Is Battlefield 3 Even Worth Buying On Consoles?

Dear Reader,

“Battlefield 3″ is out today, and if you’re not a PC gamer, you must be asking yourself the same question I am: should I even bother with this thing on consoles? Am I dropping sixty greenbacks for a watered-down experience? I mean, when you buy “Battlefield 3,” what are you hoping to get for your money? Top-notch, jaw-dropping graphics? Massive multiplayer battles? The console version, it could be argued, has neither. It’s a diminutive form of the true experience, and yet you’re going to pay the same (or more) for it that a PC gamer would. Is it worth it?

24 players. I just keep thinking about that number over and over, and it worries me. Sure, they modified the maps to accommodate the smaller player count, but as any veteran “Battlefield” player knows, the game is designed for high volume, and only really works in that context. “Bad Company 2″ was great, but all it took was one errant squad, one dickhead stealing the helicopter without any intention of using it well, and your team could suddenly end up in a body-bag. This is why “Battlefield 3″ has 64 player battles on the PC. It’s not just “hey look at how many people we have,” it’s necessary for balance.

And you’re never, ever going to see the game you’ve been watching on Machinima on your PS3. You’re just not. It’s not the same game. We console gamers have always known that in the back of our minds, but we’ve been putting the issue off, maybe even in denial about it. Now, with the game really upon us, it can be denied no more. This is our lot in life. We’re stuck with a muddier, uglier game, period.

On the other hand, console gamers aren’t being sold short on Frostbite 2, jet combat, blurring vision caused by suppressing fire, and other cool new/returning features. And while no one is comparing the console graphics to those on the PC, DICE’s ability to squeeze their massive visual ambitions onto the PS3/360 is admirable. I’m glad there’s a texture install, that was a smart move, even on the 360, where such things are quite foreign.

All in all, I suppose there’s reason enough to buy the console version of BF3, but I can’t help a slightly muted level of excitement. I’m sure it’s fun and a worthwhile investment, but it’s not quite the game I’ve been drooling over for a year now.

_AA

i drink till i’m drunk

  • Pingback: Is BF3 Worth Buying On Consoles?

  • Anonymous

    Can you build me a powerhouse PC?

  • Brendan Corcoran

    It’s fun on the 360, and it looks great. On the PC, it looks about 10 to 20 times better (on Ultra, if your PC can handle it) but that’s just a bonus. The game you love is still there and it’s still the same.

    As for player counts, console players are first and foremost not used to 24+ players, barring technical restrictions. I can’t even imagine the kind of clusterfuck a 32v32 match would be like on the console. 10 people fighting for the jet, 10 more people trying to blow up a teammates tank because they got in first, 6 sniping from spawn, and the remaining 6 trying to complete objectives or take points. In short, the console community simply isn’t mature enough to handle it.

    On the PC, that situation would never arise. Everyone has a base level of respect for their fellow players and once in a while you’ll encounter some douche that simply doesn’t “get it”. The rest of the time, you’ve got 20+ people on the ground, in squads, working together to complete their mission– just like real military troops. The similarities are quite alarming.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Allen/7605503 Andrew Allen

      Not mature enough? BS. There have been many games on consoles with 64 players and over, from “Resistance 2″ to even “Homefront” more recently. I’ve logged plenty of time with both and others, and I think they worked great. 

      The gaming community, be it PC or console, adapts and learns by nature. Even if you were right and console gamers weren’t used to massive play counts, they would GET used to it. 

      • Brendan Corcoran

        Have you PLAYED with the crowd they’re trying to steal people over from? This is Battlefield vs Call of Duty on the consoles. On PC, nobody played Call of Duty for anything but a distraction.

        I’m talking about the high school kids who name themselves XxQu1ckScop3ZxX and such. I’m talking about the wannabe gangsters who will tell you that when you pee, you’re peeing on your nuts because your penis is so small. I’m talking about the butthurt wannabe MLG kids who, if something doesn’t go their way, will make your gameplay experience a nightmare.

        Those are the people who play Call of Duty, and now some of them are playing Battlefield. So yes, not mature enough.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget about MAG, with up to 256 players.

      Being a regular pc multiplayer, I’d say it depends entirely on the game being played. There are just as many assholes in call of duty for PC as there are xbox or ps3. However because there are games like Arma, Project Reality, and all the DSC games for PC there’s a better chance you’ll run into players who play with skill and appreciate brevity, keeping the bullshit to minimum.