People who are serious about gaming horsepower don't use consoles, they build (or buy) modern PCs. Good on DICE to realize this and fully utilize the capabilities of contemporary PCs. The graphics hardware on the consoles is about 20 times SLOWER than mainstream ($250) graphics cards, so why should PC gamers be held back by console kids? The console market should push Sony and MS to release the new consoles. Battlefield 3 with its 64 players on PC vs 24 on console is a perfect example of the need for faster consoles, but then again you get what you pay for and there is a reason consoles are cheap - they get outdated FAST and have long release cycles.
-
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
- Status
pocketdrummer
Distinguished
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,090
- 37
- 19,310
I think someone had a Thumbs Down party. Seriously, you guys don't have to hide every entry that disagrees with your point of view.
That said, graphics better be tweakable, the controls better be "valve tight", and it sure as hell better be as fun as they act like it will be. No homefront bait and switch, please.
Oh, and kudos to Dice for not catering to the GeezerBox. I don't understand why people still defend these ancient consoles. They're basically SFF computers with a super limited OS. If you won't tolerate using an old Intel P4 for work/school, why tolerate old/slow consoles?
That said, graphics better be tweakable, the controls better be "valve tight", and it sure as hell better be as fun as they act like it will be. No homefront bait and switch, please.
Oh, and kudos to Dice for not catering to the GeezerBox. I don't understand why people still defend these ancient consoles. They're basically SFF computers with a super limited OS. If you won't tolerate using an old Intel P4 for work/school, why tolerate old/slow consoles?
walter87
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 159
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]hardcore_gamer[/nom]No graphics improvement for PC ??? Shame on you DICE[/citation]
You call yourself a hardcore gamer when you clearly don't know any facts about the game.
Will be Vista/7 Exclusive with no XP support, so supports DirectX10/11, right there the graphics are better than console. Its limited to 30fps on console.
You call yourself a hardcore gamer when you clearly don't know any facts about the game.
Will be Vista/7 Exclusive with no XP support, so supports DirectX10/11, right there the graphics are better than console. Its limited to 30fps on console.
walter87
Distinguished
- Jun 28, 2011
- 159
- 0
- 18,680
Crysis's extreme hardware limitations hardly had anything to due with how great the visuals were. Plan and simple, the engine it used wasn't optimized very well. Thats why you saw even 1 or 2 newer generation cards still stuggle to perform extremely well. CryEngine 3's engine is much better optimized and even on the new Insane settings DirectX11 maxed out doesn't struggle with mid-tier cards now.
[citation][nom]sportsfanboy[/nom]First of all the Xbox can't render anything above Direct X 9. Seeing as the PC will get DX10 and 11 textures and lighting enhancements is a win for the PC. Second and I know you console people don't want to hear this but even on your 1080p display, the xbox can only run 720p max. Just because something fills the whole screen on a HI-Def monitor doesn't mean it's HD pixels running. What does that mean? The PC wins again.[/citation]
Agree or better yet get a 1600p monitor and use it fully, the choices are endless with the PC (sadly so are the price range) but with a console there is only one choice, purchase and get stuck with the same spec for years to come or go pc and be able to upgrade it to whatever spec you wish whenever you like/afford it - for me that choice was easy!
I choose not to choose consoles - I choose something else!
Agree or better yet get a 1600p monitor and use it fully, the choices are endless with the PC (sadly so are the price range) but with a console there is only one choice, purchase and get stuck with the same spec for years to come or go pc and be able to upgrade it to whatever spec you wish whenever you like/afford it - for me that choice was easy!
I choose not to choose consoles - I choose something else!
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
[citation][nom]Lobodomy[/nom]Silly console players think they're being treated equally! At least DICE is doing a good job of keeping the console players happy[/citation]
Screw the console players. It's time for the PC to shine again. I bought a useless upgrade 3 years ago only to get shafted by all the games being stupified by those god damn consoles.
Screw the console players. It's time for the PC to shine again. I bought a useless upgrade 3 years ago only to get shafted by all the games being stupified by those god damn consoles.
I can't bash consoles. Some of the most fun I've ever had in gaming was on a Nintendo 64.
Get over yourselves, guys. Seriously, "Screw console players!" just because they chose a platform and don't really care about maintaining their own gaming computer? We have our priorities and they have theirs. Nothing you're angry about is their fault.
Get over yourselves, guys. Seriously, "Screw console players!" just because they chose a platform and don't really care about maintaining their own gaming computer? We have our priorities and they have theirs. Nothing you're angry about is their fault.
ojas
Distinguished
- Feb 25, 2011
- 2,924
- 0
- 20,810
I actually agree with you. If a game looks great and plays well and doesn't kill your PC while doing so, then that's a good thing, like Crysis 2 is. I can play it quite well on a 9600GT and a Yorkfield processor.
