|
|
Post by Tampaboy19N on Apr 18, 2011 6:15:14 GMT -5
DICE: Consoles are holding PC games back
On April 17th, 2011 in News
DICE has always stressed that the main platform for Battlefield 3 is the PC, which will also get some exclusive features, most notably 64 player support (as opposed to only 24 for consoles). In one of his many recent interviews, this time with Nvidia fan site GeForce, DICE executive producer Patrick Bach responded to a question regarding PC versus consoles, and it was clear that Bach and DICE are in favor on PCs at this point.
Asked specifically whether he feels if consoles are holding PC gaming back, Bach replied “Yes, Absolutely”, and added “That’s the biggest problem we have today”. He went on, saying that most games are made for the lowest common denominator (i.e. consoles), and that console games are generally ported to the PC with some higher resolution textures. Bach stressed that DICE is doing the opposite with Battlefield 3 — the PC version is the lead version and the console versions will be scaled down, as opposed to console version being scaled up to the PC.
Despite favoring the PC platform, DICE has always stated that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions will look just as good as anything on the console market today. Bach also commented on whether the Frostbite 2.0 engine will be licensed out to other developers, which he denied with a firm “No”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apricky on Apr 18, 2011 6:19:53 GMT -5
Bulletstorm and Crysis 2 made that painfully obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aaron on Apr 18, 2011 6:20:20 GMT -5
Consoles are a generally more intimate affair. It's not normal to be able to even have 64 player servers. Having a commander on a 12 man team would be kind of silly. If you're going to have a multi-platform game, it's far easier to have the games be identical and good for both than it is for them to be unique and great. Of course they could be identical/unique and still sh*tty, but that's beside the point. And when people like me can't afford a good computer, but already have a 360 for one reason or another, and we only get a small number of games per year, we want the really good ones. If those games happen to be the ones like Battlefield but dumbed down, than why should I care? I think I just made a few different points, I apologize for digressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Livesindaw00ds on Apr 18, 2011 6:20:24 GMT -5
Thought it's nice to see that DICE, along with Valve and Blizzard continue to give attention to the PC.
|
|
|
|
Post by browneyedsugar on Apr 18, 2011 6:20:53 GMT -5
So many people pirating games is holding PC gaming back way more than game consoles are. They should address that issue before complaining about the "lowest common denominator."
Graphics is all they really have to complain about, but in my opinion, 720p graphics on a 50" TV is a way more enjoyable experience than higher resolution graphics on a much smaller screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Johnson on Apr 18, 2011 6:21:04 GMT -5
Think of it this way. Yeah, the graphics might be held back a bit because of the console versions. You might have to deal with lower res textures and sh*t. But if it weren't for the money that the publishers are making on the console versions, these games might not be getting made at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tampaboy19N on Apr 18, 2011 6:21:22 GMT -5
Starcraft II (simply as an example) would be the sh*ttiest game if it was released on multiple platforms. All the minute details you could never achieve with a console make the game mine bottling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apricky on Apr 18, 2011 6:22:23 GMT -5
BF3 will be the game (among others already) that the console kids just wont understand.
They wont get just how ****ing epic it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aaron on Apr 18, 2011 6:22:36 GMT -5
a RTS pretty much requires a mouse and keyboard. I wouldn't want to try playing that type of game on a console anyway. But SCII isn't doing anything all that crazy graphically. I'm pretty sure the PS3 could pull it off without much trouble
|
|
|
|
Post by BlondeHanson on Apr 18, 2011 6:23:03 GMT -5
its unfortunate but these companies just cant make much money designing purely for PCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apricky on Apr 18, 2011 6:23:24 GMT -5
AaronI'm not sure it could. I had my computer hooked up to my 50" plasma and I sat 2 feet away from it while I played with all the settings on ULTRA. There are some small details I bet many people didn't see while playing. I was in my roommates room and we played side by side I noticed things he didn't see on his 19" LCD monitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aaron on Apr 18, 2011 6:24:05 GMT -5
Well 19" monitors usually top out at like 1440x900 (or thereabouts). So I would expect that you would see more detail at 1920x1080. The size of the screen might make the details easier to notice, especially sitting that close to it, but it's no different than the level of detail you would get playing on a 24" monitor.
In any case, you might lose a bit of resolution on the PS3. It would probably run at 720p, so the level of detail would be more like what you would see on the 19" monitor. It's not like this would render the game unplayable or anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Johnson on Apr 18, 2011 6:24:16 GMT -5
People who say they can't afford a gaming computer, but can afford a game console + accessories + online fees are retarded.
Why not just buy a better computer in the first place? You will be able to game on it and your daily computer experience will be better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Apr 18, 2011 6:25:21 GMT -5
steam is a blessing (now)
to PC gamers.
just bought max payne 1 and 2 for 3.74
|
|
|
|
Post by abbybaby on Apr 18, 2011 15:26:15 GMT -5
Why is PC gaming dying so much?
|
|
