Re: DICE: Lead Developement of BF3 Switched To Consoles.
Wow. I pretty much agree with everything everyone said in this thread.
For me it gives me a bad feeling, what DICE did. When I'm told PC is the "lead" platform it conjure up images and feelings of a game that will take full advantage of the PC platform. Like back in the day when we had to buy new video cards every six months to a year...had to. When I hear any kind of multi-platform development took place or it was "ported" I get the feeling my PC will not be fully taken advantage of and the game will not be as good as it could have been on PC only.
Here are the facts to me. Consoles are not as powerful as a modern PC. Consoles are simply not capable of the same graphic and processing power. It's a fact people. A modern PC could really do a lot more. Physics, high resolution textures, farther view distance, better LOD and on and on.
So the fact of the matter is "for me" BF3 could have been better, It could have been a lot better. Like we we're reminded above BF2 had map mouse interface clicking, UAVs, Squad voice com and so much more.
Since we are intelligent people...all of us, nobody can deny the simple fact the game could have been better than it is on PC. I don't know how satisfied people with consoles are with the game but I'll bet they are mostly happy because that's just about the best those machines can do.
You buy a VCR it plays VHS tapes.=Console-Expected.
You buy a blu-ray player and it plays only DVDs because that's all that's being made=PC-Not expected.
I think most PC people could care less about consoles and which is better because the truth is known. When people are told they are going to get a PC quality product and then find out it could have been better and it really wasn't quite how it was advertised then there is reason to feel lied to or rather more deceived then lied to.
Bottom line to me.
Is it a good console game: Great on of the best, takes full advantage of what the hardware offerers.
Is it a good PC game: Yes! However clearly it could have been pushed and developed further...clearly.
Would it run slower if pushed to PC limits, yes.
Would idiots complain that their system is to slow to run it and say it's unoptimized i.e. (FarCry, Crysis, GTA4...) Yes some, not me. I just lower settings until I can get a new card or system.
Might it have taken longer to push it to PC limits, probably...maybe another year.
Would people have been pissed if it was delayed, some. Not me.
Are PC gamers sick of this attitude of "you'll take what you get and like it," I think so. I know I am.
So I don't see any reason for any console person to even be in here brining up consoles. Consoles seem great and are fully utilized most of the time. PC don't seem to be anymore and people just want to talk about it without being called names and comparing one thing to another. Lets try to stay in reality and deal with facts.
Fact is my old ass PC runs this game at 1600x1200 all ultra setting with the exception of terrain detail at Med (DX10) No AA, HBAO @ 30fps solid. That should not be. I should need a 580GTX to run setting like that in a new game like this...if it had actually been pushed. Even DX10 could have been pushed further. I see some of the FPS DX11 is getting with new systems and it just seems too fast and more could have been done.
Rant/It's all being standardized though...for LCDs and game devs. Soon there will be no advantage to one or the other if you really think about it...then all of this will be over./rant
Asrock z77 Extreme3 Intel i5 3470 @ 4.0Ghz
Gigabyte GTX660 OC 2GB
DDR3-1600 / 8Gig Ripjaw
SB X-Fi FPS / Z-5500 + Buttkicker!
"Don't mind the posts, I've been around longer than most know."