At the same time, it should have some sort of "extra" graphics options so that ppl with really cool rigs can get their money's worth of performance and graphics.
Not everyone can afford to keep changing components frequently, and that's not good for the environment either 😛
At the same time, it should have some sort of "extra" graphics options so that ppl with really cool rigs can get their money's worth of performance and graphics.
Not everyone can afford to keep changing components frequently, and that's not good for the environment either 😛
HippieMagic
Distinguished
- Jun 25, 2011
- 19
- 0
- 18,520
I have to laugh when people are acting like the sky is falling over this...
Common sense dictates that he is referring to the fact that the core game will be the same and that this "dumbing down" is actually referring to shrinking the map size so the action is consistent between all versions.
You cant take a map that holds 64 people, stick 24 on it, keep it the same size, and expect the action to hold up. There are 40 less people which means it is going to be like a ghost town unless modified. You have to design maps to force action into certain areas or you have one hell of a boring game.
Common sense dictates that he is referring to the fact that the core game will be the same and that this "dumbing down" is actually referring to shrinking the map size so the action is consistent between all versions.
You cant take a map that holds 64 people, stick 24 on it, keep it the same size, and expect the action to hold up. There are 40 less people which means it is going to be like a ghost town unless modified. You have to design maps to force action into certain areas or you have one hell of a boring game.
[citation][nom]madjimms[/nom]They thumbed you down because the game isn't in open or even private alpha yet... Your cousin is full of shit.[/citation]
Wrong.
My friend/clan-mate is in the alpha. I've seen the vids...he's talked about it. Hell, there are tons of forum posts out there about it. Look it up.
Wrong.
My friend/clan-mate is in the alpha. I've seen the vids...he's talked about it. Hell, there are tons of forum posts out there about it. Look it up.
gamersgamer
Distinguished
- Jul 27, 2011
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
I'm sure it will look good on all platforms it is developed for. I am just as interested in the sound quality in game. Has anyone played BF with a good quality set of headphones on...Ahh the sweet sounds of the Batlefield!
kimyeang88
Distinguished
- Sep 17, 2010
- 100
- 0
- 18,710
[citation][nom]hardcore_gamer[/nom]No graphics improvement for PC ??? Shame on you DICE[/citation]
First off all, you are not hardcore gamer. Hardcore gamer doesn't care about Graphic as long as the game is challenging .
Second: good graphic but not fun to play. what is the point?
Third: If developer max out DirectX 11 like Crysis did, i swear only 2% of the world PC can run it . 64 Players ( 32 vs 32) with tanks/chopper/plane/explosion everywhere, you need X2 6990 to run it lol. That's why they tune down the graphic , so most pc will able to play. I don't think ATI 5xxx series or single Nvidia 4xx will run smooth with this graphic setting. And you want graphic improvement ? Tell me what is your graphic card? GTX 460? or 5770? Don't tell me you are using x2 6990 because i'm not going to believe you. Why? because you are not hardcore gamer, u don't know the meaning of " GAME".
First off all, you are not hardcore gamer. Hardcore gamer doesn't care about Graphic as long as the game is challenging .
Second: good graphic but not fun to play. what is the point?
Third: If developer max out DirectX 11 like Crysis did, i swear only 2% of the world PC can run it . 64 Players ( 32 vs 32) with tanks/chopper/plane/explosion everywhere, you need X2 6990 to run it lol. That's why they tune down the graphic , so most pc will able to play. I don't think ATI 5xxx series or single Nvidia 4xx will run smooth with this graphic setting. And you want graphic improvement ? Tell me what is your graphic card? GTX 460? or 5770? Don't tell me you are using x2 6990 because i'm not going to believe you. Why? because you are not hardcore gamer, u don't know the meaning of " GAME".
pocketdrummer
Distinguished
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,090
- 37
- 19,310
[citation][nom]kimyeang88[/nom]First off all, you are not hardcore gamer. Hardcore gamer doesn't care about Graphic as long as the game is challenging .Second: good graphic but not fun to play. what is the point?Third: If developer max out DirectX 11 like Crysis did, i swear only 2% of the world PC can run it . 64 Players ( 32 vs 32) with tanks/chopper/plane/explosion everywhere, you need X2 6990 to run it lol. That's why they tune down the graphic , so most pc will able to play. I don't think ATI 5xxx series or single Nvidia 4xx will run smooth with this graphic setting. And you want graphic improvement ? Tell me what is your graphic card? GTX 460? or 5770? Don't tell me you are using x2 6990 because i'm not going to believe you. Why? because you are not hardcore gamer, u don't know the meaning of " GAME".[/citation]
You guys keep talking about "hardcore gamers" like it's some kind of lifelong achievement. They're games. You aren't going to cure cancer by tea-bagging some 8 y.o. online.
