awsm ...GIMME!!!!
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is looking sick
Price is totally moot these days, Computers have come down in price and consoles have gone up. In fact I would say consoles are generally more expensive then computers.M.O.A.B wrote:
I like PC's as much as my console and I probably use my PC more than my PS3. But having that PS3 opens me up to games that don't come out on the PC and also allows me to play games at max settings and smoothness without having to fork out a load of money and time for upgrades.
I have no problem with PCs, I just really don't understand the mentatlity that leads to the absolute hatred of consoles by PC-only gamers.
For the $700 + extra controllers ($100 each?) + TV ($2k?) needed for a PS3 when it was released, I could afford to buy a much better gaming computer, which is far more powerful.
Yea for about 300 quid (bout same price as PS3) you could get 4GB decent ram, Q6600 Quad Core + Mobo and a GTX260DrunkFace wrote:
Price is totally moot these days, Computers have come down in price and consoles have gone up. In fact I would say consoles are generally more expensive then computers.M.O.A.B wrote:
I like PC's as much as my console and I probably use my PC more than my PS3. But having that PS3 opens me up to games that don't come out on the PC and also allows me to play games at max settings and smoothness without having to fork out a load of money and time for upgrades.
I have no problem with PCs, I just really don't understand the mentatlity that leads to the absolute hatred of consoles by PC-only gamers.
For the $700 + extra controllers ($100 each?) + TV ($2k?) needed for a PS3 when it was released, I could afford to buy a much better gaming computer, which is far more powerful.
The console version will most likely be crippled to match PS3's hardware and doesnt have as heavy view properties as the PC version.M.O.A.B wrote:
I see. I hear the new Crysis (you know sequel to the most graphically demanding game that exists) will be on PS3, but the PS3 is outdated an all.
Gaming skills (yeslol) mean very little in console FPS compared to PC, why? It's the controller. It hinders the player's skill by being so awfully bad to aim with compared to a PC mouse. Imo if gaming consoles were to really challenge PCs in FPS games, they would bring merchandise designed for FPS games out. Instead people are stuck with the controllers that bottleneck the real good players from bad ones.And I always find it amusing when someone utterly despises a piece of equipment because they can't use it effectively. By the way, a mouse is designed to look around as well, if you couldn't look around you couldn't shoot anything.
Well Im not so sure about that. PS3 (at least when I last checked) was around 500e, which is a hella load of money. With around the same money, adding maybe another 50-100e you could get a really really decent PC (at least when ATI brings out there new product family), which you can use for countless other things than just games and watching movies.In terms of performance to price, a console will beat a PC and you don't have to stick a new part in it every three years to play the newest game. Funny too considering console games like I said, improve in their graphical ability as time goes on, without the need to upgrade the console.
Last edited by RoaringJet[FIN] (2009-06-14 13:10:00)
Uh huh, Operation Flashpoint 2 is coming out on the PS3 and has a 30k draw distance and Killzone 2 has better GFX than a lot of games on the PC at the minute, not too mention the amount of detail used in GT5.RoaringJet[FIN] wrote:
The console version will most likely be crippled to match PS3's hardware and doesnt have as heavy view properties as the PC version.M.O.A.B wrote:
I see. I hear the new Crysis (you know sequel to the most graphically demanding game that exists) will be on PS3, but the PS3 is outdated an all.
If you can't use a controller's joysticks, then that's your own shortfall. The controller's movement and look around sticks are tightly compacted and allow quicker reaction for movement than the WASD in conjunction with the mouse. Using a controller joystick isn't exactly a science.RoaringJet[FIN] wrote:
Gaming skills (yeslol) mean very little in console FPS compared to PC, why? It's the controller. It hinders the player's skill by being so awfully bad to aim with compared to a PC mouse. Imo if gaming consoles were to really challenge PCs in FPS games, they would bring merchandise designed for FPS games out. Instead people are stuck with the controllers that bottleneck the real good players from bad ones.And I always find it amusing when someone utterly despises a piece of equipment because they can't use it effectively. By the way, a mouse is designed to look around as well, if you couldn't look around you couldn't shoot anything.
With a console, I don't have to worry about having to upgrade it after a few years.RoaringJet[FIN] wrote:
Well Im not so sure about that. PS3 (at least when I last checked) was around 500e, which is a hella load of money. With around the same money, adding maybe another 50-100e you could get a really really decent PC (at least when ATI brings out there new product family), which you can use for countless other things than just games and watching movies.In terms of performance to price, a console will beat a PC and you don't have to stick a new part in it every three years to play the newest game. Funny too considering console games like I said, improve in their graphical ability as time goes on, without the need to upgrade the console.
I enjoy being able to play better and better games without having to change anything with my system.
lol well said! The movement and guns look pretty crap, too COD like.DrunkFace wrote:
Looks absolutely shit tbh.
There is no recoil, the explosions look overdone and stupid. The game play just looks like halo, the graphics looks like you're trippin on scrooms and the destructible buildings looked about as realistic as lego.
I was referring to the gatling gun the blackhawk uses, and yes with enough bullets you can take a T90 out with the gatling. Maybe not Western/NATO tanks like the Abrams, challenger, leopard, etc.DeathUnlimited wrote:
lolWar Man wrote:
With enough bullets it is possible to destroy a tank... but it takes ALOT of bullets.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Are you stupid or what? Minigun fires 7.62x51, how the hell can it penetrate 400-600mm armor (in steel equivalent)?War Man wrote:
I was referring to the gatling gun the blackhawk uses, and yes with enough bullets you can take a T90 out with the gatling. Maybe not Western/NATO tanks like the Abrams, challenger, leopard, etc.
