Funny that, I felt the same with Bad Company 2 on the PC version but in reverse. 
 
Stop being asspained.

@McShank said:

The only thing i feel like i wasted money on for this game was teh game itself.. First EA lies and tells us we get 1943 and then we dont. But rather Early access to DLC? Fuck that. We should get FREE dlc for this crap. One of the reasons i bought the game early instead of waiting till it dropped in price like every other battlefield game does within the first 6months.

You mean like... every game... in a month... right?

I dunno - I have a mid-high range PC (GTX560) and I'm running a solid 40FPS with everything on Ultra. Best looking game I've ever seen.

i don't feel boned, no, but then i'm well informed and know what i'm getting into ... which is probably at least six months of almost-every-evening amazing fun times with my friends. any way i can slice it, there's no negativity towards the game itself, though perhaps anyone ill-informed before purchase could feel a bit put out.

would i change anything? beyond wishing that EA were a better publisher, no. what are the solutions? either, so that everyone can play, the version that will run on consoles is also the version given to the PC, which is a needless technological tethering and certainly shouldn't happen. or, the PC version is the only existing one, in which case I don't get to play anything and miss out on a lot of fun.

If you buy a Battlefield game for a console you deserve to be boned.

If you keep up all the whining

What's with the entire internet's reaction to negativity all of a sudden? You're on a message board...where negativity thrives! Deal with it or prepare to be countered and quite possibly KO'd.

But back on topic...yes, you should feel boned. It has been an uphill struggle for DICE to keep both customer and client happy. It should have been a Bad Company sequel. Nobody, I feel, would have had any problem with that and it would take away the whole LEGACY of the Battlefield series argument.

It's a so-so game on consoles but hey - a few patches down the road and it MIGHT get better. They already released a near 200mb patch on day one ffs.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Seppli said:

If you keep up all the whining

Don't expect a response to that trollish attitude

Just internet lingo for complaining. That's what you and most other EA UK BF forum regulars do these days. Recently there's even been some constructive threads like that 'map design thread' that gets thrown around like it's some new wisdom.

Complaining does move mountains sometimes, is all I'm saying. And omitting the fact that you actually like Battlefield 3 is textbook trolling for effect. So don't scold me for trollish attitude.

@Canteu said:

@McShank said:

The only thing i feel like i wasted money on for this game was teh game itself.. First EA lies and tells us we get 1943 and then we dont. But rather Early access to DLC? Fuck that. We should get FREE dlc for this crap. One of the reasons i bought the game early instead of waiting till it dropped in price like every other battlefield game does within the first 6months.

You mean like... every game... in a month... right?

you obviously dont know games if you think all games drop in prices in a month.. MW2 was 60$ for over a year. GT5 was 60$ till like 2 months ago now its 50.. Killzone 3 was full price till just recently. Dead island has been out for over a month and its still 60$.

From what I can tell of the console versions it doesn't look like any sort of step back from the bad company series and in a number of cases improves on a lot on the multiplayer. This is simply the first case in a long time where a PC focused titles has brought into sharp focus just how limited consoles can seem when put up against a half capable PC. Long story short the console player have received the best version their preferred platform can deliver, and for a change the PC crowd is getting the same effort.

@McShank: yep, a few games proving an exception render my 20 years of experience moot. S'pose i should go read a book or something now.

And to be fair, if you didnt play 1943 when it came out, you aren't going to play it when you have Battlefield 3 now are you.

oh, and for the record. when people on the internet make general sweeping statements in a clear sarcastic tone, they totally consider every angle and expectation. Good show sir!

You do know that all the footage of COD is from the PC version also? Get a clue and get a pc!

I dont feel let down as much as I am starting to notice the end of this console period. The gang said it on the bombcast and I have to agree, games like BF3 make console hardware look old.

I like being boned by video games.

I'm pretty sure they made it clear that the PC version was THE version to get. 
But then they put it on Origin.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Brendan said:

@AhmadMetallic: I feel like I need some closure here. Are you now on the side of the fence that thinks BF 3 is a poor product? Are you ultimately disappointed?

I think Battlefield 3 has the best competitive multiplayer on the market. As a video game, as a product, as a competitor to other games, as a visual and aesthetical experience, 10/10. Same goes for gameplay, animation, destruction, everything. However:As a main-series Battlefield game, the map (or level) design is atrocious and a huge let down. Conquest mode was butchered, the map design is lazy and revolves around Rush mode.As a PC game, the lack of standard PC features is bad, but the game was rushed so until a few patches show DICE's intentions to create a proper PC title, no comment. Note that I did not mention single player since it's only there for show. So if you're looking for a good competitive FPS, you have nothing to complain about. If you were expecting a real Battlefield OR have PC standards, you should be let down, until at least they fix their mistakes.

I don't understand the issue here.

The game wasn't rushed by any stretch of the imagination. The project has been in development for more than two years, were the code had to be rewritten from scratch to create what you see today.

DICE set out to create a First Person Shooter with a clear intent, a competitor in a market that is filled with a couple of sloppy efforts and a main rival.

They are one of the best in this business and I don't blame them if they took a different route and tried to a adapt to a new setting. You're essentially getting a product that is being promoted as a 'threequel' but the reality is, it's just a name. The approach has been different because the mentality has changed over time and that leads to whole set of standards that are a reflection of the final product.

Even though I haven't played the game yet and the beta by no means was a good judge, Battlefield 3 manages to capture the spirit of this franchise in a sense were progress and changes were needed to ensure a different but at the same time an authentic military shooter experience.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Brendan said:

@AhmadMetallic: I feel like I need some closure here. Are you now on the side of the fence that thinks BF 3 is a poor product? Are you ultimately disappointed?

I think Battlefield 3 has the best competitive multiplayer on the market. As a video game, as a product, as a competitor to other games, as a visual and aesthetical experience, 10/10. Same goes for gameplay, animation, destruction, everything. However:As a main-series Battlefield game, the map (or level) design is atrocious and a huge let down. Conquest mode was butchered, the map design is lazy and revolves around Rush mode.As a PC game, the lack of standard PC features is bad, but the game was rushed so until a few patches show DICE's intentions to create a proper PC title, no comment. Note that I did not mention single player since it's only there for show. So if you're looking for a good competitive FPS, you have nothing to complain about. If you were expecting a real Battlefield OR have PC standards, you should be let down, until at least they fix their mistakes.

I don't understand the issue here.

The game wasn't rushed by any stretch of the imagination. The project has been in development for more than two years, were the code had to be rewritten from scratch to create what you see today.

DICE set out to create a First Person Shooter with a clear intent, a competitor in a market that is filled with a couple of sloppy efforts and a main rival.

They are one of the best in this business and I don't blame them if they took a different route and tried to a adapt to a new setting. You're essentially getting a product that is being promoted as a 'threequel' but the reality is, it's just a name. The approach has been different because the mentality has changed over time and that leads to whole set of standards that are a reflection of the final product.

Even though I haven't played the game yet and the beta by no means was a good judge, Battlefield 3 manages to capture the spirit of this franchise in a sense were progress and changes were needed to ensure a different but at the same time an authentic military shooter experience.

The game wasn't rushed by any stretch of the imagination

They are one of the best in this business and I don't blame them if they took a different route and tried to a adapt to a new setting. You're essentially getting a product that is being promoted as a 'threequel' but the reality is, it's just a name. The approach has been different because the mentality has changed over time and that leads to whole set of standards that are a reflection of the final product.

I've never had the Battlefield experience on the PC, but from what I've played of it on my PS3 I'm really enjoying it so far. My only complaint so far are that they don't utilize destruction like they did in Bad Company 1&2.

@Arker101: Better controls for shooting stuff waaaay off in the distance, better framerate, better graphics, more players, more control over servers. The list goes on. Consoles are okay, pc's just do most things a tiny bit better (except matchmaking and some community stuff, unless you're on a ps3, then the PC does everything better). Is it worth buying an expensive pc for? Probably not. If you already bought a pc, though, if you paid a bit extra would get you a machine that could run this, so it's not really an issue. Most people have PC's.

@AhmadMetallic: I'm trying to figure out what you feel is missing from the conquest mode (although I agree that Metro is total rubbish). With the exception of the removal of the commander role (present in only BF2) I don't see a lot of difference here between this release and previous titles. The maps are large and vary in focus (A more urban street focus with the likes of the Paris map or the traditional wide open style of Caspian Border) multiple cap points which can be approached from a number of angles, there is a full range of vehicle support (with the exception of steerable frigates/subs from 1942 which nobody really used).

You may not be able to surf on the wings of a B-17 like Battlefield of old but it certainly feels like conquest to me.

@OldManLight said:

@CenturionCajun: That whole texture pack thing bugs the hell out of me. Don't get me wrong, it's great they included it but what a bad precedent to set. I had a buddy of mine talking to me about it last night and he said "it's nice they split up the singleplayer and multiplayer on separate discs. My response was, "how is that nice?". It's clear in cases like this and other games like Dead Space 2 and LA Noire that the DVD9 format is really on the ropes as being consumer friendly. not interested in installing textures on my hard drive just to have the visuals get to their "intended quality".

Thats Microsoft's failing not EA/DICE

@cassus: Well, the question was whether I feel like I'm missing out by being on 360. Sure PC is better, I've admitted that, but having more friends, and being trained to use a controller, I fell way more comfortable on consoles, even if my PC could run BF3.

I'm upgrading it for Diablo 3, however.

@AhmadMetallic: I'm trying to figure out what you feel is missing from the conquest mode (although I agree that Metro is total rubbish). With the exception of the removal of the commander role (present in only BF2) I don't see a lot of difference here between this release and previous titles. The maps are large and vary in focus (A more urban street focus with the likes of the Paris map or the traditional wide open style of Caspian Border) multiple cap points which can be approached from a number of angles, there is a full range of vehicle support (with the exception of steerable frigates/subs from 1942 which nobody really used).

You may not be able to surf on the wings of a B-17 like Battlefield of old but it certainly feels like conquest to me.

• Head-on CQ
• A massive map, infinite landscape all around 
• Five control points located on a patch of land in the center of the map, 100 meters away from each other 

• Head-on CQ, Assault CQ, two more CQ modes whose names I forgot
• A massive map, infinite landscape all around 
• Either three, or six, or nine flags, either close to one another, or spread the fuck out, or moderately placed across the landscape 

• Three flags: Hours of traveling between the flags, enjoying the massive landscape in the process 
• Six/seven flags: Strategical approach -> Do we go for the far away flag first so we can have a hard-to-reach spawn point there? Do we go for the middle flag since it has tanks?  After we've captured A and B, do we proceed to C and create a front or travel all the way to E to have friendly players on both sides of the map? 
• Eight/nine flags:  Pew pew mayhem

That's one way to see it. Another is its as good as console limitations will allow. If you wanna play the best version, get a good PC. You can't magically make some old ass specs in a console do shit like what they show in the trailers. Common sense. Its like if someone bitched about the SNES not being capable of playing Virtua Fighter.

Anyone who bought BF3 on a console expecting it to look anywhere near as good as PC only have themselves to blame.

The PC version is almost always better, but I don't have a PC. So the decision was easy. I think the game is great on 360.

That's one way to see it. Another is its as good as console limitations will allow. If you wanna play the best version, get a good PC. You can't magically make some old ass specs in a console do shit like what they show in the trailers. Common sense. Its like if someone bitched about the SNES not being capable of playing Virtua Fighter.

I came into this knowing well in advance that the pc version was superior with it's visuals, map size, and online player count. I knew it was the version of BF3 getting the most focus. But I also wanted to play the damn game and my laptop is nowhere near the requirements to make it look anything beyond what the 360 version looks like anyway. So I bought it on 360 anyway, and I still love it.

I played a few Conquest matches of the PC version at my friends house earlier today, and it was pretty boring. Even with 64 players, the map seemed a little too big. Not once did I see more than two enemies in the same area. Oh, and maybe I'm just stupid, but the jet controls were bad. One positive thing I can say, is that it looked good, though there was a lot of screen tearing when I played.

I'm a console-only gamer and my first real introduction to the Battlefield series was Bad Co. 2, which served as a breath of fresh air from my COD-fatigue. That said, DICE made it pretty obvious to any gamer with an ounce of savvy that the PC was BF3's primary platform. It'll run better on PC, look better, play better. I don't think they tried to pull the wool over anyone's eyes in that regard. The late-breaking announcement that you'd have to install a texture pack on the 360 version, and the fact that EA obviously wanted PC reviews to hit first was a little off-putting, Also, the poor quality of the "Demo/Beta" (their words on XBLA Marketplace) was worrisome and probably did more to make fans wary of the console versions than excited for it. They DID label it as a demo, after all.

MY opinion of BF3 on the 360 so far is that the Frostbite 2 engine needs work on consoles. It reminds me of early Unreal Engine III games (Gears 1, UTIII) with tons of texture and asset pop-in even after the install. After a few rounds of patches I could see BF3 being a great console shooter. Unfortunately, I'm just not having as much fun with it as I did the first time I popped Bad Co. 2 in because I'm too busy noticing the technical issues. It's good, but not great. So far.

I wouldn't say I feel "Boned", just not at excited as I thought I would be.