Indeed it would spook Indeed it would,think the last decent Alien game was from the doomed atari jaguar and was called Alien V Predator and only this and tempest 2000 was the ever a reason to own this console.

as usual i was one of those early adopters and bought the console which in all honesty was the biggest gaming disaster in history along with trip hawkins ridiculously priced Panasonic 3DO .

Oh how spoilt the kids are today when i look back a few decades ago and what limited choice we had then,now games actually look like real life and not made up of 8 bit sprites.

Yeah, nobody uses the term 'sprite' anymore do they? I wonder when it stopped being used? That would make a fairly interesting social study into gaming history and language methinks.

The Sony Playstation, Sega Genesis and prior Super Nintendo killed the Atari Jaguar off then or so I was reading just now. Personally my early console history went Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), then Sega Megadrive, then the Super Nintendo.

Finally got a Sony Playstation around the turn of the new millennium and that was the last for me. Since then it's been nothing but the PC though I am not the world's biggest player. I'd get an Xbox and PS3 if I didn't already have a decent PC. Seems I might as well wait for the new Xbox as I'm sure Microsoft will have to announce something in the next couple of years if games like Battlefield 3 continue to push graphics boundaries. The lack of graphical polish of BF3 on consoles seems to be the main and almost sole reason why there is so much negativity regarding the game. I think this will mark something of a turning point in game development if enough people continue to moan about how sucky their graphics now look on their consoles. MS and Sony will be forced to sit up and listen if they don't already have their ear to the ground or risk losing market share and a resurgence in high end PC gaming. Who knows though? Gaming is a funny thing.

I expect both Microsoft and Sony to go into battle next year with new consoles announced then a race to market,this is the longest generation in history of consoles and normally the cycle is no longer than 5 years before we get a new generation.

I dont wont to come on here and dish the dirt on Battlefield but when i am looking at all the news and reports from various gaming sites there is a lot of negativity towards this game having not met the graphical expectations set 6 months ago on a high end gaming PC.

Us console gamers are not daft and we knew to well that it would not look as good as a High end PC but i think when they announced a frame rate of only 30fps because of the amount going on we all expected more.

Whats worrying is what will it look like and play on bigger maps when vehicles and jets are been used.is there a reason why Dice /EA have not shown this in the beta and has it got some more hidden surprises that will put of many more.

Guess in 3 weeks when we see the reviews the more we will be in the know and we all know a bad review can kill a game in a instant.

Have only witnessed screenshots of BF3 beta on consoles and graphically, as far as static images go, it's looks fine to me. I don't about the fancy lighting and stuff and I realise there are some major bugs - screen tearing, texture problems etcetera reported but I'd say people were maybe being a little too harsh, no?

The Metro map isn't the prettiest map and I'm not a fan of the stye of art - kinda very scorched, very hot summer's day with extreme contrast in the outdoor lighting (to my eyes it looks ugly). But as a map it works excellently imo. I'm really enjoying it and a lot more so the more I got into it and learned the map. Until you know where all the choke points are it's quite confusing but when it starts to come together, wow. You are in for a treat and it's only set to get better once we get the in game friend thing and voice chat and all that malarkey going.

From the little I've read about problems on the consoles I think DICE/EA have a serious battle on their hands to optimise the game for release. People are expecting better textures in the main so perhaps they should scale back the number of players further or take out some of the destructibility? They need to do something if the framerate is already stuck at 30FPS.

Yeah, I was reading about the PC version too and how later on, when 64 player maps with vehicles (like the Caspian Border) one come out, then we will be in trouble. So far my computer is running the game okay at Ultra settings (1920 x 1200) with AA turned off and a few other things lowered. I know it's going to be killed when the body count goes up, map size increased and vehicles are introduced. Plus, reports are that DICE have held off on unleashing full graphical potential on the PC with Ultra settings just being High or so they say. I think there is plenty of room for improvement, even on the PC, for graphics textures to look better but I would not be too disappointed if they remained at this level. When BF2 came out, DICE played it very safe and didn't push the boundaries at all. It was quite disappointing actually but didn't detract too much from the game. Gameplay is key after all.

You really should give BF3 a better chance. Yes, it is a different style of play to what you are used to if COD and CSS type quick shooters are what you're used to. It isn't radically different but does require some basic tactics for holding back a bit more rather than going Rambo (solo) as you'll just be gunned down all the time when you run into a bunch of enemy players all huddled together at one of those choke points I mentioned.

Well, it's up to you really. Probably wouldn't hurt ya too much to download it for the PS3 and try again. It took me the best part of a week (10 hours) of play to get the hang of the map and gameplay. I tend to be too gung ho and get kamikazeed all the time. It's really worth investing the effort to learn this game, trust me. It's so rewarding once you get into it a bit more. I'm starting to feel like gaming again - it has a way of making you hungry for more.

Im not really in a position to say anything bad about it Spook having deleting it after only 10 minutes as i thought this is not my cup of tea.

I have it on the Playstation and i will give it another try out because it dont cost nothing does it,problem for me at present is im totally addicted to Horde Mode in gears 3 and any other game i put on has to blow me right out of the water because gears 3 to me is that good.

Only previous MW games have held my attention so much so thats telling you something,normally this coming Friday i would have picked up both Dark Souls and Rage but i dont need to because i have a game im playing to death and the fact like i said in a previous thread there is to much released at the same time.

Comments i make generally Spook are what other have said who have spent a lot of time with the game,i have to admit that when i see quite a bit of negativity then it does put me of at times and when i do play the game my patience is virtually none existence .

Depending on the general feedback of what the people say when the beta has ended i may still pick the game up for the single player at least.

Hopefully i will give the multiplayer a chance but if mrnelster does not like it that much then i think I'm going to be in the same camp because on the majority of most gaming discussions we tend to like the same type of games.

i think if you like something like MW games which play very fast and are very slick then adopting to Battlefield is kind of hard based on the way MW games play.

I have taken my MW style into Battlefield games and most times i just end up dying and respawning and dying and respawning over and over again.

Im not one for this kind of team play and i also hate the way the guns kick so much and find the experience a little off putting to say the least.

I know its more realistic and i appreciate it takes time to get used to it but im not really a lover of it in the first place

It has been made worse by the over hype, without a doubt.

My only problem with BF is the same as that with BFBC. the maps are too big. Even Metro is too big. If the consoles had more power I think it would definitely change my opinion, but big maps require big teams and that is something that consoles struggle with whilst keeping up with smooth visuals and gameplay.

And the most annoying thing is the way that after a certain amount of deaths you end up with no choice but to spawn miles away from the action. Console matchmaking can be really poor at times. And I mean REALLY poor! If you die five times on the bump in COD etc., at least you don't have to run miles to get back to the action. It may be a more accurate representation of battle in general, but that's one part it could do without!

I will give it a crack at a later date if it turns out looking nicer than MOH did on the PS3.
.

I tried it the playstation version of Battlefield and the game is not for me and good luck to the people that like it.

There is not a single thing a like about it and in all honestly the graphics were pretty dire and MW3 has nothing to worry about given that this is a new engine and Dice and EA telling us its going to blow MW3 out of the water with there new engine.

This might be the case with a nice fancy PC but i have seen both the console versions and they certainly don't live up to the hype.

I agree with you Spook seems the console gamers are more about complaining than the PC gamers.

Edited by time2die (Thu 06-Oct-11 18:00:50)