1: Poor performance on some graphics cards. Having issues on my HD5770 where some maps I get about 50 FPS, and others I get under 30. This really kills the experience when it continually drops. I don't even have everything turned up, I actually have everything turned down except my resolution is 1920x1080. Also, not an issue with my RAM (6GB DDR3 Triple-Channel G.Skill PC10666), CPU (i7 930 Bloomfield 2.8GHz), or mobo (Asus P6t).

2: Shoddy, at best, AI in campaign in regards to team play. They would sooner screw around with a Command Post than a primary objective, especially hack objectives. This leads to me having to carry my AI team to victory, if they are even willing enough to provide cover fire for me which they rarely do.

3: Challenge modes feel almost impossible, at least stage 2 of the Be More Objective mode. I tried it as a single player experience with a level 1 character, as a single player experience with a high level character, and as a co-op experience with 2 high level players. All 3 of those times were utter failures, and I'm no "noob" to the FPS genre. This is keeping my friend and I from being able to get all of the "essential" unlocks for multi-player.

4: Characters are not as customizable as you seemed to have suggested. Instead of being able to chose individual colors, we have to chose between a bunch of presets. There aren't even custom weapon textures, there's just 1 skin for each faction.


Also, only 16 players for multi-player? On the PC shouldn't it be at least around 20 seeing as most competitive team based shooters on the PC have at least 26 players? These maps are rather large at times and would benefit from having even just 2-6 more players on each team. Would help a lot with keeping servers fuller for longer too, and help alleviate some of the issues regarding not having the people to accomplish objectives. Heck, there's no tug of war for the missions either, they're all pass/fail. You either progress or you don't progress and you switch teams. From how you guys talked it sounded like if we failed the story would start to go in the other direction, like a tug of war between 2 drastically different endings.

You guys have a long way to go with this game to bring it anywhere near where it should have been at launch, and to be honest, I regret pre-ordering. If I would have known this game was going to not only have came crashing bugs, that you have claimed to fix, but also game play breaking bugs then I wouldn't have bought it at launch and would have maybe considered it for a Steam sale at the most. I honestly feel ripped off, especially since this game has so much potential and has fallen so short of its goal. Don't let this turn into another Enemy Territory: Quake Wars please. I enjoyed that game, but it had so many issues that took so long to iron out that it caused so many people to leave that it just withered up and died.

Well as a PS3 player I can't say anything for PC version, but...

2: AI is shoddy, yes, but SD have justified themselves on that and I imagine are continuing to tweak them. If you play Versus mode, Private or Public, it balances the AI a LOT better. As in, to the point where they rival if not out-score enemy AI.

3: It's difficult, but not impossible. I have two accounts; on my first I made it through on my first run as a Rank 1, on my second I made it through on my second run as a Rank 1.

4: Find me a console-friendly shooter with better appearance customisation, then I may see the legitimacy in your complaint. I'm not even confident in saying that, but I've been doing so for the past 3 weeks and still nobody's taken me up on it.

There are differences between the console and PC versions. Many of the issues us PC gamers are being faced with are issues that you console gamers aren't having problems with and vice versa. Also, in regards to 3 and 4, just because there isn't any better doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement in the appearance customization area and that it's as flexible as they had suggested. Also, on console you have stuff such as "auto-aim" as us PC gamers call it, in other words, if you aim near a player it drags your sights onto that player automatically. On PC we don't have such things because we really shouldn't need them. It does increase the difficulty for us. I have played console FPS games in the past, plenty of them against my will due to friends wanting to play shudder.CoD.shudder on their 360's at parties and I can say that the aim-assist thing makes FPS on consoles too easy. I have found that for a console FPS player to try to migrate to a PC FPS is much harder and more demanding than migrating in the other direction. So what may be easy for you on console is not so easy for us.

Also, why does it HAVE to be console friendly for you at the expense of the PC gamers satisfaction? What works for you doesn't always work for us, keep that in mind.

Differences between correctly-ported games are only balance issues. Anything else and the system who's missing out feels cheated.



Console aiming svcks. True fact is true. If it didn't svck, they wouldn't need aim assist, and they wouldn't need occasional "Turn 180 degrees" buttons. But if they didn't have that stuff, console FPSes would be much much harder.

I can't imagine the differences in AI are THAT vast. Overall consensus on AI difficulty seems to be quite unanimous regardless of platform.

I don't think there is room for improvement in those areas without crashing consoles, seeing as I've heard of many people having freezes and severe texture pop-ins. It also can often take more than a minute for my characters to load. It has to be console friendly, because based on their values I don't think SD would release a totally different product for console vs. PC. They both have the same to offer content-wise, with the exception that PC is obviously superior in terms of graphics and servers. Besides, PC will eventually get an SDK. That alone gives your platform more room for improvement.

Also, FYI, I turned off aim assist. Now when standing still, if an enemy passes my sights they don't budge at all. Did the same in BC2. It's even harder for me because I don't have the precision of a mouse or the training wheels of auto-aim. :thumbsup: The first FPS I really dedicated myself to and trained most of my skill on was MAG, which only had aim assist in the form of its RDS. Irons, 4x Opticals or Sniper Scopes had no such thing.

As for the census on the AI being unanimous, that's a no. Every thread I've seen posted about the AI has people fighting both ways, more often than not saying that the console AI is doing just fine, whilst a lot of PC gamers tend to say that the AI svcks.

Secondly, so by your thought, if you can't have it we can't have it, right? So by that same thought, due to people like you the game industry will stagnate when the clearly superior system continues to advance technologically. Your system is how old now? 5 years? 6 years? Yet you want us PC gamers to give just so you can get all the time. Honestly, I'm tired of that mentality, it just leads to more CoD clone crapware and stagnates the market. Also, what's so hard about adding the ability to adjust the hues of clothing? Heck, it only needs a Hue A, B, and C field at the most and the ability to use a hue selector to change the color of each one. It has been done countless times in countless other games on both the PC and the console platform. No reason this game shouldn't have had it.

About turning off aim assist, want a cookie? You're already playing on a platform that is gimped enough when it comes to controls for shooters, then you take off the only handicap you have. Why not build a PC and game on that? At least then you would know what the potential of games can be instead of just gobbling up the same goop all the time from these developers.

I don't think I've ever seen somebody say AI is fine on console. If you aren't playing Versus, then friendly AI are like elderly from an old folks home on a field trip and enemy AI are all aim-botting headshot machines. Seems to be the same on all.

It's not MY thought, I'd be perfectly happy for you PC guys to get a better game. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's just I imagine SD would probably take some slandering for blatantly releasing a superior and more deep version for PC at what is really a cheaper retail price, which is probably not what they want considering how they've been making it very clear than they've divided attention and effort equally amongst all platforms. And the fact that the game already seems to push consoles to their boundaries leads me to believe hue options were cut if they did exist, seeing as there are some colours in screenshots and in the official gallery that aren't in the retail game. Again, I'm sure PC could handle it, but SD weren't aiming for a huge divide between platforms. I imagine they're leaving it up to the community and the SDK to take the game further on PC.

If I wasn't an unemployed student, believe me, I would dedicate the time and money to build a gaming rig. As it stands, PS3 is just a considerably cheaper and more hassle-free alternative, combined with the fact that Playstation's been a part of my life since I was just a little kid. And I don't see why you believe I "gobble up goop" from developers. It seems you're implying I'm just another CoD fan boy and I'm contributing to the deterioration of a genre, just because I'm a console gamer? I actually started playing FPS games on PC with offline BF Vietnam and 2142, I know that a PC FPS experience is better... but I just don't have the cash for that, or the time to get it.

And no, I don't want a cookie. I was just trying to make sure you knew I don't apply to your sweeping generalisation.

Doesn't everybody turn of aim assist immediately? It's more annoying than good, always screws you when there's multiple enemies. I think turning it of doesn't completely remove the assistance though

I certainly haven't noticed any unwilling movement of the sights since turning it off.

