Battlefield 3

[Blix]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

Reminds me of my Hierarchy of Gaming


But I can't speak for Vamp or anyone else, but from what I understand, its the dumbing down of certain aspects of games so that they are able to run comparatively on the Xbox 360 and PS3, which at this point are 6 and 5 year old technology, respectively.

That and simplifying elements of design so that they are better suited to work with a controller instead of the mouse and keyboard.

Nice picture. LOL. Now, the controller vs. kb/m argument I can understand although it's not always true. Some times you are just adding extra stuff that is not essential or truly helpful to the game. The graphics downgrade is not nearly as bad as many of them make it to be.

[Vampyr]

In addition to what BaB said, it also has to do with making bad ports - having control schemes that aren't mapped to a keyboard/mouse very well, or having settings that make a game play worse on a PC.

I'm actually more of a console gamer myself - I like to sit down with a controller and play a game on a system where I know I don' have to worry about requirements and such.

However, I do play PC sometimes, mainly through Steam, and the amount of bad ports out there has just really begun to aggravate me. You really have to go out on forums before buying any PC game and find out if it's any good on the PC or not.

For example, Transformers War for Cybertron was on sale on Steam a few days ago. I had heard it was a great game, and in the thread where the deal was posted people were going crazy about how good it was. Finally, before I bought it, I saw a comment about how it was a horrible PC port and basically unplayable on PC. Several people reiterated this, and all the people commenting about how good it was were like, "Yeah, I played it on a console."

This just reinforced what I said in another thread on here about how different systems should have different scores in reviews. It sucks to read a review of a game recommending that you purchase it, only to check the comments on the review and find that it's unplayable on the PC. You have to wonder how many people they trick into buying games this way.

Another example is Alpha Protocol. I bought this on a Steam sale a few weeks ago (only paid $5 so I'm not really upset about the money), but it was literally impossible to play on PC. The game had mouse smoothing turned on by default, and you couldn't disable it. What this resulted in was the inability to accurately aim the mouse - it made it feel like the mouse was moving along a grid. This is a setting used in console games to make aiming with a controller easier. They just never bothered to take it out of the PC port.

What BaB said about the graphics not being up to par is true, but my computer can't run games at a higher setting than an Xbox could anyway, so that part doesn't concern me as much (although it will when I get a newer PC!). What bother's me is lousy control ports, menu's that aren't built with a keyboard/mouse in mind, and settings that make the game unplayable.

Rage is another example. It just came out a few days ago, and the texture "pop ins" are so bad on the PC that it's virtually unplayable. Runs fine on consoles.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

In addition to what BaB said, it also has to do with making bad ports - having control schemes that aren't mapped to a keyboard/mouse very well, or having settings that make a game play worse on a PC.

I'm actually more of a console gamer myself - I like to sit down with a controller and play a game on a system where I know I don' have to worry about requirements and such.

However, I do play PC sometimes, mainly through Steam, and the amount of bad ports out there has just really begun to aggravate me. You really have to go out on forums before buying any PC game and find out if it's any good on the PC or not.

For example, Transformers War for Cybertron was on sale on Steam a few days ago. I had heard it was a great game, and in the thread where the deal was posted people were going crazy about how good it was. Finally, before I bought it, I saw a comment about how it was a horrible PC port and basically unplayable on PC. Several people reiterated this, and all the people commenting about how good it was were like, "Yeah, I played it on a console."

I think this works for anything, you wouldn't believe the number of shoddy ports there are on the PS3.

I gave up on Bayonetta due to the gawd awful PS3 version. I had a friend recently who traded in Enslaved on the PS3 for the 360 version, which he says is world's diff.

The Orange Box and so many other games, just aren't up to snuff at times.

This just reinforced what I said in another thread on here about how different systems should have different scores in reviews. It sucks to read a review of a game recommending that you purchase it, only to check the comments on the review and find that it's unplayable on the PC. You have to wonder how many people they trick into buying games this way.

But this doesn't advocate different review scores, it advocates different reviews, which are two diff things in my mind.

I think IGN does it from time to time, where they will have a note if a version of a game is vastly inferior to the one they are reviewing.

Unfortunately, the PS3 port of Bayonetta is a very disappointing piece of software. I love Bayonetta -- just look at my review of the 360 version for proof. But Bayonetta on the PS3 is a whole different beast.

The PS3 version has a lot of problems, primary among them being the excessive slowdown and loading. During certain scenes of high action, Bayonetta can slow down dramatically, enough to affect the gameplay experience. I can usually tolerate that sort of issue to an extent, but the loading problems are simply unacceptable.

IGN's Bayonetta review

After a few days, the PC version also has a perilously small player base online, ranging from 450-700 players total, with certain playlists consistently empty. Also, the dedicated servers that PC players expect are nowhere to be found, as War for Cybertron appears to use the same peer-to-peer code employed by the console versions of the game. The multiplayer remains excellent when you can find a game though, and PC players in particular will likely appreciate the various PC shooter influences War for Cybertron draws from. The game is also likely to run well on a variety of systems, though customization is sadly absent in the graphics department. In now typical Unreal Engine 3 fashion, you're limited to texture detail settings of "low," "medium," and "high," and a resolution and v-sync setting. For those of you that care, the framerate is also hard-locked at 30FPS. My Core i7 Win7 system with dual Geforce 260s kept everything super-playable at 2560x1600 with settings "maxed."

Review of the PC version

Rage is another example. It just came out a few days ago, and the texture "pop ins" are so bad on the PC that it's virtually unplayable. Runs fine on consoles.

What's really sad is id is formerly a pre-dominant PC maker, but it just seems like there is more money in console gaming. It only makes sense to focus on that, and you only have one console to aim at!

[Vampyr]

Well of course there's always going to be exceptions - I'm just saying that bad PC ports are much, much more common.

And yes, I totally understand why they focus on console development first, but I find it hard to believe that it would be that difficult for them to change a few settings, in Alpha Protocol's case, so that the controls work on a PC. I think the bad press these companies get from releasing a really bad PC port is worse than if they took the time to improve that experience. They don't need to go back through and upgrade all the graphics, but making the game playable would be a nice improvement.

[gekko]

PC games don't sell, which means publishers are never going to invest money into making the game play better on PC. Battlefield 3 is one of the few times where significant effort has been put into PC-only optimization. Even so, I wouldn't expect it to sell many copies on PC.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by gekko

PC games don't sell, which means publishers are never going to invest money into making the game play better on PC. Battlefield 3 is one of the few times where significant effort has been put into PC-only optimization. Even so, I wouldn't expect it to sell many copies on PC.

Valve does it pretty well. They build for PC first, port to console, and both versions end up being fantastic.

[Fox 6]

MMOs tend to be quite popular, and there is still hype for them. "Star Wars: The Old Republic" has quite a bit of buzz around it. Do I even have to point out Starcraft?

[Blix]

Originally Posted by gekko

PC games don't sell, which means publishers are never going to invest money into making the game play better on PC. Battlefield 3 is one of the few times where significant effort has been put into PC-only optimization. Even so, I wouldn't expect it to sell many copies on PC.

I'm pointing my finger at piracy here. Damn pc gamers don't want to buy their games, well it's good they get the short end of the stick.

[Fox 6]

Back on topic.....

The beta is over now. Hopefully they fix all the prevalent errors. I had fun with the game anyways. I enjoyed the more realistic approach. Too bad the mortar I unlocked wasn't in the beta