PC guys dont deserve BC 2

well consoles don't deserve a REAL BF game... (1942,bf:v,bf2,2142).

cem_ea_id.Ranger92998 wrote: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....

pc guys start and finish in the technology dept. where do you think they get the tech for your next gen consoles? computers...duh...

<snip>

So much nonsense in this post that, bearing in mind it's in a forum for a console game I'm tempted to believe it's a troll. But I'll indulge it anyway.

Hey, thanks for that Cell Processor. I'm really glad that you computer guys were generous enough to develop that technology and then hand it down to the consoles. Oh... hang on a sec...

Honestly, I'm a grown man in my early 30s and a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, so well versed in the ins and outs of 'real rigs'

If I ever get to the point where I feel I have to troll a console forum and boast about the ridiculous amount of my personal time and money wasted on a gaming system, then I'd consider myself to have failed at life.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/11/2009 20:18:18

for a MS engineer, you sure are not too bright lol...
BFBC2 IS for PC as well, knucklehead...
so its not a console forum...but, I would have figured
a MS Engineer would have known that....lol
one more thing...
programming and system build are two different things..
I actually have TWO degrees..one in computer electronics, BS
and my second in Electronic Engineering, BA.
so you can keep your six month course on the web...lol

as for my post, it was in defense of us computer gamers.
since, after all the complete BF series WAS for the computer...
as for my life, well Im sure we have different ideas of success,
and since I get paid to work in my own office in my pajamas,
and Im sitting on 100 acres in the countryside, well, to me life doesnt get much better...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/16/2009 12:49:25

Computer gaming was made for the PC. Consoles just suck. You will always be a slave to there limitations. There are no limitations for a PC. I play BF2 on PC and BC on xbox and I still think BF2 is ten times better than BC for way to many reasons to list here, You consol guys can have it you will never really know what is like to be in a squad under a good BF2 commander, Air and Armor support and just dominate a map. With the right group of guys all on the same vent server you are unstoppable.

BLKOPS bigbilly62

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 03/21/2009 18:19:17

xbox.Ronin0ni wrote:but then the maps would be too big lol

Not necessarily, if I'm not mistaken most the maps from previous battlefield games have all been scalable to player count. In fact BF2 has scaled down 64 player maps to 16, so a port of a presumed BF3 to consoles would most likely work on this premise.

On to the original topic lqtm, i think that PC and console gaming are sort of blending together as far as fanbase and developers. So i don't see why it would be wrong to have any game built for every fathomable system. Yes, consoles are more widely in use because most average gamers do not have a great income to spend on a 4000$ machine to run PC games. I know a decent rig can be made for under 1k but still that is a bit more than a 400-500$ system that is optimized for games.

Plus most gamers these days have at least one PC and one console, and most games these days are being produced for multiple platforms. Give or take a few exclusive titles. So really gamers these days have more choices and it just depends on your preferred platform for whatever reason. I myself don't really care what platform a game is on as long as the gamplay, controls, content(that includes extra Dev content and player made), and customer support are excellent.

So in my opinion PC guys DO deserve BC 2 because good things should come in many packages.

All this lower player count for consoles is a bunch of bull****

Frontlines has a max 50 player count on the 360 with dedicated servers and no lag

If EA aren't willing to give us dedicated servers to increase the consoles player count to somewhere between 40 and 48 then I might as well be looking forward to Kaos' next game and Section 8 (Timegate have confirmed dedicated servers and im trying to convince them to raise the 32 player count they're planning for 360)

Please don't screw us over when smaller companies like Kaos and Timegate are can do what we're asking

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/23/2009 09:03:20

I seen this and had to post. Ranger and you other guys... Thanks for taking up for us PC gamers. cracked up when i saw that "this is a consoles forum" whatever it was he said. do some reading up next time before bashing us PC gamers. BFBC2 is coming for PC also. we got good reason to complain about a p*** poor player limit for a PC game. these kick *** gaming rigs can handle alot more then 24 players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 03/26/2009 11:30:46

Sad state of affairs these days. Console kids who think they know what their talking about. You wouldnt have a Bad Company 2 to have your mom buy you if it wasn't for the PC's.

If Ea and Dice did it right with Bf2 then they can damn sure do it again with BC2 or the Mythical BF3. But seeing as making a game for the consoles and then ignoring the pc and porting it over is all the rage these days, i have no doubt that is what they will do.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 03/28/2009 21:33:18

If you guy's really want to see how two faced Evil_Paladin really is go over to total BF2 (TGN)
He is a snake in the grass and also two faced aswell.

LINK BELOW

And here is another one, living a double life

HE IS CALLED EVIL FOR A REASON

We "PC guys" deserve BC 2.

We haven't had a real BF game in 2 and a half years. (2142 was a REAL BF game)

The console players got BC 1, now they are getting 1943 (as well as us PC users), AND BC 2. That's 3 BF console games in 2 years.

I just hope that Zerk was right when he made that "The PC community won't know what hit them this year, they will be completely shocked with *joy* Just wait. " comment.

I think BC2 being ported to PC is a good idea. The PC guys will have a chance to try the new Frostbite engine on a PC! The important thing is that the port needs to be done well not half assed(excuse my language...couldn't think of another word).

I am highly confused. Battlefield Bad Company 2 is not Battlefield 3 as far as I know. Its a Battlefield sub brand aimed at a slightly different market. It's Kelly Heroes meets BF2. The way I understand it is the primary brand Battlefield (2...3...4) is by definition supposed to be a large scale multiplayer battlefield that closely replicates 'large' scale fully emersive warfare. Clearly DICE wants a slice of multiple markets - they want a slice of the close combat COD4 market and at the same time they want to retain and grow their core BF followers.

Growing the market is easy, simply produce stripped down versions for the console market. The traditional difference between PC and console PC = simulation, Console = arcade game - is gradually becoming blurred. Throw in keyboards and other console controllers along with improved graphics power and the distinction between platforms will become totally blurred - at least from the end users perspective.

From a gameplay point of view it should be a simple menu offering play in 'arcade mode' or 'simulation mode'. Not many games have this option yet but its just a matter of time when there will be a properly unified development platform for both consoles and PC's - that's obviously where MS is headed. The lucrative console market - with its traditional arcade style narrow pathing and simplified gaming environment cannot be overlooked by any developer these days simply because of financial reasons.

However from my perspective it seems DICE has confused the market with their branding and cross platform developments. Clearly this is due to DICE only 'fairly' recently incorporating console development into their platform mix. We had 1942 and BF2 long before the console stripped down versions started coming out. It seems logical that there will be a BF3 for PC's and probably for consoles - they will obviously get together on net and play together. I only hope they don't try to be everything to everyone and end up with a watered down offering that looses its appeal to everyone.

BF3 irrespective of platform imo should be modern warfare, large scale (absolute minimum 32 players) destructive environments team based. It has to have cooperative (LAN and Internet) gameplay so that you can fill your side with AI players if 16 or 32 of your friends don't show up. Coop is the essence of large scale team play. CodWAW showed us just how logical character growth is in Coop mode - it is the future way of doing things, plus it must have all the bells and whistles that were in BF2 - only BIGGER and better. That's the game I'm waiting for - on PC of course

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 04/04/2009 13:35:15

I am both a PC gamer and an Xbox360 owner. I've got a huge * FULLHD tv and a nice sound system. But come on guys who are we kidding. SHOOTERS ARE FOR THE PC!!! PERIOD!! Stop making shooters on the consoles they sucks monkey butt. I know nowadays it seems like this genre is taking over the consoles since the most successful console games today are shooters (Gears of War, Halo , BFBC, CoD4 etc..etc..). BUT are you people BLIND??? Don't you know that all these games combined are not worth one Good PC shooter? I am always so surprised that people who play these console shooters seem to be completely oblivious to previous PC shooters. They seem to think that the console shooters that been done on the pc many many many many times before, are the first of their kind. I mean come on ..they call CoD4 revolutionary!!!

AHAHHA CoD4? It's not even worth the ancient Counterstrike.

I have only one word for the consoles as I posses one (and yes I have been playing for a quit a time now) this word is : PARALYMPICS!! And I apologies to all ably challenged people in advance, cause it's not about you. But the metaphor speaks for itself. If the PC shooters are the OLYMPICS then console shooters are PARALYMPICS. You can be happy about your shooting abilities, but you are still in a "wheelchair" so to speak.

You see the console is limited by just about everything. I could go into any aspect, but the thing that really bugs me is the controller. It simply is anatomically impossible to be just as fast as the mouse (with shooters that is). So the games are slower and overall more frustrating because the control over your characters is not as fast connected to your mind as with the mouse. As a psychologist I cannot help but to discuss this matter. You see we control everything with our brains (as we all know I assume

) But the quicker we can aim the less mental power is needed to guide it. Humans get frustrated when control by the mind is unnecessarily difficult. It means that something between the command and the execution is restrained. Because the faster we control something the closer it is to our will. Naturally we want to turn our thoughts into actions. And the faster this can be achieved the natural something feels to us. The ultimate thing would be of course if you detect someone think of shooting a character, and this characters falls dead. Maybe one day this kind of technology would be available, but at the time the closest thing to mental control is the good old mouse (after enough practice that is). Our fingers are meant to make small movements, our palms a little bigger, and our arms even bigger. So you see controlling a field of vision with just your thumb will simply take more time, than doing so with your palm. Thus the mouse user is faster. You see this has huge repercussions because using the controller becomes a challenge on it's on. The distance between control and execution simply becomes larger.

So the challenge of the game becomes controlling your character. It's like increasing the difficulty level by making your character drunk. Off course that is wrong, controlling your character shouldn’t be difficult. Especially when we already have something better. THE MOUSE!

But to conclude I have to say I am very disappointed at the developments in the game industry and how they port games. I have been doing the BETA testing for Frontlines Fuel of War. Because after the legendary BF2 I thought the only thing that might come close would be this game. Because these guys actually made some of the most successful BF mods. But man was I mistake. All this because the game was made both for the PC and the consoles. You see because of that the game was smaller, uglier , slower, and less accurate. The FAT HUGE * crosshair really bugged the * out of me. It’s just less accurate and the point with which one shoots is thicker. I can understand that such a huge crosshair is needed for the console, but on the PC it SUCKS! And unfortunately this happens to ALL the games that are developed for both the consoles and the pc. I never seen one shooter that could do well on both the PC and console. So I really want a REAL PURE PC SHOOTER! If it’s later on ported to the consoles I couldn’t care less. As long as it’s primarily developed for the PC! So man I hope I’m wrong with BFBC2. But I am afraid I’m right! And yeah maybe pc guys don't deserve BC2, but they shure as hell deserve BF3!!!!!

Before I begin, I want to say I have a gaming PC AND a 360. I own or have owned every BF game ever made.

I really don't see the problem with console shooters. It's just another platform and some people just prefer that platform. Consoles are much more accessible. There are a lot of gamers who either don't have the money for a gaming PC. Now, you could argue that you can get console equivalent graphics from a $500 PC, but that is still more expensive, and the main point of PC's as some of you have argued is to have no limits on graphics. For those who have the money and know-how, PC's are the platform for you. For those who are short on cash and don't want to set anything up, consoles are for you. Developers have been targeting consoles becuase the vast majority of people play on them, becuase of their accessibility.

Besides, on the PC, there is the problem of piracy, which is a huge drag. Just look at the problem with Spore. And just becuase IMO and in the opinion of many others, mouse and keyboards are better than controllers, doesn't mean that is a universally accepted fact. We believe so becuase we started gaming on the PC. There are many who have never known gaming anywhere besides their consoles, and they adore their controllers as much as we adore our mouse and keyboards. I have a friends who can own everyone with a controller, but is awkward and slow with a mouse and keyboard.

The reason BC 1 wasn't released for the PC in the first place is becuase DICE wasn't sure about the engine, and they also wanted to try something new. Now that they have a stable build, they are releasing for PC. PC gamers should feel special. Although, there are plenty of arguements against that. They may or may not deserve it, but they are getting it. And it is not a port. You just assume its a port.

And by the way, what's wrong with a port? Shouldn't it be the same game on all three platforms? And most of you PC gamers have never played BC 1, and just assume that if the game doesn't have 64 players, it is a drag to the gameplay. 64 players doesn't define the game. Stats do not define the game. It is all about level design and whatnot.

Wow someone on a gaming forum with something to say with some sense, outstanding post! I agree with you that some prefer PC and some prefer console; I honestly don't know why it turns into a name calling fest toward console players and the gripe toward consoles in general. I own a good PC but prefer gaming on a console and leaving my PC to other business (documents, research, internet, etc.). Another thing I'm glad to hear someone say is the FACT that the who Mouse/Keyboard Vs. Controller is SUBJECTIVE!

I don't know how many times I've heard some PC guy state the Mouse/Keyboard being superior as FACT when it's not. I know for one that I can't stand the Keyboard/Mouse combo and prefer my controller 100% of the time. I would probably even try PC games but would need a controller I could program.

Electronic Arts

Highlighted Game

Battlefield: Bad Company™ 2