MOST (not all) console shooters have a built-in aim assist which makes the crosshair "sort of" predict where you want it to go when you're pointing it towards an enemy. Killzone didn't, Killzone 2 didn't until about halfway through the beta, and I'm not sure whether any aim assist ever made it into the release version. Brink has this form of aim assist, but it's not a particularly invasive example of it, so most players won't notice it's there, and removing it would only make less careful players think they got worse at aiming. Some games have far harsher forced aim assists, which will "snap" you onto the target if you tap the stick in the right direction when they're near the crosshairs.

Most (again, not all) console shooters have a toggle-able aim assist which will track a target to some extent once you have them in your sights. This is also the case in Brink, but this function is far more noticeable - especially when someone runs in front of you, causing your view to turn without any player input.

be objective isnt very hard. you should be able to do this one. i did 1-3 back to back without losing at level 3 and i can do it at level 17 too. you just have to use your brains and find alternate routes up the scaffold. do a search on these forums. i have given tips a few times as to how to do it.

i agree with most other stuff. my fps fluctuate so much it isnt funny. with twitch shooters like this you need steady fps.

imo there should be a better way to tell when bots are playing. is it just they dont have a lag meter on the scoreboard? you need to know when in-play as they never go for objectives and you need to change class accordingly!

This thread almost had some merit to it before the TC decided to turn on the flame. Real hard to take a thread seriously when all you do is get defensive when people (of which have been the majority in this thread) make counter points to your initial post. Not exactly supporting your statements. In fact, you making people oppose them from your less then "social" demeanor.

Maybe it was just a few people over on the SD forums trolling then, but all the threads I saw had people arguing both ways.

Still, doesn't this bring up the point of consolized games holding back the true potential? We've seen instances of gimped games over and over again for consoles. Everything from the horrendous lobby systems from XBL being forced on CoD:MW2 (on PC) to drastic graphical, user interface, and gamplay changes made just so a game can be ported. This is one of those instances where I say the console manufacturers need to either shape up or ship out, and the same goes for developers. By basing your games development of what a 5-6 year old console can do, you're ultimately limiting the progression of the gaming industry. It's not even about "is it fair?", it's more about "does it improve upon the old?". The only real improvements over the old that this game has really provided so far is a much needed fresh idea in the art department and the entire S.M.A.R.T. system. Other than that, it's a generic team based shooter with a snazzy user interface. Also, going back to comparing to CoD:MW (I know, it gets old, and it's pretty obvious that you're most likely not a huge fan of it being a BFbro as it seems), in that game you can customize (to an extent) the look of your weapon beyond attachments with other color patterns. I know it doesn't sound like much, but even adding that into this game would help in making it feel more powerful in the way of customization.

As for building a gaming PC, it's getting cheaper each month thanks to how quickly stuff is moving forward. Yeah, still more expensive than console, but nowhere near as bad as it was back in the days of Battlefield: Vietnam up through Battlefield 2. Might wanna check the prices if you haven't lately. I'd say you could build a really good rig to play a game like this for about 1k. May be salty, but it's better than what it was in the past and the community and mods will "pay it off" so to speak, not to mention the longer shelf life and the amazing Steam/Gamers Gate/GoG sales.

You sure you don't want a cookie? Home made chocolate chip ^_^

FYI: I bring up CoD so much because I used to play it a lot, all the way from the start up through CoD:MW, at which point Activision kind of screwed the series over and has been doing so ever since. It's just a good example of what greed and unwillingness to innovate does to a game and the industry as a whole.



I have noticed it too, my buddy was playing Black Ops and told me to try it out. Asked him if aim assist was on and he said, and I quote "I don't use that p**** a** s***". Yet when I played it it felt like it was still on. Maybe it's just the CoD and Halo games, but it seems like it's kinda forced. I remember Killzone on the PS2, definately didn't have aim assist, took a lot of skill. Personally, I can't stand it, it makes it feel like the game is just giving you kills for playing >almost< good.



What flame? Having a discussion is considered flame now? Seems as though you're the one that has some issues regarding understanding how forums operate. In a discussion both sides offer points and counter points repeatedly until something comes of it, you could I guess call it "forum politics".