@Philly1UPer Look up why 1942 was so popular when it was released and its competition back then, if you want this type of gamepaly there are lots (too many) alternatives why turn a game that "was" different into anoth generic arena shooter?

@halo117xbox show me ONE advert saying its the msot realistic game ever, ive seen comments say "the most realisitc LOOKING game ever" (which it does look realisitc), and "most realistic sounding" (again sounds realisitc) but NEVER have I seen any advert claim the game was a simulator like arma

Pretty much stopped being bf3 as soon as the battlefield 2 players found out it had non of the gameplay from the prequel but had an improved version of the gameplay from bad company. Yea it has bf2's 64 player, prone and jets BUT it has NON of the tactical gameplay whatsoever, even the large maps are designed like larger versions of bc2 maps with all flags placed in close proximity to one another to get all the adhd kids into the action quicker.

P.S those that play metro don't do it out of enjoyment (funny for the first game or 2 but anymore than that get tedious) but to grind xp to unlock everything, its much easier to points harvest a corridor than a large open space where you can get shot from any direction

He just doesnt get it.....its not about the graphics thats not what people are complaining about (more is nice but not neccesary at this point). The thing is the puny memory the current console system have (360=512mb shared between cpu/gpu giving each 256mb and ps3=256mb seperate for both cpu/gpu....essentially the same), pc gamers complain because every game coming out bar the odd few are boxed in linear games they're like that so to conserve memory on consoles (e.g the campaign's on bf3/CoD) AI, maps, sound etc all use memory up with just 256mb to play with its a balancing act at this point.

Assuming they still follow the same console cycle (doubling up each release) then the next console which should have been out already following the previous 5 year cycle it would have had 512mb for system and 512mb for gpu, thats still behind even cheap pc's with 4gb of system memory (most of the big gaming rigs now have 8gb, for the next console they need to skip the gen that should have come and give the things 1gb of mem for cpu and another 1gb for gpu in order to keep up otherwise they will be outdated technologically on release. We don't want more graphically impressive linear games we want more open sandbox style of games with exploration or if they are linear then at least be longer/harder with regards to levels/ai difficulty we're sick of being treated like morons incapable of working things out for ourselves

@DraKKuLL007 no they do what they used to do and make the engine scale to what is available e.g bf3 pc it runs on dx10-11 ONLY consoles have dx9 and opengl equivalent. The engine scaled to what was available meaning the pc version runs and looks a LOT better than the console version. So with that in mind when they released crysis what they "should" have done was released the top end graphics for pc only and advertised even on the console version that if you want the best version of this game buy on pc, and for the consoles scale it back enough so they could run it (even if it looked like cowdung in comparison). That way they push the technology they use with the pc with console AND pc funding

A guy below says this WILL NOT be used for next gen consoles, the size alone for the cooling dictates this, an older card on the same manufacturing process (28nm meaning lower energy usage and less heat) would mean a 400 or 500 series is more plausible for the next consoles. If your expecting this in the next consoles then expect something far bigger in size to the original ps3 and more expensive (microsoft and nintendo are more likely to go for ati due to backwards compatibility issues)

@GUTZNRAGE it wont outsell cod, you cant compete sales wise with a game that sells on every platform imaginable if your only making your game available to just 3 of them....

@MEDzZ3RO "(didn't know digital sales weren't included)" for some weird reason they rarely are the music industry had the exact same issue until only a few years ago, so sales on itunes and msn etc were never included in sales charts. As soon as they included them the charts started looking er.....different to say the least, the games industry in that sense is behind everyone else (pretty sure movie charts include downloads sales from sites like netflix/lovefilm etc as well now)

@MEDzZ3RO as far as im aware its still the same as both pc and console sales have dropped equally (as you mentioned it isnt as popular on pc as older bf games and now bf play4free has turned up a lot switched over to that or went back to bf2/2142 for time being waiting for bf3, either way simple fact is battlefields main fanbase is on pc not consoles you wouldnt make a game pc lead unless there was sufficient reason to spend the extra time and money doing it......). -edit- maybe worth trying to find online figures for those games...would be interesting to see how many bf players are spread out over bf2/2142 and battlefield play4free......

@MEDzZ3RO not sure if you missed my edit on the other post but here http://360.kombo.com/article.php?artid=18648 P.S ClawedMonkey has already shown that site you mentioned has sales figures that are WAAAAAAY off the mark, the 600,000 pc sales you mentioned is hardly the 2 916 162 pc players playing right now..............source (thanks ClawedMonkey) http://bfbcs.com (again this is no way accurate either, doesnt tally in with DICE's own statement from the first link i gave)