Anyone regret getting the console version instead of PC?

#1 Posted by loudology (205 posts) -

Or vice-versa? I have the 360 version and I've been regretting it a bit lately. I don't have a lot of people to play with on PC, so that was a reason I chose the 360 version. But it seems like I'm missing the true experience. What do you think?

#2 Posted by PowerBombYo (192 posts) -

Nah, I'm actually really enjoying myself. I loved BF2 on the PC and I do think there is a certain charm to the mouse/keyboard, bigger battles, but the console version has kept me happy. I just can't afford to beef up my PC at this point, so console was the way to go. No regrets here.

#3 Posted by Warihay (481 posts) -

I regretted it before I even bought it for 360. My Macbook Pro would not be a fan of trying to run that. But yea, the bigger battles, player count and maps look like so much more/chaos on the PC.

#4 Posted by kalmis (1558 posts) -

If I had PC that could run it yes. Atm got no issues with the 360 version. 

#5 Posted by shuref00t (110 posts) -

I bought both the PC and 360 version of the game. I think it's fine on both systems.

If anything, I'm guessing it'll have more longevity on the PC.

#6 Posted by huntad (1931 posts) -

I bought the PS3 version and I'm liking it a lot. I don't regret it at all.

#7 Posted by fragstoff (7 posts) -

no because i bought it on PC like your supose to

trollololol

#8 Posted by Doctorchimp (4074 posts) -

If you have a PC that can run it...why would you buy it on the console?

#9 Posted by kermoosh (911 posts) -

no regret, the 360 graphics look just fine, if not great (for me at least)

although i've never tried it, it seems like 64 players would be too hectic, though i've never tried it

#10 Posted by Redsox44 (482 posts) -

Nah I'm really enjoying it. The only time I think it feels too slow might be on caspian and sometimes firestorm but I still love em. It is pretty hard to identify targets far away but that's how it would be in real life so it doesn't really bother me.

@Louis0nFire: And hey im the one who added you. LEGGO........

Haha really would like someone willing to take a break from multi and get those co-op unlocks.

#11 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

CQ 64 is a mess. A bloody hectic fun mess at its best, but even at its best it's a mess. I don't know why I spend most my time with it. I guess I must because I can.

I envy consoles for the even playingfield and a way more cohesive online experience and way less unbalaced/broken/unfun map/mode/playercount combinations.

But hey, some servers do cool stuff. CQ/Rush mixed mode 32 players is awesome.

#12 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2991 posts) -

well if you have a pc that can run it obviously yes! Most people don't.

#13 Posted by McShank (1629 posts) -

I have a pc that can run it on high perfectly fine but i got it for ps3 even though i have 0 friends on that system to play with. Why you ask?!?!?!?!? Because I cant stand FPS on pc's except for the select few like CS, L4D, TF2.. Otherwise I dont like fps on pc.. ps3 looks great and plays great with controller while using a controller on pc for a fps is almost suicide..

#14 Posted by BawlZINmotion (714 posts) -

@Seppli said:

CQ 64 is a mess. A bloody hectic fun mess at its best, but even at its best it's a mess. I don't know why I spend most my time with it. I guess I must because I can.

I envy consoles for the even playingfield and a way more cohesive online experience and way less unbalaced/broken/unfun map/mode/playercount combinations.

But hey, some servers do cool stuff. CQ/Rush mixed mode 32 players is awesome.

Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm are the only maps I find work well with 64 players. In fact I prefer to play both with 63 other people. Maybe Rush-mode Operation Metro. Like you mention, I find it a bit of a chaotic mess on all the other maps and greatly prefer jumping into a 32 player game instead. That's not to say I don't prefer 64 players, it's just between map size and choke points on all but two maps it can get out of hand. It becomes a turkey shoot.

Having played the PS3 version, I'd say on Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm, the console crowd is missing seeing both maps at their best, but the rest of the game is pretty identrical between console and PC. Aside the graphical push.

#15 Posted by RubberFactory (288 posts) -

I regret buying it on the PC instead of the 360, this game does not like GTX 260's in sli.

#16 Posted by SmasheControllers (2548 posts) -

I bought both X360 and PC versions.

