PC guys dont deserve BC 2

Before I start, remember this is controversy what all Im about to say. These are opinions stated by me and only me and Im asking to either be set straight or a friendly debate. Constructive critism on both parts are welcomed. When EA and DICE announce 1943 and BC 2 and later info were released on them. I notice PC fans mostly had a problem with it, degrading console games and console friendly games. They dogged EA and DICE and all EA DICE wants to do is make great games. Well the PC guys dont deserve it! Sure it started with them but cant they see now days consoles and PC can share the lime light.

But no, instead they want to hate on it. I have been talked down to by PC guys and watch my upcoming fav 1943 be dogged and I am mad as hell and Im going to stand up for it! Sure, DICE and EA want a profit but they want to also make good games. PC guys are always like if it isnt 64 players then Im not buying, without even giving it a second glance. Not all PC guys are like this but most of the ones I met are. They downgraded, spit in the face and hated on 1943 and BC 2 without knowing more info on BC 2. Im going to catch hell for this, but I got to speak up!

EA and DICE just focus on the console market because most of us appreciate what you do. Some of us but not all are later generation battlefield fans and we understand the need for new things. We are more accepting. If the PC community cannot get the picture, then maybe they dont deserve battlefield. Im a paying customer and I have a lot of respect for battlefield. I just want the PC guys to stop bashing the games and give them a chance, if you did that maybe I wouldnt post what I did!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/01/2009 04:08:09

So we should accept new bf games that are only half the originals? Look, BF was born on the PC with 64 player battles. 1943 I can accept being simplified and downsized because it's just a $20 arcade BF, but in BC2 I and many others are looking for a true sequel to BF2. Have you ever played BF on the PC? If so, you'd realize that it is nothing at all like what EA is giving with the console titles. People had to actually work together to win, 1 player was worth crap by himself no matter how good he was. But in 1943, thanks to auto-health and infinite ammo, Rambo can dominate the game. Now, as long as Rambo stays in 1943, I'm happy. But people want to bring the things that make Rambo's life easy into BC2 (I'm not saying Rambo tactics should be impossible, but it shouldn't be every player running around with a machine gun mowing down people and just shrugging off bullet impacts).

then u have never obviously heard of a quickscope sniper......(or shotgun....or smg....or m16....or any gun for that matter....)

and honestly if u seriously r sayin o hey this game is garbage cuz it doesnt have 64 player battles then ur being ignorant. game companies are finnaly starting to realize that the best game sales are on the consoles not the comp any more. the consoles i hate to tell u r going to be the future of gaming.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/01/2009 18:21:41

I agree with both sides on this one.

I play on the pc and on the gaming consoles so don't go telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Battefield 2 was a great game and was a true sequal, not a "different skin same game" (not saying bfbc is). I also loved bfbc. Great game, i was kind of angry because of the player count but that really didn't make it any less fun for me.

I think that the new BF should though, at least have 30 players because on those gigantic maps like Harvest or Oasis, 24 jst doesn't cut it. I originally thought there was going to be 24 on each team which would be excellent but I was mistaken.

Battlefield 2 for PC was probably the best fps for PC to date (screw call of booty) . If they would have kept more things the same for console it still would be a great game.

And for the people hatin on Dice and EA: They are a business who's goal is to make money. They are being heavily impacted by the hard times too. They are trying to stay in business by pumping out as many games as they can...How is that a bad thing when we get great games and they stay in business??

DICE knows that PC gamers want a true sequel to BF2. We have been clued many times by Zerk, and DICE that it is coming, but I doubt that BC2 is it. BC2 is a sequel to BC1, face it. Don't criticize the game becuase it is like BFBC, IT'S THE FREAKING SEQUEL.

> then u have never obviously heard of a quickscope
> sniper......(or shotgun....or smg....or m16....or any
> gun for that matter....)

Qscope sniper cannot win by himself. Why? Because anybody with an assault rifle will make short work of him by sneaking up from behind before he sees them. And FYI, I have used every one of those guns in BF2 before, and you cannot rambo with them. The shotgun loses to anybody more than a few feet away, same with the SMG, and the m16 is terrible in CQB (the BF2 version was done realistically with 3 shot burst and semi-auto only, meaning you cannot strafe and spray like in BC).

> and honestly if u seriously r sayin o hey this game
> is garbage cuz it doesnt have 64 player battles then
> ur being ignorant. game companies are finnaly
> starting to realize that the best game sales are on
> the consoles not the comp any more. the consoles i
> hate to tell u r going to be the future of gaming.

