PC players are hoping it’s great on PC and ported to console in the worst way possible for some reason.
You could show them a video of an entire warehouse of developers building the game for all three platforms seperately and they’d still be paranoid because it’s also coming out on console and anything that’s also on console seems to burn them but they fail to realize that SD is not activision.
The reason is that for a developer of SD’s size, working with an engine they know very well, it takes a long time to balance, and then the console coding takes longer than the PC coding.
Then you have the fact that developing a kb+m setup is kinda secondary, since people know they can customize it. On the other hand, if you come out with a garbage setup for the default console controls, they’ll never know what hit em.
The reason BF3 is being touted as a PC game is that, according to people who should know better than I, BC2 was a console port, and an obvious one at that. DICE needs to get back their street cred, so that their fanbase knows they’re not a console developer now who happens to know what PCs look like.
There is no proof that it’s gonna be good on the PC. If you want proof, then spend the next 27 days working on a time machine, and when you have the game in your hands, go back to today and tell yourself if it’s good or bad. Otherwise, you have logic.
1a) Crytek’s stated goal with Crysis 2 was not to develop a system that was the best on all platforms, it was to develop a system that worked on all platforms, period. Doesn’t sound like “PC engine” to me.
1b) Treyarch primarily did ports to consoles of PC games before they did Black Ops. They’re a console developer.
1c) DICE is primarily a PC developer, but their last offering was a console game ported to PC. They’re trying to apologize with the BF3 press so far.
2a) PC is the only group that I might worry about, if not for point 1.
PC Gamer also gave Dragon Age II the editor’s choice award. There is no amount of inconvenience I think that they don’t deserve.
PC Gamer also gave Dragon Age II the editor’s choice award. There is no amount of inconvenience I think that they don’t deserve.
You could show them a video of an entire warehouse of developers building the game for all three platforms seperately and they’d still be paranoid because it’s also coming out on console and anything that’s also on console seems to burn them but they fail to realize that SD is not activision.
Developing each version separately, doesn’t necessarily mean that each version will be built from the ground up, to utilize the platform it is built for. The PC version could just be the xbox or PS3 version, with different on-screen indicators for which buttons/keys to hit.
I don’t think the majority care if it is on console - they just don’t want the PC version to feel like a console game. Remember, it used to be that a lot games were PC games first, ported over to console later.
[QUOTE=Jess Alon;279523]PC players are hoping it’s great on PC and ported to console in the worst way possible for some reason.
You could show them a video of an entire warehouse of developers building the game for all three platforms seperately and they’d still be paranoid because it’s also coming out on console and anything that’s also on console seems to burn them but they fail to realize that SD is not activision.[/QUOTE]
not me, i’m hoping that brink is great on each platform so it can sell well so they can start working on Brink 2 
What I know SD stated some time ago that they have something like a basic engine that can be used on all platforms equally and on top of this engine they developed BRINK in separate teams for each platform.
So I still have high hopes for things like better textures and those things on PC.
Battlefield: Bad Company [1] was a console only spinoff of the PC Battlefield series. It got a sequel that was ported over to PC, and has been pretty successful, by all accounts. PC users are concerned because it’s been a long time since a proper PC Battlefield (not counting the freeplay webgames) game has come out, and I hope we can all agree that a vocal minority of PC gamers are the most entitled complainers out there.
I’m concerned that Battlefield 3 is trying to out-COD COD in the SP game.
BC2 was a pretty good console port, especially after all of the patches. However, Battlefield 3 will not be a console port, it is being developed for the PC and ported to consoles.
[ul]
[li]PC is the lead platform[/li][li]Primarily developed for DX11[/li][li]Runs in 64-bit[/li][li]Much bigger maps on PC version[/li][li]64 players PC (Only 24 consoles)[/li][li]No waisted resources on developing for XP or DX9[/li][li]All gameplay shown so far has been PC only[/li][/ul]
It’s going to be great!
Also, here’s a new PC gameplay Battlefield 3 Trailer. Now they just need to show the multiplayer. 
If being developed specifcally for the PC was the only requirement for greatness, PC gaming wouldn’t be such a niche.
ok, maybe I am too stupid but this seems like a political answer where it can still mean two things?
All I want to know if it is being developed seperatly on all three platforms without porting 
This is just to prove my point to a friend of mine who thinks this it absolutly not the case and it’s a console port all the way.
And for those people here saying that PC players should not be worried if it’s a console port or not, but worry about the quality:
The thing is, if the game is build specifically FOR the PC, we can be assured it will run fine on a PC.
If it’s a console port, we just have to wait and see if it’s any good. Also, the lack of PC gameplay footage feeds the assumption of a console port, obviously.
Nah you arent too stupid. It’s an indirect answer that doesn’t answer anything besides that the game isn’t outsourced for a port. It can still be ported inhouse though.
it’s a facepalm.
u got 2 answers already, first one was more sublte, but since it wasn’t enough you got another more direct answer from another dev, yet you refuse to believe it is true. i don’t know what else do you want?
“We developed all three platforms in-house.” is a direct answer to a question concerning if there is any porting done or not?
You that naive?
That responds doesn’t answer anything about porting or not so there is nothing to “believe to be true” or whatever.
A simple yes or no is what I want
Nope. However, it’s safe to assume it’ll be no radical departure from the rest of the series while the company has indicated a couple times that they’re less willing to compromise on thepotential of the pc platform. I’m definitely hoping on getting in on the series in this iteration.
[quote=Crytiqal;279628]ok, maybe I am too stupid but this seems like a political answer where it can still mean two things?
[bla bla …]
[/quote]
Don’t be stupid, many game assets are shared across all platform.
[QUOTE=Crytiqal;279634]“We developed all three platforms in-house.” is a direct answer to a question concerning if there is any porting done or not?
You that naive?
That responds doesn’t answer anything about porting or not so there is nothing to “believe to be true” or whatever.
A simple yes or no is what I want[/QUOTE]
They can’t say yes or no because you’ll just move the goalposts for the definition of a port and call them liars.
What jRAD is saying is that Brink is not a PC to console or console to PC port. SD is developing Brink using software that can output code for PC as well as for PS3/Xbox360 without the need for actual porting. To understand this i will give an example:
Example: 
"So, you need to make Cold beet soup for three different people, with different tastes, from different regions of a country. You prepare your soup in one huge pot, and serve it in 3 soup bowls.
You ask them how they want it.
The first man tell you: - I want my soup mixed with sour cream and a pinch of salt.
The second one: - Mixed with sour milk and pepper.
The third one: - Mixed with yogurt and garnished with parsley.
You ad the requested ingredients and please everyone. "
