pc v 360

jrby

I have BF3 on the 360 but have just built a high spec gaming machine. Is it worth buying BF3 for pc or is there something else i should try....homefront or ARMA 2 for example?

ktulu123

Definitely get it on PC, its 1000 times better imo. Better graphics, more players if ya want, better standard of player, mouse keyboard etc.

dreamers75

Arma 2 is more of a hobby than a game.

Superb game once you get into it, quite difficult to get into tho.

BF3 is much more fun orientated.

Spear

Homefront is long dead.

Arma 2 is free.

BF3 is live with fresh content.

So just go for the bottom two. And even then Homefront is often real cheap on Steam sales.

dreamers75

Arma 2 is free with low res textures and the best missions/mods dont work with it.

SeantheMan

PC > 360

mick-fitz8585

I still find it funny people play this game on console lol

PC version 1000 times better

Korvanica

Used to play it all the time on xbox.

Built a Gaming PC, bought BF3 for it.

Have not went near BF on the xbox since.

It would be like going back to a standard definition CRT TV after using a HD TV for years... Vomit inducing...

iColdFusion

I'm growing tired of all this PC elitism, 360 was launched in 2005 and is still selling strong because it costs the same as a high end video card, please show me a 2005 PC that can run BF3 @ 1080p with 5.1.
Yes obviously if you have spent large amounts of money on a gaming rig its going to produce nicer graphics, you'd be pretty pissed off if it didn't and DICE were able to push the boundaries for the PC version with this in mind but less of the "1000 times better" crap please it just makes you look silly.

Personally I like the fact I go to any shop pick up whatever game I like, fire up the 360 and play away.
No worries about performance issues, compatibilty problems, updating drivers etc you just have to look at some other threads in this forum for the hours people have to waste just to get BF3 working!

Then of course when you get it working you have to deal with hackers, aimbots, stat padders, server restrictions and overzealous admins 99% of which don't exist on 360.

So less of the high horse please

mick-fitz8585

To play the 360 version on a 2005 pc at 1080p would be easy.
Playing the pc version wouldn't be.

The 2 games are not the same even if people like to call it a console port.

The xbox and ps3 are great for what they are (of the shelf computers for gaming) but if you had one and a high end computer you'd be mad not to play it on your pc over your xbox

dreamers75

mick-fitz8585 wrote: »

To play the 360 version on a 2005 pc at 1080p would be easy.
Playing the pc version wouldn't be.

The 2 games are not the same even if people like to call it a console port.

The xbox and ps3 are great for what they are (of the shelf computers for gaming) but if you had one and a high end computer you'd be mad not to play it on your pc over your xbox

Not being a dick but other than the player limit what do you think is the differnce? gameplay wise.

I think Bf3 on PS3 is a pretty damn good version of the Battlefield series on a console.

red dave

I played on xbox for a week or two before getting it on pc. There was a delay with my pc bf3 order and I wanted to play asap. Loved playing on both but the only reason I haven't gone back to xbox is I can't use the same soldier profile. Ranked up and unlocked loads on pc. The thoughts of having to put in the hours again on xbox keeps me on the pc.

mick-fitz8585

dreamers75 wrote: »

Not being a dick but other than the player limit what do you think is the differnce? gameplay wise.

I think Bf3 on PS3 is a pretty damn good version of the Battlefield series on a console.

My friends play it on the ps3 and iv played in there house a far bit.

Im not saying its not a good game/good version for console its probable the best console game iv played but compared to the pc version i find it way different from movement to shooting all seems different not just cause its a controller.

Then the look of the game dosent even come close to what it looks like on pc

When i played mw2 for pc and console nothing seemed different, was the same game same movement just with the ps3 u where using a controller i dont find bf3 the same.

My opinion of course

the_syco

iColdFusion wrote: »

I'm growing tired of all this PC elitism, 360 was launched in 2005 and is still selling strong because it costs the same as a high end video card, please show me a 2005 PC that can run BF3 @ 1080p with 5.1.

It's more of a case of tweaking a PC with a set hardware to it's maximum potential versus tweaking the game to it's maximum potential without caring if there's a machine out there that could actually play it. The former, an xbox, the latter the PC.