Read more of his posts.Longbow wrote:
Are you stupidWar Man wrote:
I was referring to the gatling gun the blackhawk uses, and yes with enough bullets you can take a T90 out with the gatling. Maybe not Western/NATO tanks like the Abrams, challenger, leopard, etc.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
To be fair... get enough bullets and the weight could crush the tanks.Longbow wrote:
Are you stupid or what? Minigun fires 7.62x51, how the hell can it penetrate 400-600mm armor (in steel equivalent)?War Man wrote:
I was referring to the gatling gun the blackhawk uses, and yes with enough bullets you can take a T90 out with the gatling. Maybe not Western/NATO tanks like the Abrams, challenger, leopard, etc.
Again with the recoil, dude, I swear to God you guys haven't ever played BF2.Longbow wrote:
Graphics, animations, crosshair, recoil, movement - they are all way too consolish. And those bright explosions are just meh..killaer wrote:
Why does it look like a shitty console port?
More than 2k hours, 3/4 - infyMekstizzle wrote:
Again with the recoil, dude, I swear to God you guys haven't ever played BF2.
The recoil from the M16 in both games is probably close to that of the actual rifle, I hear it has extremely low recoil because of the small round.Mekstizzle wrote:
Again with the recoil, dude, I swear to God you guys haven't ever played BF2.Longbow wrote:
Graphics, animations, crosshair, recoil, movement - they are all way too consolish. And those bright explosions are just meh..killaer wrote:
Why does it look like a shitty console port?
I said with enough bullets you can, takes a million fricken bullets though.Longbow wrote:
Are you stupid or what? Minigun fires 7.62x51, how the hell can it penetrate 400-600mm armor (in steel equivalent)?War Man wrote:
I was referring to the gatling gun the blackhawk uses, and yes with enough bullets you can take a T90 out with the gatling. Maybe not Western/NATO tanks like the Abrams, challenger, leopard, etc.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Why do you have to come back to threads you've made yourself look like a complete twat in and then dig yourself a bigger hole?
the first BC was not that bad, has no variety like COD4. yet blowing up vehicles is the main highlight of that game. gold rush is pretty much a failure to me. its good to hear that DICE is working on BF3, but im not making expectations in how good it is going to be.
What's wrong with making people think you're an idiot?SamBo:D wrote:
Why do you have to come back to threads you've made yourself look like a complete twat in and then dig yourself a bigger hole?
Last edited by War Man (2009-06-15 20:48:51)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove itWar Man wrote:
What's wrong with making people think you're an idiot.SamBo:D wrote:
Why do you have to come back to threads you've made yourself look like a complete twat in and then dig yourself a bigger hole?
said by me, 2009
thats deep broKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove itWar Man wrote:
What's wrong with making people think you're an idiot.SamBo:D wrote:
Why do you have to come back to threads you've made yourself look like a complete twat in and then dig yourself a bigger hole?
said by me, 2009
Having shot one (Full auto ) no, it has more recoil. PR recoil of guns is more like how it really is.M.O.A.B wrote:
The recoil from the M16 in both games is probably close to that of the actual rifle, I hear it has extremely low recoil because of the small round.Mekstizzle wrote:
Again with the recoil, dude, I swear to God you guys haven't ever played BF2.Longbow wrote:
Graphics, animations, crosshair, recoil, movement - they are all way too consolish. And those bright explosions are just meh..
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
nuff saidDrunkFace wrote:
Looks absolutely shit tbh.
Are you a trained professional to make such judgements? Because recoil for trained soldier and recoil for civilian are two different things, srsly.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Having shot one (Full auto ) no, it has more recoil. PR recoil of guns is more like how it really is.
Yeah, you're going to have a better idea of how that gun jukes around after you've put a couple hundred rounds through it, rather than if you're firing it for the first time.Longbow wrote:
Are you a trained professional to make such judgements? Because recoil for trained soldier and recoil for civilian are two different things, srsly.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Having shot one (Full auto ) no, it has more recoil. PR recoil of guns is more like how it really is.
And yes, A 7.62x51mm could penetrate 500-600 mm of RHA. Every time the bullet hits, it's taking off a tiny bit of metal.
"Cover can go away and in a hurry if you have determined people blasting at it with even small weaponry." -A smart person
And the big weight of the rifle. F=mv in action, people.M.O.A.B wrote:
The recoil from the M16 in both games is probably close to that of the actual rifle, I hear it has extremely low recoil because of the small round.Mekstizzle wrote:
Again with the recoil, dude, I swear to God you guys haven't ever played BF2.Longbow wrote:
Graphics, animations, crosshair, recoil, movement - they are all way too consolish. And those bright explosions are just meh..
looks good hope bf3 is ten times better when it comes out :d hope u are able to destroy buildings and then if u run out of ammo pick up a brick from the destroyed building and throw it at the enemy or use it as a weapon. Also implement a 64/64 environment where everything can be destroyed buildings and such trees.... also there ought to be like day night, and different seasons.
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 2 »
- Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is looking sick