Battlefield 3

By Crisp
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

rajputwarrior

Posted
Posted

It actually started on January 28th 2010 and ended on February 25th 2010. I believe that's a full month.

it was definitely longer then two weeks. because i bought my slim when they first came out, ran through metal gear which was the only game i had at the time, and played the beta religiously because it was the only game i had that was MP on my PS3 :rofl:

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

it was definitely longer then two weeks. because i bought my slim when they first came out, ran through metal gear which was the only game i had at the time, and played the beta religiously because it was the only game i had that was MP on my PS3 :rofl:

Yes indeed. See here: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/01/07/bfbc2-pc-beta-update-fr-229-n-dice.aspx

It shows the dates I mentioned.

trag3dy should also take a look at this and this. :p

Grand Master

rajputwarrior

Posted
Posted

Yes indeed. See here: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/01/07/bfbc2-pc-beta-update-fr-229-n-dice.aspx

It shows the dates I mentioned.

trag3dy should also take a look at this and this. :p

wow that's an ownage going through one of the biggest threads in neowin history...

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

wow that's an ownage going through one of the biggest threads in neowin history...

It wasn't my intention to "pwn" him, haha. I simply used a certain skill of mine to remind him of something he once knew. :)

Anyway, I'm still a little disappointed at DICE. Either they're confident that the game won't launch with a lot of bugs or they really want to get it out before Modern Warfare 3. I have a feeling it has more to do with the latter than the former. A beta shouldn't last less than two weeks.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

Crossfire 6870s, OCed. Should be interesting how close I can get to maxing this. My i7 960 and 12gb ram should cover the rest... but still. Hopefully I won't need 6990s in cross. Trying to wait until next gen of cards before an update..

Nowhere near, you need SLI 580s to run it in Ultra. The Quad Core, 6950 recommended specs are aimed at running the game in Medium.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

There isn't that much of a difference...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/6

Im not making it up im going off what the DICE employees on twitter are saying.

The Recommended Specs are for Medium Detail only and to run the game in ultra you need SLI 580s, one 580 wont cut it.

bkohn1 so would one GTX580 run it on ultra? Or do I need two of them?

zh1nt0 @bkohn1 2

http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/116140729864159232

Grand Master

Digitalx

Posted
Posted

Judging by everything else they're saying even though they've made it I'm sure you'll have to take their hardware configuration opinions with a grain of salt. You won't need 580's in SLi unless they're working on next crysis 1 engine to bog your system down with that struggles to have stable 30+ for the next 2 years.

Pretty much there's 3 levels of hardware low, medium and high then standards/quality of play up to 30, in between and 60+ fps.

Let's say SLi 580 you'll probably have ultra @ 1920x1080 with 60+. If you have say i5 2500k + 6970 2GB you may get high/medium @ 1920x1080 at 60fps plus but you can also play ultra but at maybe 30-50 area which is still playable. It will go on like that.

What dice are doing is just looking at the hardware profile without technical details or specifics. They want quality of game so they'll chuck everything in highest fps range even if it reduces visual quality thanks to opinions of consolers who think fps matter on consoles so if it runs best at medium even with a i7 990X @ 4.2GHz 16GB ram and 2xHD6990's that'll be what they suggest.

This is all i've picked up on watching their recommendations on twitter.

Grand Master

Fourjays Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The PC requirements sound ridiculous for medium. :s Hope it is based on trying to achieve massive FPS as Digitalx suggested.

Wonder how my 5830 will stack up. Has handled everything I've thrown at it so far. Will have to try the beta and see... not spending ?200+ on a video card.

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

Im sure i read on one of the DICE team twitter that the min/rec specs are aiming for 30fps.

The Alpha ran fine on my Quad i5 Sandybridge with 5850 but then tesselation and Destruction 2.0 werent enabled neither where high quality graphics. Hoping i can scrape by with my spec in high detail if i turn SSAO/AA/Tesselation off.

Grand Master

Elliot B.

Posted
Posted

I don't understand - what's unique to this game? The weapons seem the same as from war games in the past 10 years, map are just different layouts from ones we've had for 10 years (if that makes sense).

I play Bad Company 2 but it's practically the same as the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault multiplayer from 2002 - same weapsons etc.

Enlighten me. I'm not being a douche, I need need persuading a little as I don't understand.

Grand Master

DirtyLarry Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I don't understand - what's unique to this game? The weapons seem the same as from war games in the past 10 years, map are just different layouts from ones we've had for 10 years (if that makes sense).

I play Bad Company 2 but it's practically the same as the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault multiplayer from 2002 - same weapsons etc.

Enlighten me. I'm not being a douche, I need need persuading a little as I don't understand.

If you played Bad Company 2 and think that is was practically the same as MoH; Allied Assault, well also not being a douche, but you will never understand if you feel that way, as it is truly NOTHING like that game.

Grand Master

Elliot B.

Posted
Posted

If you played Bad Company 2 and think that is was practically the same as MoH; Allied Assault, well also not being a douche, but you will never understand if you feel that way, as it is truly NOTHING like that game.

I've played them both a lot. Let's assume we're talking team deathmatch - the weapons are practically the same, the maps are similar (not in layout but in style). BC2 has destruction and a tank - but not much else is different to me.

Grand Master

DirtyLarry Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I've played them both a lot. Let's assume we're talking team deathmatch - the weapons are practically the same, the maps are similar (not in layout but in style). BC2 has destruction and a tank - but not much else is different to me.

Well if you really have played both games a lot, I am not sure how you can say not much else is different, as destructibility and vehicles alone drastically separates the two games IMO. Also, Battlefield has never really been a Team Deathmatch game at all. It has always been a team objective based game. Also classes and squads play a huge role in Battlefield.

And technically, you can pretty much say all FPS's set with a realistic tone the weapons are practically the same, but technically the weapons are not the same at all in the two games being compared. One is a WW II based game and the other is a modern based game, so the weapons are not the same weapons at all really. But yeah sure, they are similar, any gun in any war based FPS ever made most of the weapons are similar, you pull the trigger and something fires out of said weapon.

Not even sure why I am trying to explain it to you, especially if you have played them both a lot as you claim and this is the decision and outcome you have come to. So it is really pretty simple, do not play the game if you feel that it has nothing for you. Trying to convince you otherwise is obviously a moot point.

Grand Master

Elliot B.

Posted
Posted

Well if you really have played both games a lot, I am not sure how you can say not much else is different, as destructibility and vehicles alone drastically separates the two games IMO. Also, Battlefield has never really been a Team Deathmatch game at all. It has always been a team objective based game. Also classes and squads play a huge role in Battlefield.

And technically, you can pretty much say all FPS's set with a realistic tone the weapons are practically the same, but technically the weapons are not the same at all in the two games being prepared. One is a WW II based game and the other is a modern based game, so the weapons are not the same weapons at all really. But yeah sure, they are similar, any gun in any FPS ever made most of the weapons are similar, you pull the trigger and something fires out of it.

Not even sure why I am trying to explain it to you, especially if you have played them both a lot as you claim and this is the decision and outcome you have come to. So it is really pretty simple, do not play the game if you feel that it has nothing for you. Trying to convince you otherwise is obviously a moot point.

I just can't help but feel BF3 will feel and play very similar to BF2 and BF1942 but with posher graphics.

Grand Master

rajputwarrior

Posted
Posted

I just can't help but feel BF3 will feel and play very similar to BF2 and BF1942 but with posher graphics.

that's how i feel about the game so far, but to millions of people out there, i'm sure that's fine with them. Also in my mind this game doesn't exist to me because it's not on steam.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing