Battlefield 3............Still not for me ?

Well i finally got around to installing Battlefield 3 and the new xbox updates which all in all took the best part of 45 minutes.

But I'm afraid thats were the fun ends and i had a more exciting time watching the loading bar load than actually playing this game.

Each to there own but for me this is not a patch on MW in all honesty and it feels like playing a FPS on the moon and feels very much like playing Killzone with a very strange movement which obviously comes from 30fps and not 60fps.

Sort of got that laggy Bouncy feel to it.bit like when someone throws a stun/flash grenade in MW but in this case it feels like it in general.

Im not coming on here to bash the game that many of you love but this to me is average at best and i just don't see why so many prefer this over COD games in general.

I only played it for 1 hour but in all honesty i could not wait to get back into some fast ,frantic action that is MW3 because this game is just to dam slow and graphically there is nothing to shout about.

I was hoping that i would get a little converted and feel what others feel reference this game but sadly its a game i wont be playing again unless they pull the plug on MW3 servers and that just aint going to happen.

I know Jaxx,Spook and quite a lot of you on here think Battlefield is the best thing since sliced bread and i respect your views regarding this so respect mine .

Edited by time2die (Thu 08-Dec-11 01:22:20)

You played it on the xbox thats why, ive seen the xbox against the pc the game looks so poor on it.

The games ok at the end of the day but nothing like everyone expected,i have played many Battlefield games and its just one of those games that i just can not get into and i always feel underwhelmed when playing them.

Consoles are showing there age and this game proves it even with the so called texture pack loaded.

I am probably been a little unfair as i refuse to keep playing it for to long and 1 hour really is no amount of time ,but if you just don't like something then in my case one hour is more than i give most games that have no initial appeal.

Its also not very balanced and in the map i played i captured the flag went into a house and the opposing force turned up in a tank and recaptured it then left,then i repeated this and they done the same for the next 20 minutes............Found the experience quite boring to be honest.

Have you tried the spam tastic maps that are basicly CoD cluster<you know what>? Metro Conquest, Damavand Peak Conquest and Rush, Grand Bazaar TDM?

In reply to a post by time2die:

Im not coming on here to bash the game that many of you love but this to me is average at best and i just don't see why so many prefer this over COD games in general.

Each to their own
I feel exactly the same about COD. I tried playing TDM on BF3 but just got [censored] off with the constant spawn die that is exactly the same as in the MW games.
MW just seems so pointless, nothing to do but constantly kill and be killed


I'm loving BF3 and am so glad I gave up with MW2 when it was hacked to death it's a shame you didn't like it. imo it's a much more fulfilling gaming experience

In reply to a post by Gzero:

Have you tried the spam tastic maps that are basicly CoD cluster<you know what>? Metro Conquest, Damavand Peak Conquest and Rush, Grand Bazaar TDM?

I just posted about TDM in my post
They are basically MW style spawn die fests for people like T2D

Nah I'm pretty sure Rush is for T2D, so he can sit on the MCOM and have streams of people coming at him to shoot at.

After being disappointed with MW3, I turned to BF3 and was really surprised. So much improvement from Bad Company 2.

My favourite mode is Conquest, and when you have a full squad (with them in your party too) you really get the sense of teamwork, which quite frankly COD can never provide.

Alot of people have said they dont like the Battlefield games in general..... but is that because it requires more effort? I certainly concentrate more when playing Battlefield, whereas on COD you can just run around like an idiot as everyone else has said, kill and be killed. So pointless.

I think Battlefield has really lived upto expectations, but as we all know its each to his own. No one can tell you what to play, if you prefer COD then crack on and enjoy!

And lots of RPGs etc heading his way

Hey guys don't upset me and make me cry .

I am sure in time i will return and try it for a few more hours but at the end of the day its first impressions for me and Battlefield just don't cut it in my case.

Just like people don't like the run and gun tactics that is MW and Cod games in general,but thats what makes us all different and individual because if we all likes the same then it would be pretty boring.