As for graphics, look at how the developers didn't seem to like showing the xbox360 version before launch, but loved showing the PC version, as if they were not happy with showing the bastardized limited version of their game.

ktulu123

It's not PC eliteism, I have the game for both formats and its simply better on the PC. If you get a chance give the PC version a go and you will see that it is a better version of the game.

Lord Nikon

I think console controllers lack proper movement that only my PC can give me. Each to their own I suppose.

iColdFusion

ktulu123 wrote: »

It's not PC eliteism, I have the game for both formats and its simply better on the PC. If you get a chance give the PC version a go and you will see that it is a better version of the game.

Yes the PC version is better but not 1000 times better, anytime the subject comes up its always that the PC version is a flawless diamond of gaming excellence played by objective focused gaming gods and the console version is something their dog left on the footpath only played by inbred morons, which is of course only partially true :P

Just annoys me that when someone asks for an honest opinion all they get is fan boy bias and not a realistic comparison of advantages vs flaws.

dreamers75

I dont play it on PS3 but it looks decent and the boy gets some good team play with randomers similiar to PC.

player limit is the biggest issue i think as some of the maps can be lifeless with only 24 players.

AnCapaillMor

Can't figure out the PS3 limit, they got 256 with no probs for MAG, i know there's more to BF3 but surely they coulda get more than 24.

dreamers75

I played on the hacked 128/256 man Caspian during the beta, no problems and it was mental.

cherryghost

iColdFusion wrote: »

I'm growing tired of all this PC elitism, 360 was launched in 2005 and is still selling strong because it costs the same as a high end video card, please show me a 2005 PC that can run BF3 @ 1080p with 5.1.
Yes obviously if you have spent large amounts of money on a gaming rig its going to produce nicer graphics, you'd be pretty pissed off if it didn't and DICE were able to push the boundaries for the PC version with this in mind but less of the "1000 times better" crap please it just makes you look silly.

Personally I like the fact I go to any shop pick up whatever game I like, fire up the 360 and play away.
No worries about performance issues, compatibilty problems, updating drivers etc you just have to look at some other threads in this forum for the hours people have to waste just to get BF3 working!

Then of course when you get it working you have to deal with hackers, aimbots, stat padders, server restrictions and overzealous admins 99% of which don't exist on 360.

So less of the high horse please

First of all;

Battlefield 3 on the consoles run at 1280 x 704. Not even 720p. Back in the day a sub-50 euro 8500GT can manage that resolution on low settings. A 2.53ghz core 2 duo is sufficient; 100 euro at the time. You could get a cheaper CPU and still do the job if you wanted. Motherboard and ram (4gb) RAM; 80 euro together. For the essentials at the time its a sniff over 210 euro; I should know because that's the PC I built long ago and I still have it. Runs BF at about 40fps, faster than the console counterpart, so may I suggest you do your research before you go spouting such nonsense?

Secondly, anything **** cheap and even an entry graphics card at 30 euro these days can do the business at 720p and at acceptable framerate. Just for the lulz can some people with PC rigs run their game at 720p and post your FPS results? :rolleyes:

Thirdly, those who are more casual and would just want to jump right into a game, I don't see why you wouldn't play on the 360 tbh. Some of the maps are too small for larger scale warfare. Metro for example; complete joke of a map on 64 player conquest imo (though some will disagree). I have it on 360 and PC also, but I tend to play on PC a lot more just because it's just more aesthetically pleasing, plus I tend to prefer the PC community as opposed to 360 one. Might be wrong on this but I tend to the opinion that the average age of PC gamers is older than the 360. Anywho, both formats have its advantages and disadvantages, at least we can all agree on that, no?

Fourthly, I think I've only encountered any of what you described once. Punkbuster does its job, encountered a hacker once on the PC version, once also on the 360 version. Also you don't have that admin problem if you play AS A COMMUNITY on servers. On a seperate note I've also never encountered an admin being a dickhead. All they ask (most of the time) is not to spawnrape which I think is a fair ask.

iColdFusion

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Can't figure out the PS3 limit, they got 256 with no probs for MAG, i know there's more to BF3 but surely they coulda get more than 24.

