Those people are just as annoying as the people who go on about how their choice of console is easy, cheap, and low maintenance then whine about how their game doesn't look good. Wasn't there this whole thing where people whined about how an Alan Wake texture on a car roof was low res? That's stupid.teh_Canape said:
in my opinionWaaghpowa said:
Well, Battlefield (especially the PC ones) have always been multiplayer-focused. Since this is a return to form for them, it makes sense that they're talking primarily about multiplayer.crepesack said:
..and P2P is generally a poor choice. Only dedicated servers provide proper FPS competitive experience.Gasaraki said:
That's actually a pretty significant difference from a processing power standpoint. Each additional player has a whole list of things that need to be individually rendered and calculated. That kind of thing adds up and consoles don't have that much power to spare.ph0b0s123 said:
The way MAG did it was different though. As far as I'm aware, they run the game much like an MMO would be run, putting almost all of the processing strain on the servers and using clever little things to separate the player population to keep any one area from having more than a console could handle. To keep servers like that running is expensive and usually costs players a subscription fee, not to mention that the game would have to be designed from the ground up to support such a system.Sephren468 said:
