That's why it's a beta. An old code beta to be exact. It was put online to test load the network. Not to show you amazing graphics or intense new gameplay.
This was CONFIRMED by DICE. I have a feeling when BF3 comes out, it's going to decimate Call of Duty in terms of critical success.
Sweeeeeet!!
Me too. The game was originally announced and shown in 2007, and became vaporware because no one wanted to pick it up and publish it.
I'm thoroughly happy it was finally delivered, and am even more happy that the developers are working hard to fix it up before any DLC comes out.
This is depressing... What ever happened to "The games....oh baby....The Games!"
I've been in the alpha, and now the beta. The beta is an old build, since it looks like alpha. Also, how on earth are you comparing a corridor shooter to BF3 and expect it to somehow be an okay comparison?
Yes, BF3 easily looks better than MW3. And it's even more sad that you believe Bad Company 2 will look nicer than BF3, a newer iteration running on a better engine.
I've seen various proven issues with the beta that concludes that it's just ...
1. It's a beta.
2. The entire beta is 1.9 GB. If you honestly believe they're going to fit high resolution textures in something so small, then you're insane.
3. Give what to MW3? Even if Battlefield 3 looked the way it did from beta to launch, it would still look more polished than MW3, and has more content to boot.
You mad that the PC beta doesn't have DX 11 support or ultra high settings?
Master race calling in. Console confirmed for mediocrity.
Dropping off the earth? You need to be more concerned if you think he could pull that off. :S
No one in this article currently cares. Games are not awarded game of the year for their looks.
Having a tiny screen that is 1080p compared to having a tiny screen that is 640p has virtually no differences. Let alone, it's such a waste of energy.
In fact, 1080p is only really visible on screens that are at least 36" and larger. Also, the Vita's resolution is nowhere near 1080p. It stands at 960x544, while the Wii U's controller is estimated to be at 854x480.
And again, there isn't a need for the screen to have any higher of a resol...
I'm sorry, but you do not represent a majority of people who played it. First off, you weren't even the main character of the game, so that was stupid in itself.
Second, yes, combat is bad in the game, so don't try and say that the entire 64 average that the game currently holds is all due to the combat system.
Third, it's incredibly stupid to force the player to play a game that they may not enjoy (which is highly likely), even though you jus...
Wat.
Want.
He's probably referring to purchasing another console next generation for around $400, when it could all go into a PC that will outdo next gen, now.
The PS3 is more powerful than the 360 probably due to the fact that it released with a year's worth of new hardware.
There is absolutely no indication that the PS4 will be more powerful than the new Xbox and vice versa.
What the... you realize that the Wii U isn't that tiny little controller right? The thing is a system that is hooked up to a TV and can PLAY said games on the controller alone.
I mean, really? You think a tiny screen can output 1080p, 60 FPS?
That would be a pretty valid reason to be pissed. Being forced to complete the first game (which in most eyes, was a pretty bad game) to be able to play the second one?
He's half right at least. Chrono Trigger on the SNES was beast.
Wow. Mac has Steam with a whopping 8 titles. Please don't even try to justify a Mac is suitable for gaming. In fact, quit trying to justify owning an overpriced PC.
Also, Windows 8 is not even out. Quit judging an unfinished product.
Yeah right. Who comes to a gaming website to tell everyone you're getting the OS with little game support?
There's nothing wrong with Windows 8 having Xbox LIVE support.
I hate how people judge a game from a testing phase of code that was intentionally put up the way it was, not for graphics, or gameplay, but for test loading a server.