I'd say it was just DICE playing safe and stable, if it had been built from the ground up for consoles they could have done better.

cherryghost wrote: »

First of all;

Battlefield 3 on the consoles run at 1280 x 704. Not even 720p. Back in the day a sub-50 euro 8500GT can manage that resolution on low settings. A 2.53ghz core 2 duo is sufficient; 100 euro at the time. You could get a cheaper CPU and still do the job if you wanted. Motherboard and ram (4gb) RAM; 80 euro together. For the essentials at the time its a sniff over 210 euro; I should know because that's the PC I built long ago and I still have it. Runs BF at about 40fps, faster than the console counterpart, so may I suggest you do your research before you go spouting such nonsense?

Secondly, anything **** cheap and even an entry graphics card at 30 euro these days can do the business at 720p and at acceptable framerate. Just for the lulz can some people with PC rigs run their game at 720p and post your FPS results? :rolleyes:

Where are you getting 1280x704 and not 720p from?
360 version supports 720P/1080i/1080P dependant only on what your TV can handle. 1080P is 1920x1080 which is what the vast amount of 360 players will be using and if a 2005 spec PC can throw out BF3 at this resolution without issue then I concede to your superior knowledge but the point you seem to have missed was that people keep comparing PC vs 360 as if they are both constantly evolving platforms whereas in reality the 360 has remained static since 2005.

Thirdly, those who are more casual and would just want to jump right into a game, I don't see why you wouldn't play on the 360 tbh. Some of the maps are too small for larger scale warfare. Metro for example; complete joke of a map on 64 player conquest imo (though some will disagree). I have it on 360 and PC also, but I tend to play on PC a lot more just because it's just more aesthetically pleasing, plus I tend to prefer the PC community as opposed to 360 one. Might be wrong on this but I tend to the opinion that the average age of PC gamers is older than the 360. Anywho, both formats have its advantages and disadvantages, at least we can all agree on that, no?
Thats exactly what I've been saying?

Fourthly, I think I've only encountered any of what you described once. Punkbuster does its job, encountered a hacker once on the PC version, once also on the 360 version. Also you don't have that admin problem if you play AS A COMMUNITY on servers. On a seperate note I've also never encountered an admin being a dickhead. All they ask (most of the time) is not to spawnrape which I think is a fair ask.

I don't play on PC but I could still list them out pretty easily and they must be big enough problems for people to start topics on this very forum asking for help.
I also find it hard for PC players to give out about 360 gameplay when they need someone to hold their hand and stop the enemy players being mean :P

Jonny7

If only BF3 was open to the modding communities... sweet jesus

mick-fitz8585

iColdFusion wrote: »

I'd say it was just DICE playing safe and stable, if it had been built from the ground up for consoles they could have done better.

Its not the pc community fault ur x box hasnt kept up with the pc thats a microsoft want to make as much money of people as they can problem.

A 2005 pc would easily run bf3 at higher specs than ur xbox cause when ur xbox was released back in 2005 it came with a 2003 gpu chip.

The xbox dosent do native 1080p all it dose is scale it to a resolution of whatever x 1080 if im not mistaking that dosent mean it is in 1080p quality

cherryghost

mick-fitz8585 wrote: »

Its not the pc community fault ur x box hasnt kept up with the pc thats a microsoft want to make as much money of people as they can problem.

A 2005 pc would easily run bf3 at higher specs than ur xbox cause when ur xbox was released back in 2005 it came with a 2003 gpu chip.

The xbox dosent do native 1080p all it dose is scale it to a resolution of whatever x 1080 if im not mistaking that dosent mean it is in 1080p quality

Partially correct. The 360 specs were announced in 2003, but the hardware inside it is similar to architecture found in an ATI X1900/1950 from what I'm aware (which launched in 2005), which was a top notch card at the time. The console was sold at 300 euro at launch without a hard drive, and 400 with one. Quite expensive. Manufacturing costs decrease over time and of course the hardware gets cheaper. It's only in the last 2 years that MS are actually starting to make a profit on their consoles. The ATI X series launched in 2005 also so a PC theoretically made in 2005 should handle BF3 at a low resolution, but...

BF3 only supports DX10/11. Only GPU cards from late 2006 onwards support this. So only a PC built in late 2006 onwards can be compared. I built my previous PC in early 2007. Problem is with consoles is that every time a new generation is launched, there is a jump in graphics quality. Consoles have the edge graphically for a short time before PCs retake it again. This happened with the introduction of dx10.