#17 Posted by Sunjammer (913 posts) -

I recently upgraded my PC, though maybe bizarrely to play a flight sim better (DCS A-10), but I wound up getting Battlefield 3 on a whim today. I dunno guys, it looks great, but I'm not sure how big an upgrade the game is over Bad Company 2. The campaign is somehow worse, not that people buy Battlefield games for the campaign. Actually I don't even know why they even made one at this point, it's that freaking bad. There's a scene in the first level where you spend a minute and a half watching two soldiers make a bridge out of a convenient, yet kind of way too huge, plank they find nearby, and it's slow, awkward and representative of the tedium that campaign manages to just hammer home over and over. Not a big CoD fan either, but at least those games have a sense of style.

I reckon if you got the game for nothing but the campaign, the PC version would be the best way to experience that, I guess, since it's all about showing off the engine. If you're in it for the multiplayer, I don't see a big problem with going for the console versions. I mean the PC version is lead, that's clear, but I don't think you'll lose THAT much of the experience.

#18 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

The pc version is kind of a mess. I rented the ps3 version from redbox, bought the online pass and played for one evening. PS3 froze 3 times in approx 2 hours. I took that back the next morning. I had some credits on Amazon so I spent it on the download version of the game on the PC after reading that support on a controller was excellent. Game runs ok on lowest settings but the FoV was an issue. The lowest setting you can go in game is 60 and that still felt like i was too far away from everything to enjoy. I've figured out how to set it lower so now it's 45 which is about what you get on the consoles, maybe 50. But there are issues with the controller support. In game it's very decent, but the sprint button is a hold function. That has become such a huge problem I don't even play it anymore. Sprint needs to be a toggle like it is on the console versions. There is also very little menu control so you can't use the bumpers to move around the deploy menu, you can't use the start key to get to options, you can't use the d-pad to move between classes. The only thing you can do is use the left stick to move between the deployment options and use the a button to deploy. It works but you constantly have to jump back to the keyboard.

I went out and bought the 360 version and everything on tha works great. No complaints. It froze one time just after install but after restarting the game it's been great.

The most surprising thing is that the server browser on the console versions are more useful than that battlelog thing. The way that displays server info is comically bad.

#19 Posted by Marbazoid (55 posts) -

If you had access to a suitable pc, yet you still bought the console version, I would question your value as a human being.

#20 Posted by Mahonay (828 posts) -

Nope, because I don't have a gaming rig and it's not in my budget right now. I suppose I could see how it runs on my Mac Mini in boot camp, probably not very well. Even if it's i7 and has 8GB of memory. Graphics card is pretty low-mid tier. I might give it a try, I do long to play 64 player matches. I don't play Conquest at all on the 360 since it's so damn empty with that player count. Thank god for Rush on the consoles.

#21 Edited by Franstone (1115 posts) -

I'm the only one out of my friends that uses a PC for gaming, maybe 2 people tops, the rest are Xbox.

I have a 360 as well.

Got it for PC.

No regrets.

Battlefield at it finest.

#22 Posted by amomjc (977 posts) -

@fragstoff said:

no because i bought it on PC like your supose to

trollololol

Saying trololol was never funny, so please stop being an idiot.

Anyway, I bought it on PC but sometimes regret not grabbing it for the 360. I have a 3 year old PC and it is really showing that I cannot run it on anything higher than medium and get around 30fps. Really makes me sadface.

#23 Posted by Quemador (166 posts) -

Nope, i have a pc that can handle the game, but battlefield for me should be played comfortable in a couch with surround sound speakers in a big screen, plus you should play the game where most of you friend play .

#24 Posted by HiroSeven (215 posts) -

No regrets at all, bought it on the 360, beat the campaign (the second half was not too bad actually) and now am on MP... hopefully will want to do some CO-OP missions someday.

My PC could run the game on low to medium settings I think, but I really don't game too much on PC so console was the natural choice.

#25 Posted by Three0neFive (2292 posts) -

@amomjc said:

@fragstoff said:

no because i bought it on PC like your supose to

trollololol

Saying trololol was never funny, so please stop being an idiot.

Seriously. It's not the equivalent of saying "I'm just trolling", it's the lyrics to a fucking song and pronounced as "yoyoyoyoyo".