I understand why some prefer B3 over Cod and visa versa but obviously i like fast ,frantic action and shooting plenty of people and im not one for camping or tactics just my run and gun style that a few dislike or find it hard to cope with needing fast reactions.

Dont get me wrong there are times when even the mighty T2D gets owned especially with the fading reflexes that seem to have deserted me somewhat nowadays .

I was so looking forward to ranking up and getting my beloved ACR gun that i loved in previous MW2 but after getting it i find i prefer the Scar and guns you get from the start.

My only gripe with MW3 apart from the fact im getting to old for all this is the maps are disappointing and to small and I'm hoping when they release the new map packs that the rumour that MW2 maps will be included comes true.

So not only did they sell MW3 as a new game but they are going to make you pay to play MW2 maps in what is basically MW2.5
Amazing and the fact that people will buy them is even more amazing

The MW franchise is just one big rip off....

Invictel hit the nail on the head with his post to be honest. You do have to focus alot more to play it and that isn't everyone's cup of tea which is fair enough, I won't beat you up over it T2D

If they do bring out MW2 maps for MW3 then that will be hilarious, surely they can't do that?! It's the same engine and nothing has changed, at least with the BF stuff it's on the new Frostbite engine and they have been brought up to speed with modern day but MW2 was only a couple of years ago if that!

I am probably going to get MW3 in the new year but only for campaign, spec ops and the survival mode. All of my friends have abandoned it now and I don't care for the MP like I did back in the day. I used to love jumping on with all my mates on MW1 and WAW but those days are gone!

No i wont be buying them because i already have and its called Hardened edition that comes with the elite subscription that gives us all the downloadable content each month.

Hey mate i can understand why you like what you do and im not saying the game is pants just i prefer the faster paced MW3.

Im sure come the new year i will give it another bash but in all honesty with MW3 ,Saints Row and Zelda i have little time for much else.

Oh and thanks for not laying into this ageing gamer...........Thats a first Jaxxy

Normally i post anything negative about games you like and my life aint worth living once you start

OoooOoooOoooO suits you, sir.

i played battlefield 1943 and nothing else from 2009 to present day and still switch between bat 3 an 1943, as is talked about alot here am in the same view, cod is good for me when i dont want to tax my brain to much and jump in and shoot an be shot at, where battlefield's seem to give a more real life battlefield tactics brain tax session.

didn't get bad company 2 as i didnt get much time on xbox when that came out but played through the tuff times on bad company 1, and i understand the need for profit but bad companys free DLC map pack gave the feeling they cared, so am bit let down that my month old game now needs money spending on it again.

how do the servers handle none map pack users and those that have it (got a new born baby so not played since map pack launch), cod's do my head in, as last cod i owned was a pig kicking you all time for not having the maps and thats why i stopped loading the game.

come on battlefield has something if a arcade style 1943 with infinity ammo can keep some one hooked for so long.

I won't beat you up about your choice in games either T2D.

Guess all that fast action gaming has withered your patience circuits to the extent it's hard to actually get the game out of its cellophane wrapper.



Give it more than an hour though and I'm sure you'll click eventually! As Gzero and others have been trying to tell you, there are many more modes than the slower conquest one - try rush or Squad or TDM etcetera.

I have been locked in Skyrim for the last few weeks so haven't even touched BF3. I doubt it'll get a look in till the new year now!

In reply to a post by Jaxx281:

I am probably going to get MW3 in the new year but only for campaign, spec ops and the survival mode. All of my friends have abandoned it now and I don't care for the MP like I did back in the day. I used to love jumping on with all my mates on MW1 and WAW but those days are gone!

I think most of us have been cod fans in the past.
All of my mates have moved on. Times change

Don't you mean: I used to be a Battlefield Veteran, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

Yeah i already got pawned in deciding to have the elite edition........However if the content on offer each month is half decent then I'm going to be saving around £120 because content when released is going to cost the none elite subscribers £9,99 a time and 4 months of paying for that would have got you the hardened edition with the added bonus of a further 8 months of content.

On a different note and if the content is poor then then Infinity Ward and Activision have seen me coming and T2D got fleeced once again.

Anyway I'm really enjoying MW 2.5

Invictel hit the nail on the head with his post to be honest. You do have to focus alot more to play it and that isn't everyone's cup of tea which is fair enough,

I disagree mate.

I won't go into my connection issues as you've all heard them all before!

But all of these comments (not aiming this at just you Jaxx) are entirely subjective. I think BF3 could be a great game if the visuals didn't strain the eye (console version) and the movement didn't feel like you were running with a yoke on your shoulder with a bucket of water on each side!

Of course, if you play it for ages and get used to the control scheme it is less noticeable. But that doesn't make it great. And COD has always had a fantastic balance to it's controls. There is no debating that fact.

The problem with COD is the online matchmaking is terrible, but only apparent to sufferers. BF3 had the chance to be different but blew it with it's imaginary server browser. A server browser with bars instead of numbers is a pointless waste of time.

I personally believe that on a level playing field, taking on 15 enemies at the same time at breakneck speed takes a lot of skill, and far more mental agility than waiting in a bush with an anti tank mine or a sniper rifle!

But as I said, all these comments (mine included) are entirely subjective.
.

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

So not only did they sell MW3 as a new game but they are going to make you pay to play MW2 maps in what is basically MW2.5
Amazing and the fact that people will buy them is even more amazing

The MW franchise is just one big rip off....

You mean like back to Karkand?
.

Edited by mrnelster (Fri 09-Dec-11 06:58:39)

I think some of the maps are great. I don't think the sizes are that different, but they feel tighter with less alleys for Snipers.

I think the Favela map in MW2 was fantastic and can't wait to see if that comes back. Loved Highrise and Scrapyard aswell.
.

In reply to a post by Gzero:

OoooOoooOoooO suits you, sir.

Lol
.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

So not only did they sell MW3 as a new game but they are going to make you pay to play MW2 maps in what is basically MW2.5
Amazing and the fact that people will buy them is even more amazing

The MW franchise is just one big rip off....

You mean like back to Karkand?
.

Good point but I have the Ltd edition so it's free
Also they are really old maps now so most people probably haven't played them

In reply to a post by time2die:

Yeah i already got pawned in deciding to have the elite edition........However if the content on offer each month is half decent then I'm going to be saving around £120 because content when released is going to cost the none elite subscribers £9,99 a time and 4 months of paying for that would have got you the hardened edition with the added bonus of a further 8 months of content.

On a different note and if the content is poor then then Infinity Ward and Activision have seen me coming and T2D got fleeced once again.

Anyway I'm really enjoying MW 2.5

Blimey I could almost feel sorry for all the mothers that have 13 year old [censored] who will be whining at them for the latest update each month

http://fifogaming.com/forum/download/file.php?id=157...

Haha, very funny. NIce one! I love that quote, it always makes me laugh just how abrupt it is and the funny accent too of course. They all sound like Arnie don't they? (And have a personality to match.)

Haha T2D your post made me laugh, I thought it's not fair to lay into you over the Christmas period

With regards to Nelsters post yea the movement is different but I always thought that was just the Battlefield feel. You wouldn't want it to feel exactly like COD and I imagine a real soldier carrying a backpack doesn't move at lightning speed like on COD, I just thought BF is a more realistic approach. You're playing first person so it should "bob" as you run, not stay static.

Dont know much about the game and the ranking system so is it similar to MW and do you start with week guns and then advance as you rank up and open up better weapons and sights ect.

My viewpoint is that BF3 is a better play for me than Black Ops, which I enjoyed too.

There are boring multi player maps, and it goes to crock, I am running around saving points, planting explosives, defusing and wondering where everyone else is. But then we finish and I am MVP, or use spawn time to see I am playing with a bunch of snipers....doh!!!!

Game works best with a balanced squad.

