On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
You've never heard of someone preferring call of duty on a console? Really?
I sit at a desk at work and when I get home, I don't want to be in front of a computer. It's so much more convenient to be able to kick back on your couch in front of your HDTV and relax. Granted, the graphics won't be as good as PC on your TV... but who cares? Not me.
So you spend all day sitting in front of a screen, and your justification for wanting to play on the on the xbox instead of the PC is that you want to be able to sit down in front of an even bigger screen?
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
On October 19 2011 00:08 Karshe wrote: Not quite... lounging on a couch > sitting at a desk. At least for me!
That's why you invest in a really comfortable computer chair! The only other place I am more relaxed in my house is in my bed. And sadly it is not possible for me to set it up so I can game in my bed (Not for lack of trying though!).
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
what is this i don't even...
You should've given it a try in beta. I just can't fathom how you could ever enjoy this on a console. And 32 players max is the smallest problem...
I can understand him. Playing with a controller just feels so much better, the way both your hands can grip onto an object, and the way the left and right hand mirror each other in terms of movement, to an extent.
But yeah, the PC version shows so much more promise, I will definitely be getting this for PC and not a console.
You could hook up a ps3 controller or an xbox controller to your computer. That way you can have best of both worlds.
Of course you would get completely owned every single time as you will be facing off against people using a mouse and keyboard.
hopefully when the game comes out again this thread actually has some real content concerning the actual game and not e z people just flaming each other over:
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would:
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: + Show Spoiler +
There's more to the FPS genre than CPMA. And Q3 wasn't CPMA (netcode or otherwise) until the community put a shit-ton of work into it over years. If you put the same amount of effort into making BF3 competitive you'd probably get the same result. A totally different feel, absolutely, but you get what I'm trying to say.
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: + Show Spoiler +
There's more to the FPS genre than CPMA. And Q3 wasn't CPMA (netcode or otherwise) until the community put a shit-ton of work into it over years. If you put the same amount of effort into making BF3 competitive you'd probably get the same result. A totally different feel, absolutely, but you get what I'm trying to say.
I was speaking specifically about the graphics settings you see in that screenshot, not about gameplay (although more games being like CPMA is fine too).
I don't even know what we're talking about anymore :D
On October 19 2011 07:48 prodiG wrote: I was speaking specifically about the graphics settings you see in that screenshot, not about gameplay (although more games being like CPMA is fine too).
I don't even know what we're talking about anymore :D
Haha no kidding right? :D
I <3 CPMA btw. I wish more games played like it That is: smooth, fast, responsive. I just wish the community was there for modern games like they were for Quake 3. Ahhh the memories
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
120fps would be if you're using a 120hz+ monitor and you have a baller ass GPU. You can attain 60FPS (supposedly) on MW3 for consoles. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 without having both side by side, then you are my hero.
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
120fps would be if you're using a 120hz+ monitor and you have a baller ass GPU. You can attain 60FPS (supposedly) on MW3 for consoles. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 without having both side by side, then you are my hero.
TL;DR 60" > any PC monitor.
They wont have 60fps for MW3, because its still using the same outdated engine as MW2 and MW, and that was limited at 30fps. I do get 120fps on my 120hz monitor, and i can definitely tell the difference between 60>120.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg)
That is: smooth, fast, responsive. I just wish the community was there for modern games like they were for Quake 3. Ahhh the memories 