That said, graphics are an important step so long as they don't come at the sacrifice of gameplay. When it's used to allow the developers to realize their ambitions, that's a different story.
As far as "maxing out DX11" goes, the game should be designed to be scalable. The graphics should be good on normal, playable medium settings and should be amazing on high settings. I think this is a concept lost on many devs. They make an amazingly beautiful game that looks hacked up on lower settings. The sweet spot is a graphically impressive, mainstream playable game on medium settings with a scalable improvement into the high settings allowing for future or high-end hardware to flex it's digital testicles.
You guys keep talking about "hardcore gamers" like it's some kind of lifelong achievement. They're games. You aren't going to cure cancer by tea-bagging some 8 y.o. online.
That said, graphics are an important step so long as they don't come at the sacrifice of gameplay. When it's used to allow the developers to realize their ambitions, that's a different story.
As far as "maxing out DX11" goes, the game should be designed to be scalable. The graphics should be good on normal, playable medium settings and should be amazing on high settings. I think this is a concept lost on many devs. They make an amazingly beautiful game that looks hacked up on lower settings. The sweet spot is a graphically impressive, mainstream playable game on medium settings with a scalable improvement into the high settings allowing for future or high-end hardware to flex it's digital testicles.
pocketdrummer
Distinguished
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,090
- 37
- 19,310
[citation][nom]hixbot[/nom]Anyone else dissapointed with only 64 players? We had that with BF1942 and that is 10 years old. I was really hoping for 128 players and maps twice the size we saw in BF1942/BF2.[/citation]
That's 64 players officially supported. I'm sure you can edit this on your own servers to something even higher. I don't know why you're upset about 64 players, though. Battlefield BC2 usually has 32 player servers and the action is pretty intense and the maps are decently large. Think of what that will look like with twice the players!
Honestly, the only complaint I have thus far is Prone (and the weak "fix" for it so snipers don't own the whole map) and the lack of FULLY destructible buildings. From what I've heard, you can't bring down entire building anymore... which was one the things I liked most in BF:BC2. If some guy keep camping a building... remove the building.
That's 64 players officially supported. I'm sure you can edit this on your own servers to something even higher. I don't know why you're upset about 64 players, though. Battlefield BC2 usually has 32 player servers and the action is pretty intense and the maps are decently large. Think of what that will look like with twice the players!
Honestly, the only complaint I have thus far is Prone (and the weak "fix" for it so snipers don't own the whole map) and the lack of FULLY destructible buildings. From what I've heard, you can't bring down entire building anymore... which was one the things I liked most in BF:BC2. If some guy keep camping a building... remove the building.
thegreathuntingdolphin
Distinguished
- Nov 13, 2009
- 256
- 0
- 18,780
Whats with all the people saying this game won’t look better than console? The game looks a million times better on the PC than on the console. Just because it uses the same engine doesn't mean it looks the same. Those that think otherwise are clearly idiots.
My old P4 and ATI 9300 played Fear barely and it looked like crap. When I went to an AMD dual core and 7600GT SLI, Fear looked amazing (for the time)....games scale on PCs and they scale for the console. Heck, DICE devs already said the consoles are the minimum for graphics for BF3. And the console versions will run at 720p and 30 FPS too...yuck.
Patrick Bach has said multiple times that BF3 was developed as a pc title and then scaled down to consoles.
My old P4 and ATI 9300 played Fear barely and it looked like crap. When I went to an AMD dual core and 7600GT SLI, Fear looked amazing (for the time)....games scale on PCs and they scale for the console. Heck, DICE devs already said the consoles are the minimum for graphics for BF3. And the console versions will run at 720p and 30 FPS too...yuck.
Patrick Bach has said multiple times that BF3 was developed as a pc title and then scaled down to consoles.
thegreathuntingdolphin
Distinguished
- Nov 13, 2009
- 256
- 0
- 18,780
It is very possible it is limited. Many Alphas and Betas do not allow much or any customization. Also, many times the graphics are not maxed.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Review Intel Arc B580 review: The new $249 GPU champion has arrived- Started by Admin
- Replies: 46
-
-
News Intel's interim co-CEO claims retailers are 'concerned' by return rate of Qualcomm powered machines
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 23
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram