DodgeNeon Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Not to start a flaming war agaisnt consoles, but do you somewhat feel if that Pandemic just concentrated on a PC version, the game might be better? I just feel so much potential was wasted on it; all for the sake of consoles not being able to handle all the little tedious things that PC games can do. I look at the multiplayer menu and i about gagged... And wasn't this game's strong point multiplayer? I've never been a fan of gamespy, so that increases the problems for me. The Chatting is somewhat left to be desired, and no voice chat for PC!!! AHH it disturbes me. I just really pray that pandemic releases a 50-100meg patch that fixes a bunch of problems, and adds a lot of extras to the game... I guess this is wishful thinking... afterall, i came from the Half-Life realm where anything and everything was possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{NJO} Pilo T Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 you mean just focused on console? because it was originally a console exclusive, so don't go talkin about what if it was only PC. Chances are, it wouldn't be done without the consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DodgeNeon Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 I guess you got a point, I'm just so hardcore PC, lol my PS2 sits over at my g/f house where her neices nephews play it. I've always loved the flexability a PC game has over a console game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 People will make their own menus when modding tools are released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatelull Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I agree that the cross-platform aspect hurt what could have been a wonderful PC game. Â I don't recall reading that Battlefront was originally a console only game. I can remember seeing videos for this and Republic Commando months ago, and wondering which would be the better game. However, I don't remember one being specifically for the console. Â Â Regardless of mis-informaiton, it still stands that the product was rushed and while this didn't hurt the Console aspect much it has definitely affected the PC side of the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Havoc Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 so it was only meant to be console even though it was marketed as Lucasarts' answer to Bf1942 which was only PC. For some reason I believe it was the other way around and over time a decision was made to target the consoles as the majority. Â From a company stand point consoles require the least work with the most reward. $60 per game and once released you never really have to support it again, you merely move onto the next title. What games have they published patches for on console? They also don't tend to publish expansion packs but rather another title from the game's franchise. Which makes them more money? 2 titles at $60 a piece or 1 at $60 and an expansion at $30? Â See part of the issue is the percentage of console users with networking connections is far fewer than PC users with internet. You're 80 times more likely to find a console owner without an internet connection than a pc user. With that said and the game's original premise (Multiplayer Star wars action) wouldn't it be apparent you'd be better off targeting those who already have internet? Problem for PC users is "Greed" comes into play. Lucasarts farmed out the work to pandemic , nothing better than getting others to do your work for you at a fraction of the price. I'm sure both parties saw the most rewarding path was to "attempt" to do a cross-platform release. Why only take this group's money when you can have everyone's? Â PC Gamer magazine has gone off on the issue of PC to console game translations and if they should be "dumbed down". They believe that if its a great title for PC it will probably be a great title for console. They point to Ghost Recon as their example. So if the misconception is a game needs to be simpler and "dumbed down" to be on console what does that mean for its PC sibling? Either they could make it more complex, mature and sophisticated or directly port it over bib and all. Â I believe the main mistake is that they rushed it, spread themselves & the title too thin and tried to span all systems. Have 1 target audience and focus fully on it. If it sells well and there is demand then make it for the other systems. Demos released months prior to the actual game help too. You need that outside input to gage your work in case you're surrounded by yes-men who won't spot faults even if you paid them. Â For me had the game been for PC 1st and then consoles I think everyone would have a deeper, more involved game with legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Dark Jedi Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Originally posted by H0WARD Chances are, it wouldn't be done without the consoles. Â Yep that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MURS Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 luckly for me, i own a xbox. So my experience with the game has be good so far. After logging a solid 10 hours, the game seems to repeat itself, and losing some fun factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodstevens Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I agree. PC first would have been better. Then XBox and PS2. After a week of playing swbf mp im just so fustrated and shaking my head thinking a pro company made this game, had the b@lls to compare it to the bf games in its marketing smooze? The MP browser is so bad, its not even funny any PC MP game has a better menu than this! Shameful! Even after patching its still usless. Thus making finding good low ping server(s) rare and not very fun playing a round or even just half to have the server die. And rinse and repeat the whole thing a gain...serers won't refresh sigh..Gamespy damn they are the aol of gaming now! lame! I can tell by playing both games (bf and swbf) the devs prob didn't play bf1942/V too much if at all or even see the mod for bf1942 gc. The numbers of empty servers is crazy even after clicking on them to even check/refresh is unbeliveable for a new game this popular. So Im gonna play bfv for now and see if they patch this bad mp experince. At least with its problems bfv the mp browser works and isn't broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoQ Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Originally posted by Lt. Havoc so it was only meant to be console even though it was marketed as Lucasarts' answer to Bf1942 which was only PC. For some reason I believe it was the other way around and over time a decision was made to target the consoles as the majority. Â You are absolutely right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Originally posted by bodstevens I can tell by playing both games (bf and swbf) the devs prob didn't play bf1942/V too much if at all  LOL! At least they aren't like DICE. It feels they've learned nothing from their mistakes in the earlier versions of Bf1942 and just put all the same problems back into BFV. And it's the same company!  One being DICE Canada and the other DICE Sweden isn't an excuse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marduke|Myth Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Nice post Lt. Havoc. Very good points. Â lukeiamyourmomma - just think whats ahead for battlefield 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psych0fred Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Console games sell big and get all the money for development. No one cares about the PC because in terms of numbers people don't play PC games compared to console games. So if you wonder why a game for the PC is so much like the consoles, it's because they are more important and it becomes a task of trying to have the gameplay be as consistent as possible across all platforms. That means gameplay on a console is more important than gameply on a PC because consoles pay the bills and pcs don't. Â Want this to change? Only buy PC games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNACowboy Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 there was a reason BF1942 for Xbox was canceled :-) Â SWBF kindof gives a hint why.. Â in a game like SWBF/BF42 it is just so hard to get the complexity of the to transfer well.. Â i look at BF1942 and the plethora of keys that are used to play the game. Â then you look a SWBF and the very limited amount of control you really have when compared to BF42. Â IMHO it is a direct issue with the limitations (or the fact that console players can't handle the complexity) of the console that the PC version has suffered. Â which is sad since Pandemic and LA both said that there where different groups working on each version.. so much for that idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{NJO} Pilo T Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by hatelull I agree that the cross-platform aspect hurt what could have been a wonderful PC game. Â I don't recall reading that Battlefront was originally a console only game. I can remember seeing videos for this and Republic Commando months ago, and wondering which would be the better game. However, I don't remember one being specifically for the console. Â Â Regardless of mis-informaiton, it still stands that the product was rushed and while this didn't hurt the Console aspect much it has definitely affected the PC side of the house. I don't have official references or anything, cause I'm not the kind of person that copies this stuff thinking I'll need it... but why else do you think it was ported FROM consoles to PC? Because they decided on console first. And the answer to BF1942 doesn't have to be on the same platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunghoUK Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Yeah your all kinda right in saying the PC game wouldn't be here if there wasn't a console market. But I think Mistao's original question was would the PC game have been better without a console version being developed. Forget the marketting/profit angle, if they HAD of made a pure PC only game, even if it made a huge loss. I think any game that is solely tailored to 1 platform is better than if it tries to work on many platforms. So a PC only SW:BF would have been better than a PC & console version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[RNGD]Tyrant Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 cross platform games invariably end up making compromises. Â It is clear that the PC version of this game has been 'hobbled' by console limitations (the most obvious example is maps sized for 16 players on a console just dont work with 50 players on the PC) Â This is why EA cancelled its plans to bring BF1942 to consoles. And it is why they are developing two totally different games for the next Generation of the BF franchises. BF2 for the PC and a similiar but more suited to the console game Battlefield: Modern Combat for consoles. Â Â I do hope that LEC and Pandemic now allow the PC version of this game to have a life of its own. If all patches, updates, enhancements must be cross platform then I feel this game will never truly meet its true potential on the PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gh3nt Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 i miss those days when those pesky consoles games were limited to mario brothers like arcady game, when more advanced games were only available on pc. Â ie pre PS2, XBox, GC days . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoQ Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Well one thing that PC games have over console games...EXPANSION PACKS! Pandamic could always make an expansion pack to include all of things that would have made a PC only version of this game so great. Things such as larger maps, more player classes, different game modes, etc. Â Although I would feel somewhat cheated if they did go this route since we would be paying extra for what should have originally came with the PC game from the very start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup3rsnail Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 expansion packs are cash cows. free downloadable content in the form of bonus packs (Unreal Tournament) are way better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{NJO} Pilo T Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by Ghent i miss those days when those pesky consoles games were limited to mario brothers like arcady game, when more advanced games were only available on pc. Â ie pre PS2, XBox, GC days . I really do hate PCGame bitches that think they deserve everything, and at the highest quality. That'd be you buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthBuzzard Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I think what really should have happened was to start by focusing one one console. After seeing the errors, you could move to another console, and/or start to make a PC game that could include the items and things that consoles couldn't support. Then begin constantly improving 'till you get a great game. Â Now I don't know about you guys, but I'm all right with waiting for a game so I can get the full, unbuggy, unlame experience. I don't have SWBF yet, but I do not belive that I will get it based on what I have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DodgeNeon Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 I really do hate PCGame bitches that think they deserve everything, and at the highest quality. That'd be you buddy. Well it's a general premise that PC games are more detailed than console games, and higher quality "usually" comes with the territory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthBuzzard Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 ^^^ Agrees. If a PC can support more, you should use that to your advantage and exploit its resources correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Dark Jedi Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 This seems to be turning into a console vs Pc thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.