That's like saying that the future of civilization is to go back to living in straw huts, and calling me ignorant for wanting to keep my air conditioned house and car. Consoles are dumbed down in all aspects from the PC to appeal to the idiotic gamer with 5 brain cells who makes up 99% of their base. Every console game is made easier, simpler, and less skill-intensive than the PC equivalent, and with shooters, they all try to dumb down to the Call of Duty formula of small fights in shoebox maps. I want Battlefield, that means large scale combined-arms battles spanning maps that are a square kilometer large and include tanks, artillery, aircraft, and infantry all fighting at the same time. That's what Battlefield was all the way up through 2142. While BC managed to fake a sense of scale by cramming every one into a tight space on Gold Rush maps, it was painfully obvious how empty the game was once you got on a big Conquest map.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/02/2009 11:03:19

> DICE knows that PC gamers want a true sequel to BF2.
> We have been clued many times by Zerk, and DICE that
> it is coming, but I doubt that BC2 is it. BC2 is a
> sequel to BC1, face it. Don't criticize the game
> becuase it is like BFBC, IT'S THE FREAKING SEQUEL.

Yeah, I really have. The PC community won't know what hit them this year, they will be completely shocked with *joy* Just wait.

I wish they would port BF3 to console, won't happen though... and probably ONLY because of the 64 player...

I would love 64 players on console, I don't know why it is so "impossible" to do if they do it on PC's (with half the gamers running machines worse than the 360's or PS3's)

My guess is it has to do with volume... Console gamers tend to swarm 1 game at a time, and so they would need LOADS of servers to handle the load, then move on to the next game (the majority, there are fans that stick to a few games)

Anyways, on PC there is less swarming, and the players tend to stick around longer, in part probably due to the lower volume of PC games, AND that PC games get community modded adding replay-ability.

I bet it is a combination of those 2 factors that allow them to host 64 player pc games, and not console games. Which sux

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/02/2009 12:53:49

Who said anything about BF3? I suppose it doesn't hurt to speculate a little.

But I find it funny that you're already trying to figure out why a hypothetical game probably won't be ported. LOL

It's true though.... A proper BF3 will sport 64 players, and unless they change their mind, they won't be offering 64 players to console gamers due to volume, like I said.

Well, if they did want to port it, they would just reduce the player size if it was a problem.

but then the maps would be too big lol

> but then the maps would be too big lol

not really, just speculating but if a Battlefield 3 came out and was ported to consoles, they could find a way to make lower player count work

I mean coe on this is DICE we are talking about here!!!

and in BF2 there was different sizes of maps for different amounts of players, but that took half the fun out of the maps

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/11/2009 13:45:36

Paladin, unfortunatley you are way off base. you can say what you want, but consoles are for you cheap guys who cant afford a nice computer. your TV is no comparison. You are limited to the abilities of your premade console.
XBL=400 bucks...my video card cost way more than that. before you shoot your mouth off, Id suggest trying gaming on a real rig. yes, because of the kiddies, consoles do make more money, but pc guys start and finish in the technology dept. where do you think they get the tech for your next gen consoles? computers...duh...
like your graphics? your welcome..Like your Broadband low lag connection? your welcome.
When you have a 26" monitor running 1900x1200 everything peaked out, and framerates above 250, your TVis crap. I have XBL on my sony 60" XBR, and doesnt even come close. Do you have 7.1 digital surround? nope.
can you talk to 47 of your buddies who are in the same server playing? nope..can you see your buddies facial expression as you blow him away or knife him when he least expects it? nope.. (oovoo 6 way vid conferencing)
can you control your server and kick out the cheaters or tards? nope..
all you can do is play the vanilla version of a old computer game.
you see, we arent complaining about BFBC2, we are complaining that ITS NOT AS GOOD as the old ass bf2 we still play.

there is an absolute difference in Console and PC gaming, and if you dont understand the difference please dont make stupid blanketed statements. what you dont understand is that in PC gaming , the game is only half the fun.
its the clanplay that makes the difference for most of us. while your *** off your family by taking up the tv time, and hearing nothing but the game and the family yelling, us PC guys are laughing, joking, talking to eachother.
we have more fun in teamspeak than in the game itself...and it also develops some strong friendships as well.
Every year my clan meets. we take up a whole floor of a hotel, and hang out for a weekend. I have friends in scotland,canada,us, germany,UK, even france. the computer and the online gaming definitely makes the world a smaller place. when you understand that, then post.
Until then enjoy your outdated hardware, and wait for them to make a new console with even more outdated hardware. (forthe record I run a intel q9550 quadcore, 8 gigs ocz plat ram, BFg 280gtxoc2 vid, Xfi fatality pro sound, 2 150gb velociraptor hd in raid, Blu-ray,DVDburner on a 1 gig network..25meg dl, 7 meg up internet, 26" 2ms monitor,22" 2 ms second monitor)
when your console can do what mine can, ill fly my car to the moon...

Electronic Arts

Highlighted Game

Battlefield: Bad Company™ 2