MW3 will be something I play in the New Year once it has dropped in price, and I find BF3 too easy.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

MW3 will be something I play in the New Year once it has dropped in price, and I find BF3 too easy.

You haven't played against me and my mates then

I've tried so hard on my PC to like this game, it looks beoot to me and sounds great too. But, as you say T2D, it runs like treacle. ANd then, just seconds away from completing a Co-op mission, the game crashes! E-v-e-r-y single time! [censored]?! I've persevered for 3 weeks now, and not scored a single point (though killed many and supported team mates...)

I'm also hard at work in SkyRim and tho I miss the multiplayer side of it, it's a great game

Oh OK, now it seems that I have been credited with points for kills... the first step along the way

BUt I'm still suffering crashes and lock-ups?? For example, I don't see any mini-map function, I stray out of the battle field, and then I have 3 seconds to get back into play... [censored]! ... bang, I'm dead and the game freezes and eventually dies... [censored]?

I guess, as everyone else is having fun, that I'm doing something wrong...lol

I just prefer Cod games in general and i just dont seem to take to Battlefield and i might as well trade it for something i will play because i am not that interested.

Edited by time2die (Sun 11-Dec-11 01:28:19)

I own both BF3 and MW3 on the PC, along with a number of the older titles from both series.

They're essentially two completely different games. The only relation is the fact both have guns.

I admire the look and sound of Battlefield. Tanks and Aircraft tend to be popular. I don't particularly like any of the maps that include aircraft however. The ones with vehicles are generally acceptable though. I like Conquest mode and generally only play it. I appreciate the squad element (even if it is annoying to be limited to just 4 players when 6 or 8 would be more useful for myself and mates). I like joining solid dedicated servers and playing the 500+ ticket type ones that allow long battles. I can appreciate the slower, somewhat tactical elements.

I admire the smoothness and superior movement in Call of Duty. It's just more refined and fluid. Simple stuff like climbing over objects is done better in COD. I like the variety of game modes. As mentioned I only really like Conquest in BF but in COD I can play about 5 or 6 fairly regularly. I like the fast paced games. I enjoy the choice of kill/point streaks.

I dislike the number of crashes in Battlefield. It's definitely improving as each patch comes along but it certainly suffers from more that it's fair share of cryptic "You've been disconnected" type messages. I had a complete crash earlier where the game just closed. No error message or anything. The game just disappeared. Battlelog is a bit of a faff. It could easily been implemented into the game rather than as a standalone in the browser.

I dislike the increasingly dated graphics in COD. I dislike the tendency of the developers to pander to consoles. I generally view the playing of first person shooters on consoles to be the height of idiocy so stupid pollution stuff from consoles like matchmaking and locked field of view on the PC is very irritating.

As you can see I like both and can see advantages and disadvantages in each game.

Which do I play more? Probably 60% COD, 40% Battlefield.

In reply to a post by Jaxx281:

If they do bring out MW2 maps for MW3 then that will be hilarious, surely they can't do that?! It's the same engine and nothing has changed, at least with the BF stuff it's on the new Frostbite engine and they have been brought up to speed with modern day but MW2 was only a couple of years ago if that!

er...

BC2, Frostbite 1.5
BF3, Frostbite 2
Back To Karkand - all old maps re-hashed for BF3

Don't fool yourself. The engine in BF3 is not new. It's an updated version of the same engine.

Same goes for the Call of Duty games. MW2 ran on the IW4 engine. The one in MW3 is essentially the next iteration of it. Sure it might not be as good graphically but that's not the point. I'd be interested in what you mean by "nothing has changed" with relation to Modern Warfare. Feel free to go into depth about what *has* changed in BF3 if it's helps you out. I think you'll find it a bit more difficult to answer the longer you think about it.

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

MW just seems so pointless, nothing to do but constantly kill and be killed

Supremely confusing comment there. What exactly is the point of *any* shooting game? To kill...and obviously be killed.

In reply to a post by Gzero:

Have you tried the spam tastic maps that are basicly CoD cluster<you know what>? Metro Conquest, Damavand Peak Conquest and Rush, Grand Bazaar TDM?

There are no comparable maps between the two games.

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

Good point but I have the Ltd edition so it's free

False. You bought the game and paid £££ for it. Delaying the "release" of content which was completed at the same time as the rest of the game is just a marketing trick designed to fool you into thinking you are getting it for free. Nothing is free in this context. Unless of course you believe you were sold an incomplete, and therefore broken, game when you bought it? In others words "ripped off".

You're being tricked. Snap out of it.

Edited by orly (Sun 11-Dec-11 04:11:15)

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

In reply to a post by time2die:

Yeah i already got pawned in deciding to have the elite edition........However if the content on offer each month is half decent then I'm going to be saving around £120 because content when released is going to cost the none elite subscribers £9,99 a time and 4 months of paying for that would have got you the hardened edition with the added bonus of a further 8 months of content.

On a different note and if the content is poor then then Infinity Ward and Activision have seen me coming and T2D got fleeced once again.

Anyway I'm really enjoying MW 2.5

Blimey I could almost feel sorry for all the mothers that have 13 year old [censored] who will be whining at them for the latest update each month

The problem with segmenting content like this is that it fractures and splits the people playing the game.

It's bad enough with 1 piece of "DLC" as you'll have servers/lobbies where the players either have it or don't.

In MW2 some of my friends bought the 1st DLC and some of us didn't (including myself as a matter of principle). Therefore, as we always played as one group, we never played the maps in the DLC as not all of us owned it and so we never got put in matches playing it. Those who shelled out literally wasted their money. Obviously, none of us bought the 2nd DLC they trotted out. No money made there then. If they'd been intelligent and released a massive update with truly original stuff in it, in one installment, I might have entertained the idea but only if it was a few pounds. £10? £15 for each piece? Nah.

When you multiply it to many more pieces of DLC you end up with players who have any number of combinations of the content. Quite a pickle when you go to play with your friends and find 1 of them hasn't got the same content as the rest of your party. Guess they'll not be playing with you or none of you will get to play the new map. Scale up for the entire userbase and it actually becomes a serious issue to the game as a whole. As we know all online multiplayer relies on player numbers.

I believe if game companies release a game and want my £40 for it they should update it and preferably add new maps or content to it for a reasonable period of time afterwards. This is how it worked with other games I've played down the years. Counter-Strike for example, waaaaaay back before it was even a retail game, got updates every few months with new maps, equipment and game modes and it was completely free at the time. Seems almost unbelieveable but thats how it worked in the late 20th century. Yes, it was that long ago. Now you're £40 seems to buy you a game and a handful of bug fix patches and then you're expected to open your wallet again for stuff that should come as standard.

Edited by orly (Sun 11-Dec-11 04:09:48)

Nobody likes to pay for extra content but unfortunately thats the way of the world and my point is that by buying the more expensive hardened edition then i am saving a fortune over the people that buy all the premium content each month.

I know for a fact that i would have paid for map packs,or spec ops missions and other stuff so for me its a good choice based on the price structure they will be charging.

So we get a years supply of content each month until the next Cod game arrives next November,depending on what that game is like will also decide if i renew the subscription or move on to the next chapter.

Not that keen on Treyarch as a developer but there were certain things in Black ops that were better and more balanced than previous MW games but even then i prefer how MW games feel and play over ant Treyarch game .

Is the content worth what you paid for it?

Unless it's spectacularly epic...like wholesale improvements to the game (lots of new weapons, game modes, pointstreaks, maps, graphics improvements etc) then i'd say it's not worth a single penny.

Also, you're not saving a fortune over someone who buys none of it.

Bit of a daft obvious last paragraph you wrote there my friend,obviously that particular person that refuses to pay for the extra download content each month is normally the person that has not bought the game in the first place.

I based what i said on price structure and the savings that would be made if you were to download most of the content each month.

I have already downloaded Gear 3 stuff and i dare say i will do the same in the future if need be and the majority of my friends do the same.

