARMA video till he started shooting. The on/off 2D light for the gunfire is terrible.

1500 AI but it was too strung out and you barely saw anyone.

BF3 looks amazing but more importantly it sounds incredible. I thought BFBC2 sounded great but even on a Youtube video you can tell this is gonna be a level up from that.

My only concern is that with crawling and prone positions now available, it's gonna be impossible to actually kill anyone cause they'll just hit prone straight away and the shooting mechanics are already a bit loose. People hiding is gonna be a proper bastard as well, you'll just get shot from a bush every five seconds.
 
klashman69 said:
Oh ok, thanks for showing me an example of AI too advanced for consoles

YouTube - Arma 2 Huge Battle Over 1500 AI!!!

Excuse my ignorance but is this down to memory size being an issue or do you have to have a computer with the latest chip to play it? (Intel quad core etc..)
Click to expand...
generally AI power = CPU power.

nothing to do with the amount of shaders etc on a GPU. its all about the raw processng power to calculate the AI. that is why Arma 2 is ver CPU dependant.

for example, a 3 year old graphics card with a i7 quad core at 4ghz would run Arma 2 better then a 6month old GPU card running on a dual core cpu.

And about the sound., Thats fully moddable. i use a sound mod thats very similar to BC2.
 
jonneymendoza said:
generally AI power = CPU power.

nothing to do with the amount of shaders etc on a GPU. its all about the raw processng power to calculate the AI. that is why Arma 2 is ver CPU dependant.

for example, a 3 year old graphics card with a i7 quad core at 4ghz would run Arma 2 better then a 6month old GPU card running on a dual core cpu.

And about the sound., Thats fully moddable. i use a sound mod thats very similar to BC2.
Click to expand...

Ok, so how powerful does the CPU have to be to play Arma? Quad core?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom