fixed.andy12 wrote:
What can you expect on a PC game Battlefield forum...M.O.A.B wrote:
lol hateTrashBlinD wrote:
Thank you console faggots.
Every great series has been ruined. Many by the move to consoles.DrunkFace wrote:
fixed.andy12 wrote:
What can you expect on a PC game Battlefield forum...M.O.A.B wrote:
lol hate
Battlefield was made for PC it's most successful on PC and the console versions just don't cut it when compared to the PC versions that the battlefield community expects. It's not PC gamers bashing consoles its battlefield fans disgruntled at a great series being ruined.
AgreedMekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why this thread is more popular than the BF BC 2 thread. Technically, that's supposed to be the game everyone is talking about. This game, is more like a mini game. Yet most people seem to be more interested in this, that DICE guy even talked about how BC2 will be bigger etc.. and on the PC, yet most people still prefer to talk about this. I guess it's easier to complain about this game hence it has more posts. Some of you guys, really are bitches.
This is not BF3, it was never supposed to be BF3. If anything, BF BC 2 will be more like BF3. But I think some of you are abit too much of a retard to even know that (that or, you don't even know about BF:BC 2) - Again, showing your level of retardedness.
Frostbite, it really ain't shit. Especially compaired to BF2's engine. I mean considering what it can pull off on low RAM consoles like the PS3/360. It'd probably be able to do alot on a PC
The console versions are 24 players, the pc version is most likely to be 64 playersvenom6 wrote:
Looks very nice, but 24 players online? Yeah that sux...
Why dont they gain it to the typical 64 players or more for like 74 players? I really hope they will add more maps like Africa and Europe!
No wait they will relase booster packs with a few maps? No thx!
I don't want it to be exactly a remake of 1942, but I want 1943 to follow the classic side of 1942.DrunkFace wrote:
Maybe because 1942 was awesome and theres still a large number of people who would love to see a remake done, while BC sucked and no one gives a shit about it and couldn't care less about a sequel?Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why this thread is more popular than the BF BC 2 thread. Technically, that's supposed to be the game everyone is talking about. This game, is more like a mini game. Yet most people seem to be more interested in this, that DICE guy even talked about how BC2 will be bigger etc.. and on the PC, yet most people still prefer to talk about this. I guess it's easier to complain about this game hence it has more posts. Some of you guys, really are bitches.
This is not BF3, it was never supposed to be BF3. If anything, BF BC 2 will be more like BF3. But I think some of you are abit too much of a retard to even know that (that or, you don't even know about BF:BC 2) - Again, showing your level of retardedness.
Frostbite, it really ain't shit. Especially compaired to BF2's engine. I mean considering what it can pull off on low RAM consoles like the PS3/360. It'd probably be able to do alot on a PC
IDK, maybe thats just me.
Unlimited ammo? Why not just have ammo crates around the maps just like bf1942Poseidon wrote:
http://kotaku.com/5148080/battlefield-1943-pacific-preview-a-much-needed-upgrade
Kotaku preview.
They say it's gonna be around $15-20, there are 3 classes, and there's unlimited ammo.
...sounds fun.
The console versions for battlefield isn't one flag at a time, believe me.Miggle wrote:
Every great series has been ruined. Many by the move to consoles.DrunkFace wrote:
fixed.andy12 wrote:
What can you expect on a PC game Battlefield forum...
Battlefield was made for PC it's most successful on PC and the console versions just don't cut it when compared to the PC versions that the battlefield community expects. It's not PC gamers bashing consoles its battlefield fans disgruntled at a great series being ruined.
The problem is that consoles lack the power for battlefield, battlefield was always about scale, it was about you and a small group taking the unguarded flags in order to flank the enemy. With these console versions they're only allowing you to attack one flag at a time, which eliminates a lot of the strategy. Not to mention this whole 3 classes, infinite ammo thing sounds like another one of the ways they're planning to destroy the series.
Gold Rush or whatever it was was very much a push. There was no flanking, no strategy, just team kill for the artillery and go sniper. I didn't keep the game long enough for them to release conquest.War Man wrote:
AgreedMekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why this thread is more popular than the BF BC 2 thread. Technically, that's supposed to be the game everyone is talking about. This game, is more like a mini game. Yet most people seem to be more interested in this, that DICE guy even talked about how BC2 will be bigger etc.. and on the PC, yet most people still prefer to talk about this. I guess it's easier to complain about this game hence it has more posts. Some of you guys, really are bitches.
This is not BF3, it was never supposed to be BF3. If anything, BF BC 2 will be more like BF3. But I think some of you are abit too much of a retard to even know that (that or, you don't even know about BF:BC 2) - Again, showing your level of retardedness.
Frostbite, it really ain't shit. Especially compaired to BF2's engine. I mean considering what it can pull off on low RAM consoles like the PS3/360. It'd probably be able to do alot on a PCThe console versions are 24 players, the pc version is most likely to be 64 playersvenom6 wrote:
Looks very nice, but 24 players online? Yeah that sux...
Why dont they gain it to the typical 64 players or more for like 74 players? I really hope they will add more maps like Africa and Europe!
No wait they will relase booster packs with a few maps? No thx!I don't want it to be exactly a remake of 1942, but I want 1943 to follow the classic side of 1942.DrunkFace wrote:
Maybe because 1942 was awesome and theres still a large number of people who would love to see a remake done, while BC sucked and no one gives a shit about it and couldn't care less about a sequel?Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why this thread is more popular than the BF BC 2 thread. Technically, that's supposed to be the game everyone is talking about. This game, is more like a mini game. Yet most people seem to be more interested in this, that DICE guy even talked about how BC2 will be bigger etc.. and on the PC, yet most people still prefer to talk about this. I guess it's easier to complain about this game hence it has more posts. Some of you guys, really are bitches.
This is not BF3, it was never supposed to be BF3. If anything, BF BC 2 will be more like BF3. But I think some of you are abit too much of a retard to even know that (that or, you don't even know about BF:BC 2) - Again, showing your level of retardedness.
Frostbite, it really ain't shit. Especially compaired to BF2's engine. I mean considering what it can pull off on low RAM consoles like the PS3/360. It'd probably be able to do alot on a PC
IDK, maybe thats just me.Unlimited ammo? Why not just have ammo crates around the maps just like bf1942Poseidon wrote:
http://kotaku.com/5148080/battlefield-1943-pacific-preview-a-much-needed-upgrade
Kotaku preview.
They say it's gonna be around $15-20, there are 3 classes, and there's unlimited ammo.
...sounds fun.The console versions for battlefield isn't one flag at a time, believe me.Miggle wrote:
Every great series has been ruined. Many by the move to consoles.DrunkFace wrote:
fixed.
Battlefield was made for PC it's most successful on PC and the console versions just don't cut it when compared to the PC versions that the battlefield community expects. It's not PC gamers bashing consoles its battlefield fans disgruntled at a great series being ruined.
The problem is that consoles lack the power for battlefield, battlefield was always about scale, it was about you and a small group taking the unguarded flags in order to flank the enemy. With these console versions they're only allowing you to attack one flag at a time, which eliminates a lot of the strategy. Not to mention this whole 3 classes, infinite ammo thing sounds like another one of the ways they're planning to destroy the series.
There is strategy, you just need the right team.Miggle wrote:
Gold Rush or whatever it was was very much a push. There was no flanking, no strategy, just team kill for the artillery and go sniper. I didn't keep the game long enough for them to release conquest.War Man wrote:
AgreedMekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why this thread is more popular than the BF BC 2 thread. Technically, that's supposed to be the game everyone is talking about. This game, is more like a mini game. Yet most people seem to be more interested in this, that DICE guy even talked about how BC2 will be bigger etc.. and on the PC, yet most people still prefer to talk about this. I guess it's easier to complain about this game hence it has more posts. Some of you guys, really are bitches.
This is not BF3, it was never supposed to be BF3. If anything, BF BC 2 will be more like BF3. But I think some of you are abit too much of a retard to even know that (that or, you don't even know about BF:BC 2) - Again, showing your level of retardedness.
Frostbite, it really ain't shit. Especially compaired to BF2's engine. I mean considering what it can pull off on low RAM consoles like the PS3/360. It'd probably be able to do alot on a PCThe console versions are 24 players, the pc version is most likely to be 64 playersvenom6 wrote:
Looks very nice, but 24 players online? Yeah that sux...
Why dont they gain it to the typical 64 players or more for like 74 players? I really hope they will add more maps like Africa and Europe!
No wait they will relase booster packs with a few maps? No thx!I don't want it to be exactly a remake of 1942, but I want 1943 to follow the classic side of 1942.DrunkFace wrote:
Maybe because 1942 was awesome and theres still a large number of people who would love to see a remake done, while BC sucked and no one gives a shit about it and couldn't care less about a sequel?Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why this thread is more popular than the BF BC 2 thread. Technically, that's supposed to be the game everyone is talking about. This game, is more like a mini game. Yet most people seem to be more interested in this, that DICE guy even talked about how BC2 will be bigger etc.. and on the PC, yet most people still prefer to talk about this. I guess it's easier to complain about this game hence it has more posts. Some of you guys, really are bitches.
This is not BF3, it was never supposed to be BF3. If anything, BF BC 2 will be more like BF3. But I think some of you are abit too much of a retard to even know that (that or, you don't even know about BF:BC 2) - Again, showing your level of retardedness.
Frostbite, it really ain't shit. Especially compaired to BF2's engine. I mean considering what it can pull off on low RAM consoles like the PS3/360. It'd probably be able to do alot on a PC
IDK, maybe thats just me.Unlimited ammo? Why not just have ammo crates around the maps just like bf1942Poseidon wrote:
http://kotaku.com/5148080/battlefield-1943-pacific-preview-a-much-needed-upgrade
Kotaku preview.
They say it's gonna be around $15-20, there are 3 classes, and there's unlimited ammo.
...sounds fun.The console versions for battlefield isn't one flag at a time, believe me.Miggle wrote:
Every great series has been ruined. Many by the move to consoles.
The problem is that consoles lack the power for battlefield, battlefield was always about scale, it was about you and a small group taking the unguarded flags in order to flank the enemy. With these console versions they're only allowing you to attack one flag at a time, which eliminates a lot of the strategy. Not to mention this whole 3 classes, infinite ammo thing sounds like another one of the ways they're planning to destroy the series.
Or perhaps its the massive number of consoles being used these days and therefore gaming for consoles is popular, and the companies aim for the most popular aspect? Cry moar. Even on BF2 there was rarely any strategy used except by small groups that sometimes got a chance to play together. Learn to accept it.Miggle wrote:
Every great series has been ruined. Many by the move to consoles.DrunkFace wrote:
fixed.andy12 wrote:
What can you expect on a PC game Battlefield forum...
Battlefield was made for PC it's most successful on PC and the console versions just don't cut it when compared to the PC versions that the battlefield community expects. It's not PC gamers bashing consoles its battlefield fans disgruntled at a great series being ruined.
The problem is that consoles lack the power for battlefield, battlefield was always about scale, it was about you and a small group taking the unguarded flags in order to flank the enemy. With these console versions they're only allowing you to attack one flag at a time, which eliminates a lot of the strategy. Not to mention this whole 3 classes, infinite ammo thing sounds like another one of the ways they're planning to destroy the series.
The reasoning is simple, It's not piracy, it's not MOAB's retardation, Consoles have 1 company backing them, making sure they succeed. Microsoft does that by buying exclusivity, or if they can't, at least paying companies to develop games for the 360. There is no company doing that for PC, the only reason to make PC exclusives is if you care more about the quality of your games than you do about money, and a person like that is very hard to come by, much less an entire company.
Except that the number of PC gamers dwarfs the number of console users.M.O.A.B wrote:
Or perhaps its the massive number of consoles being used these days and therefore gaming for consoles is popular, and the companies aim for the most popular aspect? Cry moar. Even on BF2 there was rarely any strategy used except by small groups that sometimes got a chance to play together. Learn to accept it.Miggle wrote:
Every great series has been ruined. Many by the move to consoles.DrunkFace wrote:
fixed.
Battlefield was made for PC it's most successful on PC and the console versions just don't cut it when compared to the PC versions that the battlefield community expects. It's not PC gamers bashing consoles its battlefield fans disgruntled at a great series being ruined.
The problem is that consoles lack the power for battlefield, battlefield was always about scale, it was about you and a small group taking the unguarded flags in order to flank the enemy. With these console versions they're only allowing you to attack one flag at a time, which eliminates a lot of the strategy. Not to mention this whole 3 classes, infinite ammo thing sounds like another one of the ways they're planning to destroy the series.
The reasoning is simple, It's not piracy, it's not MOAB's retardation, Consoles have 1 company backing them, making sure they succeed. Microsoft does that by buying exclusivity, or if they can't, at least paying companies to develop games for the 360. There is no company doing that for PC, the only reason to make PC exclusives is if you care more about the quality of your games than you do about money, and a person like that is very hard to come by, much less an entire company.
Last edited by Miggle (2009-02-06 12:22:49)
Of course they're in it for the money, that's what I've been saying. The problem is that Microsoft throws money at them to make games for the 360, which, surprisingly enough, are worse.FatherTed wrote:
Cry moar srsly.
EA/DICE whoever it fucking is isn't a charity, they don't give a shit about what you want, they are there to make money, it's not a fucking difficult concept to grasp.
Consoles are big money, that's fairly obvious. So they make games for consoles. Don't like that? Think 'the man' is a big fucking sellout? I really don't give a shit, but quit filling these forums with the same boring rehashed whining shit, cause your opinion means sweet fuck a.
I'm sorry i'm not such an elitist.Miggle wrote:
Of course they're in it for the money, that's what I've been saying. The problem is that Microsoft throws money at them to make games for the 360, which, surprisingly enough, are worse.FatherTed wrote:
Cry moar srsly.
EA/DICE whoever it fucking is isn't a charity, they don't give a shit about what you want, they are there to make money, it's not a fucking difficult concept to grasp.
Consoles are big money, that's fairly obvious. So they make games for consoles. Don't like that? Think 'the man' is a big fucking sellout? I really don't give a shit, but quit filling these forums with the same boring rehashed whining shit, cause your opinion means sweet fuck a.
My opinions don't matter to them, their game quality doesn't matter to them. Unfortunately, it matters to me, and it should matter to other gamers.
Gaming is becoming shit, and people like you and MOAB are idiots for not caring.
I'm sorry I'm not retarded.FatherTed wrote:
I'm sorry i'm not such an elitist.Miggle wrote:
Of course they're in it for the money, that's what I've been saying. The problem is that Microsoft throws money at them to make games for the 360, which, surprisingly enough, are worse.FatherTed wrote:
Cry moar srsly.
EA/DICE whoever it fucking is isn't a charity, they don't give a shit about what you want, they are there to make money, it's not a fucking difficult concept to grasp.
Consoles are big money, that's fairly obvious. So they make games for consoles. Don't like that? Think 'the man' is a big fucking sellout? I really don't give a shit, but quit filling these forums with the same boring rehashed whining shit, cause your opinion means sweet fuck a.
My opinions don't matter to them, their game quality doesn't matter to them. Unfortunately, it matters to me, and it should matter to other gamers.
Gaming is becoming shit, and people like you and MOAB are idiots for not caring.
We could all sit around and go 'oh no, gaming is going downhill wah wah wah' but what does that achieve? Personally i, and THE MAJORITY of the gaming (check casual not obsessed tools) crowd appears to be pretty happy with games out today.
Sales figures for Halo?
Sales figures for CoD?
Sales figures for GTA?
Sales figures for PeS?
Seems to me quite a lot of people are happy with gaming today.
People like you, and well you are idiots for caring too much.
Last edited by Miggle (2009-02-06 12:40:25)
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-02-06 12:50:13)
BF:BC 2 is the bf3 we've been waiting for.OmniDeath wrote:
Why are they pushing this when they still haven't even released Heroes? And if this isn't "BF3" why do they keep putting time into random "half" games instead of a full one?
Don't get me wrong, it looks sweet, but if they're going to remake/update an older game I'd rather it be BF2.
Hold up, where did I say they were more expensive?M.O.A.B wrote:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7664 … opypp8.jpg
oh lawd.
More expensive? Paying one lump of a hundred for a console that can play every game that is developed for it at max potential is more expensive than paying for upgrade after upgrade for a PC? I'm not seeing that.
Anyone see a PC Resistance group forming? They'll be bombing Sony's and Microsoft's factories next.
So they're getting more expensive, how does that link to consoles?Miggle wrote:
Hold up, where did I say they were more expensive?M.O.A.B wrote:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7664 … opypp8.jpg
oh lawd.
More expensive? Paying one lump of a hundred for a console that can play every game that is developed for it at max potential is more expensive than paying for upgrade after upgrade for a PC? I'm not seeing that.
Anyone see a PC Resistance group forming? They'll be bombing Sony's and Microsoft's factories next.
I said games were getting more expensive. Learn to read.
It links to the direction gaming in general is going, worse games for more money.M.O.A.B wrote:
So they're getting more expensive, how does that link to consoles?Miggle wrote:
Hold up, where did I say they were more expensive?M.O.A.B wrote:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7664 … opypp8.jpg
oh lawd.
More expensive? Paying one lump of a hundred for a console that can play every game that is developed for it at max potential is more expensive than paying for upgrade after upgrade for a PC? I'm not seeing that.
Anyone see a PC Resistance group forming? They'll be bombing Sony's and Microsoft's factories next.
I said games were getting more expensive. Learn to read.
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-02-06 13:18:19)
Time to find a new hobby then would be the solution.Miggle wrote:
It links to the direction gaming in general is going, worse games for more money.M.O.A.B wrote:
So they're getting more expensive, how does that link to consoles?Miggle wrote:
Hold up, where did I say they were more expensive?
I said games were getting more expensive. Learn to read.
lol don't spew out comments about education and alcohol, it doesn't suit you.Miggle wrote:
I'm sorry I'm not retarded.FatherTed wrote:
I'm sorry i'm not such an elitist.Miggle wrote:
Of course they're in it for the money, that's what I've been saying. The problem is that Microsoft throws money at them to make games for the 360, which, surprisingly enough, are worse.
My opinions don't matter to them, their game quality doesn't matter to them. Unfortunately, it matters to me, and it should matter to other gamers.
Gaming is becoming shit, and people like you and MOAB are idiots for not caring.
We could all sit around and go 'oh no, gaming is going downhill wah wah wah' but what does that achieve? Personally i, and THE MAJORITY of the gaming (check casual not obsessed tools) crowd appears to be pretty happy with games out today.
Sales figures for Halo?
Sales figures for CoD?
Sales figures for GTA?
Sales figures for PeS?
Seems to me quite a lot of people are happy with gaming today.
People like you, and well you are idiots for caring too much.
We could all sit around buying every shit game that comes out and go "HOLY SHIT THIS SHIT IS SO GOOD OH MY GOD" But what does that achieve? Personally I, and the MAJORITY of the smart (check educated and not drunk) crowd appears to want to do something about it.
Quality for Halo?
Quality for CoD?
Quality for GTA?
Actually those three are pretty good examples of serieses that have gotten consistently worse (and more expensive) from day one.
People like you are idiots.
Last edited by FatherTed (2009-02-06 13:19:05)
I need a new avatar, everybody misinterprets it.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Miggle, CoD5 is published by Activision who are very much the same machine as EA...