Well said Orly
I for one will not be playing the mw milk me of my money like a twit game

In reply to a post by orly:

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

MW just seems so pointless, nothing to do but constantly kill and be killed

Supremely confusing comment there. What exactly is the point of *any* shooting game? To kill...and obviously be killed.

Yea of course you aim to kill the enemy but in BF you also have the option of helping out your team mates with repairs, resupplying, healing etc and the spawn die time is usually a lot longer than in MW. As you know BF is much more a team based game in which a good squad can really make a difference to who wins where as in MW it's all about selfishly getting your name to the top of the leader board.
I used to really enjoy MW but now I have switched I enjoy the team work in BF so much more and will probably never go back to MW games.

In reply to a post by orly:

In reply to a post by Gzero:

Have you tried the spam tastic maps that are basicly CoD cluster<you know what>? Metro Conquest, Damavand Peak Conquest and Rush, Grand Bazaar TDM?

There are no comparable maps between the two games.

That's a daft comment Gzero is talking about the game play

Thanks for the wake up call

I bought MW3, but just like MW2 I have no plans to buy any of the extra content.

I bought BF3 but it's still debatable whether i'll bother with the Back To Karkand expansion.

You're posts are a good read and you are descriptive of your opinions, but your recurring comments like "I generally view the playing of first person shooters on consoles to be the height of idiocy" just dampen them. I can't stand the "elitism" that comes with PC gaming and find it extremely irritating that people think playing the game on a PC makes them superior. I used to do a lot of FPS & MMORPG gaming on a PC but now I live with a friend and we both have Xboxes and TV's setup in our lounge it's easier for other friends to come round and hop on with their gamertags. It doesn't mean I am any worse of a gamer and when we play online with 4 - 8 of us it's great fun and extremely tactical, our win to loss ratio is awesome when we squad up.

I would enjoy playing BF on the PC and do miss the large player servers compared to 12 v 12 on the Xbox but like I say, the majority of my friends play it on the Xbox and if I started playing on the PC then I would just be alienating myself from joining my friends and their games. I don't get any disconnection issues on the Xbox so can't say I can feel your pain on that one. I can see where frustration lies if you are a PC gamer and you can tell straight away that a game has been made with a console in mind but I don't think that the console gamers who aren't whiney teenage kids should all be tarred with the same brush.

Edited by deleted (Mon 12-Dec-11 10:51:27)

There is no elitism. Just facts.

It's the same reason why sports games and racing games are superior on a console. The control system lends itself to those games. It's why I don't play them on my PC.

First person shooters should never be played on a console. Ignoring the fact that the hardware is inferior and the games generally cost more, why is it nearly every game of the sort has pre-programmed auto aiming to assist the player? It's because it's close to impossible to aim accurately in any reasonable length of time (< 1/2 second) using a control pad. You give yourself a poor imitation when you play a console version of CoD or BF. Leakage of the poor elements of console play into the PC versions is rightly derided. See every PC gamer forum on the internet for confirmation.

I suspect the reason you don't get disconnections on Battlefield on a console is because it isn't using servers like the PC version.

Edited by orly (Mon 12-Dec-11 12:04:35)

Turn off autoaim and have your sensitivity high, surely no difference in the reflexes of your thumbs on the analogue sticks to your hands on the mouse? Perhaps you should give it a go. It would be interesting if you could play across platforms, I would love to smash some PC players

Indeed I was, but then someone put a bucket on my head and now I don't know.

I think you are wrong. I think you can (for example) spin 180 degrees and aim at someone's head in a 2nd floor window at much greater speed with a mouse. Or if you have to switch targets from shooting someone dead ahead to someone 45 degrees to your left. The analogue sticks just don't offer the same speed coupled with accuracy - if you increase the speed too much then the accuracy vanishes.