Fucking internet, if you're going to abuse shitty memes at least do it in the right context.

#26 Posted by Box3ru13 (703 posts) -

Considering it would've cost me much more to upgrade my PC than I was willing to spend I'm happy for now. Sometime down the road I will try it out on PC once I've decided that I've waited long enough. Plus I have a ton of friends who got it for the PS3 so I get to play with them, whereas there is hardly anybody I know in RL at least that PC games.

Kinda sad now, thanks TC.

#27 Posted by Xeiphyer (5602 posts) -

I enjoy my shooters more on consoles, so PS3 version is great for me :P

#28 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@Quemador said:

Nope, i have a pc that can handle the game, but battlefield for me should be played comfortable in a couch with surround sound speakers in a big screen, plus you should play the game where most of you friend play .

Battlefield is definitely a "lean forward" game to me. Still got the big screen and surround system going though.
#29 Posted by fragstoff (7 posts) -

@Three0neFive said:

@amomjc said:

@fragstoff said:

no because i bought it on PC like your supose to

trollololol

Saying trololol was never funny, so please stop being an idiot.

Seriously. It's not the equivalent of saying "I'm just trolling", it's the lyrics to a fucking song and pronounced as "yoyoyoyoyo".

Fucking internet, if you're going to abuse shitty memes at least do it in the right context.

.....

umad?

#30 Posted by Stepside (509 posts) -

SUPER happy I bought it on the PC. Tried it at a buddy's house on 360 and it's a mess on console.

#31 Posted by Cymatics (90 posts) -

@Tumbler: Battlelog looks like just any standard server browser, where it shows ping, if it's PB protected, Password, or Ranked, or whatever else you wanna know. And the battlelog system in it self is REALLY good. It got so much statistics in there that I can look for days. And it's WAY easier to look at then any ingame system I've seen to date. It's like you check your steam achievement, you open the steam browser, instead of the ingame tool for it. And since it's a PC game, the FOV will naturally be higher then consoles. So nothing wired there. And you can't call it a mess, every thing you complained about is, it being a pc game, and not a console game. The FOV, console complaint, on pc, console controller, on pc, console complaint, and battlelog, normal freaking server browser, random complaint, <-- All of this BS you say is a mess, actually make it a PC game, on a PC, which do not in any way make this a mess. What is a mess, is the console server browser, those filters sure are very ..... yeah... Battlelog should just been implemented on consoles via PS3's browser, and Xbox's whatever they'd have to come up with.

@Unknown_Pleasures: So if you regret buying it on one system after you got it... that makes you a pc elitist.... hope you can see how dumb what you said is. if you bought it on PC, and then find out that you want it on Xbox, your an Xbox elitist?

No, I don't regret getting it on PC a tiny bit. From launch I haven't had a single problem yet. It's runs stable at 60fps(v-sync ofc) on my 46" screen at Ultra. Now I can use my joystick(not joypad) to control my plane or helie, I can use my joypad to control whatever I want, jets, helies, char, cars, jeeps, whatever it is. Or I can do as I do, and use my keyboard and mouse for everything but jets and helis, where i stick to my joystick. All of these choices I get is a great reason that I can never regret my choice. I get more options. I get a MUCH better looking game. I can choose to play whatever I want, 8-64 players. I can sit and hope for the mod tools to come, to get awesome mods. I can rent a server if I want to, which I already did. I can make whatever games I want when I want to. There is just so many reasons that makes this version of the game so much superior for ME then the console counter part.

So No, no regrets at all.

#32 Posted by laserbolts (5319 posts) -
@Doctorchimp

If you have a PC that can run it...why would you buy it on the console?

Reread the OP it's not that hard to figure out if you read it.
#33 Posted by Toms115 (2316 posts) -

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

No because I'm not a PC elitist.

but you are an idiot, so congrats on that

#34 Posted by Hemmelight (164 posts) -

I bought it on PC to play on my brand new iMac (base model from this year) and I can play it on medium with some slowdown or low like I have been and get good FPS, but it just isn't as pretty. Still looks good, but I'm thinking of buying it on PS3 and just play that until I can build a real gaming PC to run it on ultra with 60FPS.

I'm WAY more comfortable on PS3 anyway, because I am in no way a PC gamer. Only PC game I really play is WoW so I've been slowly re-learning how to play games and it is frustrating as hell.

#35 Posted by DG991 (1344 posts) -

@Marbazoid: Yes.

If you just don't have a PC capable of running it, I do not think you made a bad choice getting it for xbox360... although it might be worth saving up for a gaming PC for one day.

I can understand why people don't suck it up and get the PC version because my gaming rig can handle any game out there and is chugging a bit playing bf3 on low... My processor and ram are starting to show there age. (q6600 and DDR21066).

#36 Posted by Divina_Rex (351 posts) -

Nope all my friends are on 360. The only thing is that Conquest just isn't the right mode for consoles, so I stick with rush.

#37 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

@Zakihashi said:

@Tumbler: Battlelog looks like just any standard server browser, where it shows ping, if it's PB protected, Password, or Ranked, or whatever else you wanna know. And the battlelog system in it self is REALLY good. It got so much statistics in there that I can look for days. And it's WAY easier to look at then any ingame system I've seen to date. It's like you check your steam achievement, you open the steam browser, instead of the ingame tool for it. And since it's a PC game, the FOV will naturally be higher then consoles. So nothing wired there. And you can't call it a mess, every thing you complained about is, it being a pc game, and not a console game. The FOV, console complaint, on pc, console controller, on pc, console complaint, and battlelog, normal freaking server browser, random complaint, <-- All of this BS you say is a mess, actually make it a PC game, on a PC, which do not in any way make this a mess. What is a mess, is the console server browser, those filters sure are very ..... yeah... Battlelog should just been implemented on consoles via PS3's browser, and Xbox's whatever they'd have to come up with.

I tryed playing the pc version a bit more today and my experience with battlelog still supports my view of it being a big pain in the ass. I open my browser when I'm ready to play, go to battlelog. Move mouse over multiplayer, select server browser. Server browser has no filter info, cleared for some reason, update my choices (there is almost no difference between these choices and the console choices, I'm confused why you think otherwise). I find a server I want, click it, then go to that box on the right, click join server. Then I get an error. Says the battlelog web plugin needs to be updated. I go through the steps to install it, eventually I get back to the server list, select a game and click join server. Another error! Says I need to select a soldier that is on the PC. I have 3 soldier, Xbox, PS3, PC. Which one do you think I want to use when I'm starting a game on the PC?! So I select the pc soldier, join the server. Then it starts origin, that goes pretty fast, and then battlefield is loading in the background. (we're well past the time it takes to get into a console game btw) Eventually the game comes up with a loading screen and then I'm finally in the game.

Most of that was totally unnecessary. I was able to find a server I wanted to join and play but rather than simply starting the game and then going to the address this "system" forces you to jump through hoops. Starting origin isn't needed, updating battlelog isn't needed, the only thing it needs to do is start the game and go to that ip address. You're blind if you don't see these as stupid hoops that a pc gamer has to jump through while console gamers do not. Console gamers still get all the features of the website without forcing the game to run web extensions and 3rd party software in order to play the game.

#38 Posted by Doctorchimp (4074 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

@Doctorchimp

If you have a PC that can run it...why would you buy it on the console?

Reread the OP it's not that hard to figure out if you read it.

Yeah he got a gimped console version and even though he's playing it with people he knows it's still a gimped version and he doesn't want to play it.

Ergo his regret, ergo this topic, ergo why the fuck would you buy it for a console?

#39 Posted by jakob187 (21665 posts) -

Meh. I'm fine with my purchase, especially since I'll get the PC version at some point anyways.

#40 Posted by MB (12291 posts) -

If you have the PC hardware to run BF3, please do yourself a favor and skip the console versions. I have an Xbox, a PS3, and a newly upgraded PC...and well, see for yourself. Graphics aren't everything but 32v32 is pretty awesome. BF3 brought me back into PC gaming.  
 
Here's an Xbox 360 screenshot I pulled off of our wiki: 
 

...and here's one I captured using the handy Steam overlay earlier this evening while playing the first co-op mission. I know it's not fair to make a direct comparison to a five year old console and state of the art PC hardware, but...there you go. 
 
Moderator Online

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.