DICE Putting "Special Effort" Into Battlefield 3 on PC

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
"Then again, with console exclusivity facing them at every turn, it's not too surprising that they'll take what they can get."

This is a very odd statement.

Console exclusivity of what, exactly? We don't get PS3 exclusives, but we get plenty of the ones the 360 has and we've got numbers of our own anyway.

I'm struggling to think of many multiplatform games that don't go to the PC.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Well, colour me interested.

If BF3 turns out to be a a worthy successor to 2/2142 it might be the excuse for a new gaming rig I've been looking for. Live in hope, if it's Bad Company multiplayer plus a little I'll be a sad, sad man.

ASnogarD said:
Lets be honest here, with multi platforms in this profit greedy market environment , making platform specific versions is too costly and eats into precious bottom lines... so mouse and UI differences only I am afraid.
I'm going to disagree with you here, on the grounds that BF2 is still selling steadily (and getting the occasional update) four years later. If they develop it right, the PC version will be generating income longer than the console versions where three years and cut support seems to be the norm. This is the first Bf 'proper' game since 2142, I don't think they will risk killing it's long term appeal by exclusive server deals and nixing the mod community.

I also think trying to control those things is like waving a red rag at the pirate/hacking communities, hopefully such a detail won't have escaped DICE's notice.
 

ASnogarD

New member
Jul 2, 2009
525
0
0
From my understanding , the last BF2 patch was a while back and DICE are trying make a 2142 version of that patch ... which due to it adding anti dolphin and anti insta scope kills wasnt very popular on BF2.

The exclusive deals for dedicated hosts has a precedence , see Medal of Honor.
BFBC 2 PC also took away server software from the communities, only allowing communities to rent from EA server 'partners'.
BFBC2 PC also has zero map editor and modding capability...as I explained, there was a long escuse about how Frostbite needed propriety libraries to build and a public user editor wasn't possible without including these libraries.

I definetly dont see server software downloads for the community to host, I dont see maptools and editors as BF3 uses roughly the same engine ( same escuse ), and I cant see a PC release at the same time as the 360 and PS3 ... there WILL be a delay ( and escuses ), mark my words.

Hey, I hope I am wrong and BF3 is all a BF should be ( massive maps, massive player numbers, highly modderable , community maps , community servers ) so both the console gamers and PC gamers get a great game suitable for each platform.
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
IronCladNinja said:
shaboinkin said:
Bring back the commander position and I'll be happy.
That'd be awesome, especially with 64 players. Makes everything so much more intense. Personally I'm hoping BF3 will be in the future like 2142. All this "Modern" stuff is getting boring, and WW2 has been beaten to death.
Yeah. People can pick about the details like prone and weapon balance and class variety and the like, but when it comes right down to it the defining features of a battlefield game are, for me:

1. Big maps, with a wide range and number of vehicles to use, land and sky.
2. Teamplay in squads with voice.
3. The commander position.
4. The server control.
5. Big Team Sizes. Looking at you, Bad Company. 64 should really be the target, especially with games like MAG around. C'mon.
 

Zannah

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,081
0
0
The last promise dice made was proper environmental destruction for bad company 2. Seeing how well that went, promising extra effort for the pc version probably means there won't be one until 2015, and it'll have ps2 graphics.
 

ReverseEngineered

Raving Lunatic
Apr 30, 2008
444
0
0
As somebody who games primarily on the PC, but also enjoys console gaming (so mostly, but not quite, unbiased), I must say that I read a lot of bias in this article against PC gamers. I believe that, because of this, you're missing what makes DICE's (or any company's) dedication to PC gamers noteworthy.

To say that PC gamers are "desperate for relevance" implies that they are irrelevant, something that several articles on the Escapist have shown is simply not true. Though consoles make up a significant portion of the video game market, and mobile and browser-based games have carved out their own pieces of the pie, the PC is still a significant part of the video game market. Especially with the surge of indie productions, the PC has become a platform where broad accessibility and ease of entry have resulted in a lot of opportunities for new and interesting games, just as they have for decades. Even as far back as the 8-bit era, PCs have been the breeding ground for new ideas that later found their way onto the more controlled, affordable, polished consumer-friendly consoles. Both PC and console have been and continue to be key to the development and adoption of video games.

As somebody who plays games on the PC, it's not relevance that I am looking for; it's attention. Whatever their reasons, AAA game studios have been producing video games designed and targeted at the console market, then porting those to the PC. As both PC and console gamers will agree, the two domains are quite different. The A/B/X/Y buttons and analog sticks of a console controller don't map well to the 104-key keyboard and 3-button mouse that most PCs use. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and each is more suitable to certain styles of interaction. Taking a game from one platform and blindly porting it to the other always results in something that has the worst of the limitations of both platforms and lacks the benefits of either platform.

Porting has been a nuisance for as long as there have been multiple platforms. Awkward text-based adventures ported to low-res, D-pad-controlled consoles died miserably on the early generations of consoles. Fighting games with D-pad-sliding combo moves were blister-inducing on the sharp-edge keys of the PC. Early console FPS games left us spinning idly without the precise positional control of a mouse, while racing games with their analog throttle and steering have excelled on consoles almost as quickly as they have declined on the key-controlled PC.

For quite some time, it seemed that developers would either specialize on a particular platform or would develop independent versions for each platform. With sky-rocketing expenses and the tightening of consumer budgets that come with economic turmoil, companies have been trying to maximize their market coverage while minimizing costs. And that's where porting has made an ugly return.

It seems that, more often than not, AAA games are being developed for the consoles first, then ported to the PC. I'm not sure why that's the order, but it seems to have become a de facto standard. Often the porting will even be done by an entirely separate company with different standards of quality. The result is that the PC versions are often filled with bugs and ridiculous control schemes that didn't exist on the consoles, without taking advantage of the increased processing power that newer PCs can deliver.

This is why PC gamers care about developers paying attention to them. They don't want their games to be second-rate, with console games getting the premium treatment. So long as we are paying just as much for our games and even more for our systems, we expect to get just as good of a game.

Should any gamer be treated as a second-rate citizen just because of his platform choice? Whether console, desktop, mobile, or otherwise, we as gamers should be demanding quality in all of our games. PC gamers are sore because lately they have taken a backseat to the growing mobile and console gaming platforms. It's not about being the best or most relevant; it's about getting good quality games for our dollar. I think that's something all gamers want.
 

Jonny49

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,250
0
0
At the risk of sounding like a biased PC-hating moron, what does this mean for the console version?

I mean, if you manage to make the ultimate Battlefield game on the PC, then hooray! But does that mean the console version will be gimped in order to make it work within said consoles limitations? Such as, limiting the player count and no command trees?
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
IronCladNinja said:
shaboinkin said:
Bring back the commander position and I'll be happy.
That'd be awesome, especially with 64 players. Makes everything so much more intense. Personally I'm hoping BF3 will be in the future like 2142. All this "Modern" stuff is getting boring, and WW2 has been beaten to death.
Yeah. People can pick about the details like prone and weapon balance and class variety and the like, but when it comes right down to it the defining features of a battlefield game are, for me:

1. Big maps, with a wide range and number of vehicles to use, land and sky.
2. Teamplay in squads with voice.
3. The commander position.
4. The server control.
5. Big Team Sizes. Looking at you, Bad Company. 64 should really be the target, especially with games like MAG around. C'mon.
What he said. Also, Battlefield 3 should include a remade Strike at Karkand map, because that map kicked ass.

But yeah, those 5 things are important as well. Especially the Battlefield Commander and 64-player sizes. The sizes allow for large-ass battles, and the commanders stop everything from devolving into lots of players running around aimlessly, kind of like conquest matches in Bad Company 2.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Jonny49 said:
At the risk of sounding like a biased PC-hating moron, what does this mean for the console version?
You have to realize, you're playing on a machine which is 5 years old. (If you're an Xbox player, that is.)

During the course of those 5 years, PCs have moved quite a bit head of the consoles, we're able to do a lot more than your Xbox can, and do it faster at that.

So, yes, you're going to get gimped if they have to force the game to be compatible on that kind of hardware.
 

Jonny49

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,250
0
0
Cingal said:
Jonny49 said:
At the risk of sounding like a biased PC-hating moron, what does this mean for the console version?
You have to realize, you're playing on a machine which is 5 years old. (If you're an Xbox player, that is.)

During the course of those 5 years, PCs have moved quite a bit head of the consoles, we're able to do a lot more than your Xbox can, and do it faster at that.

So, yes, you're going to get gimped if they have to force the game to be compatible on that kind of hardware.
Oh yeah, it's inevitable that the console version is going to get gimped in one way or another, but I'm just concerned with what's going to be taken out and what's going to be left in.

Otherwise it may as well be Bad Company 3.
 

id_doomer

New member
Sep 11, 2008
5
0
0
Oh. Oh great. You know what the last game we heard was getting 'special effort' put into it. To make sure that it was as good as it could be when it gets it's PC release. Fable 3; several rounds of DLC for the XBox360 version later, and us PC users are still waiting...

I for one just hope that the PC version of Battlefield 3 reclaims the PC it's crown for First Person Shooting on a massive scale; I mean come on, M.A.G. got to 256 player servers before us, and that's a PS3 game.
 

Superior Mind

New member
Feb 9, 2009
1,537
0
0
I wonder if this is the same as the "Special Effort" that DICE put into the PC version of Battlefield 1943?

Big fan of BF1942 and BF2 and BC2 is good fun, looking forward to BF3 but DICE talking about "Special Effort" in regards to the PC version doesn't fill me with confidence. Just put the same effort you did into BF2 and we'll be good.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Mornelithe said:
Soviet Heavy said:
Just get rid of Punkbuster and I'll buy it.
Lack of Punkbuster would make me not buy a game. This day and age, it's a requirement, too many hacks and aimbots for my liking.
That isn't my beef with Punkbuster. When it was used in Battlefield Heroes, it would punt people for having bad pings, and since nobody could host a match without paying, it meant that Punkbuster could target anyone. Mainly me.