Battlefield 3

Rotaretilbo wrote:Dear God, you could buy the cheapest pre-built at BestBuy, and it would probably be able to run Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, and Battlefield 2. Maybe even Battlefield 2142. It isn't like these games are brand spanking new. I mean, fuck, my first computer, which we bought back in 1995, could run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam! The fucking thing wasn't even Windows XP!

Calm the fuck down Rot! I realize all of this. I didn't say it was impossible for me to play them. But, right now I'm going on 1 part time job at the mall. So I don't exactly have the best income for buying a PC for games right now. Plus, my mind set is the xbox is doing just for me right now. And like I said earlier, BC2 is filling the void of...well, what I decribed earlier. So there is really no need for me personally to go out and buy a PC for games. Even if it is cheap, but believe me, I would. There are lots of games I would buy if I had one.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Us PC gamers have waited six long years for another Battlefield game on PC, and the shit they give us is Bad Company 2, which is supposed to be Battlefield 2 but with destructible environments. But it was trying so damned hard to be Modern Warfare 2 that I expect DICE forgot entirely about us PC gamers.

Which is why I said that it would make more sence for them to keep what was missing in the PC version. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with it because the game originated on PC so it only makes sence for them to do that. Take care of your own first. Your own being the PC verterns that stuck to the series from the beginning.

Of course sadly, they didn't do that.

In other words, I pretty much agree with you, except for the whole BC2 fucking itself thing.

i was playing 2142 earlier.....
i got tired of being the only person trying to take control of the silos in titan

Rotaretilbo wrote:Dear God, you could buy the cheapest pre-built at BestBuy, and it would probably be able to run Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, and Battlefield 2. Maybe even Battlefield 2142. It isn't like these games are brand spanking new. I mean, fuck, my first computer, which we bought back in 1995, could run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam! The fucking thing wasn't even Windows XP!

Us PC gamers have waited six long years for another Battlefield game on PC, and the shit they give us is Bad Company 2, which is supposed to be Battlefield 2 but with destructible environments. But it was trying so damned hard to be Modern Warfare 2 that I expect DICE forgot entirely about us PC gamers.

I liked Bad Company 2

Rotaretilbo wrote:The computer you're posting on right now could probably run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam.

Probably. But, in the end, there are two key facts to keep in mind about that. Well, for my situation personally anyways...

#1. It's a laptop (not sure if that matters but it's a laptop with no upgardes as far as sound or graphics cards.)

#2. It's not my computer.

Rotaretilbo wrote:while the game might look like steak to the starved eyes of console gamers, it's hardly a bone to the well fed eyes of us PC gamers.

Is that supposed to be an insult to console gamers?

PC is great, and xbox is great, thats why they should make one game that is some how for bolth (no not the same disk but the same game on a different disk) and i hope is is eather like 1942 (not 1943 like some retards mistake it for) or s sequil to BF2, cuz that shit was AWSOMELY EPIC!

No.

It's called personal preference.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I assure you, it is not.

I assure you, it is.

MW2 is a terrible example as it's just a terrible game in general, on PC and Console. People loved CoD4 no matter what system it was on. It was great on PC and it was great on Console.

Some people will like one version over the other, and this is where personal preference comes in.

It comes down to the player, not the system. People get PC's or Consoles based on preference, and rate them, based on preference.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I assure you, it is not. First person shooter games made exclusively for PC will always be better than first person shooter games made exclusively for console (exceptions made for purely single-player shooters like BioShock). This is why, whenever a half-baked, mediocre FPS like Modern Warfare 2 comes out on console, the entire console shooter community jizzes all over itself in excitement, while the PC shooter community tries to figure out why the hell the console shooter community is so excited.

the reason pc gamers didn't receive MW2 well, was the lack of dedicated servers, which is a staple in pc gaming but nonexistent in console gaming.

Actually, Rot. My old old computer with Windows 2000 could not run Battlefield 1942. The graphics card wasn't good enough. My XP could run everything through 2142, though.

Man... 2142 was a blast...

Seriously, though, I liked BC2. You can't go around claiming that any 'realistic' war game is trying to copy Call of Duty. Medal of Honor is one thing, but BC2 was extremely unique. Perhaps even more-so than Halo.

The only significant differences I found between BF:BC2 and BF2 was the destructible buildings and inclusion of a single-player campaign. Otherwise, it still ran on traditional Battlefield elements that have been in all of their games. Nothing about BC2 reminds me of MW2.

Well... maybe the new health system, but that's no big deal. Almost every shooter has adopted that system.