Of course you would find PC players that you could beat but even a reasonable BF3 player such as myself would be able to get the upper hand on a really good console player

Fair enough I accept your point, but as you turn that 45 degrees are you saying you would hit them dead on? Or would you be slightly off and have to move your hand slightly to get it on the target? As if so then that would be the same as me turning fast and not quite being on target then gently flicking it on. Or if you are playing pretty "level" then you should just be able to turn it left and right without having to move up and down too much if they are dead ahead of you. Sorry it's quite difficult to explain without actually showing you lol.

Let's say though that it's true, I will accept that. It still doesn't mean that playing it on a console is idiocy just because you can have better accuracy on the PC. I usually finish in the top 3 when I play, I get a lot of flag points and quite a few kills. Granted my kill to death wasn't great at first but I hadn't played a decent FPS for a good year or so and now I would say I average about. 30 kills and 5 deaths on a level like Seine Crossing. I'm just trying to make the point that just because it may be more accurate on a PC does not mean the play experience is any worse or better on the Xbox. I still have a cracking time, I get good kills, good points etc. so it's frustrating to see comments like that. I know it won't change though, some people are just stuck in their ways. Like people who still listen to the same ACDC album and refuse to listen to new material because "Music has changed man!"

In reply to a post by orly:

First person shooters should never be played on a console.

So someone like me that doesn't want to spend a lot of money on a top end PC is not allowed to play them??? You talk some poo sometimes mate.
I used to live on my PC playing FPS but nowadays I prefer to play in the comfort of my arm chair.
I could call you a geek for locking yourself away in a small room with your PC but I won't because I don't care what you do I'm happy with my set up so there

Basically for me it depends on how much am i playing a game and how much am i honestly enjoying it,based on those i make the decision on downloadable content.

There are many games in the past when i have not purchased a single bit of extra content,normally because the game in question has turned out to be a turkey and certain games are long enough in the first place.

Nobody wants to pay for stuff but if its worth it then its not such a burden.

So say you had 6 friends that have bought MW3 and you all play together and then the other 5 decide lets download the new map pack you then decide i wont play with my mates anymore then or you expect them to only play the basic maps that you have.

Sometimes even though you and many others don't wont to pay and I'm in your camp here,needs must especially when the rest of your mates have bought it and you still enjoy the game.

And how is that realistic in comparison to real world?

Spinning 180 degree and a snap shot, followed by a second more aimed shot would be more common, and take longer than you can spin around with a mouse.

Also I play on a PS3 because my real life mates all play on one. We meet up a few nights a week and play BF3
It's a social thing that I would lose if I switched to PC gaming so I'll stick to playing FPS'ers on my console thanks

Yea I agree Swanny I had the same convo with a friend over email this morning, he said he tried to play online last night and it was boring playing with a load of numpties online and having no one to squad with. So on Friday evening he will be coming to mine with a crate of beer and him and my housemate are going to have a good session on the new maps. You can't get that with a PC unless everyone brings their rig round, which seems to me like a massive pain.

You can't throw realism into the mix too much with any FPS. But for me I would find it frustrating that I could see something and not get too it as fast I know I should be able to. I guess you get used to it and it is a level playing field in that everyone uses the same controls but it all seems a little non-fluid to me.

I thought the same with regards to consoles, but playing BF 1943 which was cheap converted me to them for casual play, as oppossed to the big league type stuff.

Yea I know what you mean, but if you have quick reactions it's not that slow. I think it's down to how comfortable you are with the controller and sensitivty as well, but I appreciate the comment someone made before about moving quick with the mouse but I don't think the difference is massive. In terms of my comments on making it easier to play with friends and the realism I am just trying to show why it is sometimes easier to game on the console because too many times have PC gamers mocked for doing so. Although I am unsure why I feel the need to justify it, if I'm having fun then that's all that matter.

In reply to a post by ccxo:

You played it on the xbox thats why, ive seen the xbox against the pc the game looks so poor on it.

I have the PC version and I'm not that impressed. The videos on youtube seem more impressive than the game actually is.

I suspect your console and the TV to play it on cost pretty similar to a PC capable of running any of the latest games.

False economy. Try again

Edited by orly (Wed 14-Dec-11 22:31:38)

Thats pretty much how it went with MW2

About 10 of us played it most evenings. A few bought the DLC and regretted it.

You haven't been reading T2D's posts then!??!?!? He's made 'a money!!!!!!! Cost means nothing to him, even if they game looks dire, he still has it on pre order.

Yeah like Duke Puke Em Forever.............

Actually Gzero that is not true because i only order potential great games and i never pre/ordered Battlefield 3 but picked it up weeks later based on what the rest of you were saying about the game.

I have bought games on many occasions that have not hit the mark and i dare say so have many others but thats how it is.

Certainly next year i will choose more wisely because in all honesty i only really like a games like FPS and a good Platform adventure like Max Payne and Uncharted,love GTA type games but anything like Skyrim then its best left on the shelf as they involve just far to much patience and a lot of time . Something i don't have.

Ah but I have to have the tele to watch the F1

How did Zelda slip your mind?

Yeah and Zelda which is a brilliant game.........on that subject i have to say that the first 3 hours of the new game skyward sword is oh so boring and i have not got anywhere near finishing the game.

Normally a few years back i would have played this non stop but i just don't have the patience anymore and find myself playing it in fits and starts if that makes any sense .

A game like this needs playing continuously and there are times when i have not touched it for a week or so.in fact the last time was at least a week ago,same as Saints Row at first i plated it for hours then suddenly i i have left that and all i seem to want to play is mw3.

Maybe you're getting old T2D and should try some SkyRim??

TV is out of the equation, nothing to stop you using most PC monitors for a console these days as HDMI input is very common.

The main TV for game play at 40" though is a good comfortable viewing situation for me, and the sound is good.

Just accept that there are different choices, and people will not all make the same choice. Used to see the same, when people used to brag on the best video card, with people paying extra for slightly higher bandwidth memory

Isn't out of the equation if you need it.

Fact is you'll pay £170 even now for an xbox and £200 for a PS3. Both are antiquated hardware and you'll need a monitor or a TV to use them. If, like most, you use a TV, you'll likely be paying more for an inferior product and experience.

PC is always better value, and for FPS games it is a must. Anything else is just fooling yourself.

Dual quad core 3GHz, 8GB memory, and a decent video card in a PC, but no BF3 since it did not support DirectX of the right version.

A PC needs a monitor too remember.

Better value is open to debate, PC games cheaper to buy, but hardware more expensive to buy. Consoles cheap hardware for the performance level but games cost more and not at the same performance level, but then I know people who spend the cost of a console on a PC graphics card.

Your decision is PC is best value for you, for me the consoles are. Plus I gain a device that plays DVD/blu-ray and other features like iPlayer, lovefilm on my main TV.

Yeah i tried that Swanny and at present the only game that has me really fired up is MW3 ,but i will say that i am getting a little fed up with gaming in general,don't know if that is me getting older which is a possibility or games are not advancing to a level they should be.

Dont get me wrong i still love nothing more than a good game but im just not so keen anymore and prefer to chill out watching Television and Dvd when normally come 9/10 pm the consoles go on but the last 6 months this is not the case apart from MW3.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Better value is open to debate, PC games cheaper to buy, but hardware more expensive to buy. Consoles cheap hardware for the performance level but games cost more and not at the same performance level, but then I know people who spend the cost of a console on a PC graphics card.

Hmm. I just spend £140 on a sapphire hd6870 and £30 on some more memory and it plays on ultra flawlessly. The rest of the computer is fairly mediocre. I think that is cheap compared to a console.

I bought an old 9xxx series nvidia card off a mate a few months back for £50 when my even older 8xxx series card burned up. Runs BF3 at med/high on most settings at an acceptable frame rate (>50fps)

If you had a card that only did DirectX9 then it's not really "decent" by any modern standards considering DX10 has been around for over 5 years now. Likely to be far better than the graphics in your console though

Edited by orly (Sat 17-Dec-11 04:03:08)