And yep, it just scales to the screen, doesn't run at 1080p at all. DICE said so themselves in a statement prior to release.

iColdFusion

Jonny7 wrote: »

If only BF3 was open to the modding communities... sweet jesus

And let people make their own DLC for free, I think not.

cherryghost wrote: »

Partially correct. The 360 specs were announced in 2003, but the hardware inside it is similar to architecture found in an ATI X1900/1950 from what I'm aware (which launched in 2005), which was a top notch card at the time. The console was sold at 300 euro at launch without a hard drive, and 400 with one. Quite expensive. Manufacturing costs decrease over time and of course the hardware gets cheaper. It's only in the last 2 years that MS are actually starting to make a profit on their consoles. The ATI X series launched in 2005 also so a PC theoretically made in 2005 should handle BF3 at a low resolution, but...

BF3 only supports DX10/11. Only GPU cards from late 2006 onwards support this. So only a PC built in late 2006 onwards can be compared. I built my previous PC in early 2007. Problem is with consoles is that every time a new generation is launched, there is a jump in graphics quality. Consoles have the edge graphically for a short time before PCs retake it again. This happened with the introduction of dx10.

And yep, it just scales to the screen, doesn't run at 1080p at all. DICE said so themselves in a statement prior to release.

Some good info there thanks
I'm actually quite annoyed about the games being upscaled, I've had a 360 since launch and this is the first I've heard about it

Just to add I did plenty of PC gaming back in the day (Half-life, CS, DoD, Operation Flashpoint, Command & Conquers) so i have nothing against PC gamers I just felt people were being overly harsh regarding consoles

dreamers75

This 2005 and CPU lark is a bit OTT

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mother-cpu-charts-2005,1175-24.html


I had an FX 57 then and it struggled with Far Cry 2 in 2008 (2 x 6800GTs in SLI and then a 9870) and was replaced with a Core Duo (4870) which then struggled with Arma 2 and as replaced with a I5.

cherryghost

iColdFusion wrote: »

Some good info there thanks
I'm actually quite annoyed about the games being upscaled, I've had a 360 since launch and this is the first I've heard about it

Just to add I did plenty of PC gaming back in the day (Half-life, CS, DoD, Operation Flashpoint, Command & Conquers) so i have nothing against PC gamers I just felt people were being overly harsh regarding consoles

Yeah it's rather interesting really. In reality not many games actually support true 1080p resolution. From what I know, more 360 games support higher resolution games than the PS3 counterpart. For example, GTA IV runs at 720p on the 360 natively, but the PS3 version runs at a measily 630p. But the visual difference is negated once the hardware upscales to 1080p, it all depends on the hardwares post-processing ability. The PS3 has very good post-processing compared to the 360, but the 360 has more raw graphical power than the PS3.

Modern Warfare 3 doesn't run at 1080p natively either. It actually runs at a paltry 600p. It sacrifices resolution in order to get constantly smooth 60fps.

On the other hand many xbox live and PSN games run at 1080p due to the fact that the graphics on those games aren't as demanding. That's why the images in it may appear 'sharp'.

cherryghost

dreamers75 wrote: »

This 2005 and CPU lark is a bit OTT

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mother-cpu-charts-2005,1175-24.html


I had an FX 57 then and it struggled with Far Cry 2 in 2008 (2 x 6800GTs in SLI and then a 9870) and was replaced with a Core Duo (4870) which then struggled with Arma 2 and as replaced with a I5.

Well I did say it had to be a 2006/2007 machine 360 hardware outpaced PC hardware for a year or so before PC machines matched and then overtook the hardware performance.

Frankly my dear

I have BF3 on both the PC and the 360. Only bought the 360 version to play online with my brother back in Ireland, and it's not bad really. Some of the maps feel very empty at times, like Firestorm, but I've had some good games on most maps. I usually only play conquest and that might have something to do with it as both teams get scattered all over the map.

The PC version is superior IMO but if you can find a few friends to team up with the 360 version is not bad at all.

passingthrough

I'm in a similar boat now too,iv found out I can run bf on my machine and have it on xbox.just wondering,graphics aside, is there much difference in map size,team size and things like that. Are servers more reliable as I'm hearing the xbox ones are a bit messed up now