Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Battlefield 3 Performance: 30+ Graphics Cards Tested

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the anti-aliased-bullets dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 171

New submitter wesbascas writes "Have you ever wanted to play a new PC game, but weren't sure where your PC falls between the minimum and recommended system requirements? I don't have a whole lot of time to game these days and with new hardware perpetually coming out and component vendors often tweaking their model numbering schemes, knowing exactly what kind of experience I'm buying for $60 can be difficult. Luckily, somebody benchmarked Battlefield 3's campaign on a wide range of hardware configurations and detail settings. If you've purchased a system in the past few years you should be in luck. The video cards tested start with the AMD Radeon HD 4670 and Nvidia GeForce 8500 GT, and go up to the brand new Radeon HD 6990 and GeForce GTX 590. I hate it that my aging Radeon HD 4870 isn't going to cut it at 1080p, but am glad that I found out before buying the game." If you're curious about the game itself, here's a detailed review from Eurogamer and a briefer one from Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WTF? (3, Funny)

gazbo (517111) | about 3 years ago | (#37881838)

I've got a Savage 4 and that's not even in the list. How is this "review" supposed to be useful to anyone?

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37881860)

I weep for my decision to purchase my savage 4 extreme 3.

Re:WTF? (0)

mattventura (1408229) | about 3 years ago | (#37881908)

I wish my 8MB Rage was on the list.

Re:WTF? (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 3 years ago | (#37882174)

I wish my PowerVR PCX2 4mb was on the list.


Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882196)

Its not.Toms doesn't benchmark the game, they benchmark a timedemo of the graphics system.
Both major GPU makers have cheated during demo runs.
User input and a great many other things affect performance meaning these charts are almost useless
except to show which card beats which in a very specific demo and of no use as a test of actual gameplay.

Re:WTF? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37882476)

Maybe for you, but for somebody who hasn't looked a graphics cards in a while its a great starting point.

Re:WTF? (2)

mikkelm (1000451) | about 3 years ago | (#37883214)

You're sort of making the case for doing things the way they're done. User input affects performance greatly, so how do you expect to have any sort of basis for comparison without running all the cards through the same sequence?

It's also right there in the article that these benchmarks aren't done using a timedemo, but a specific sequence in the game chosen by the reviewer.

Re:WTF? (1)

definate (876684) | about 3 years ago | (#37882248)

LOL I remember upgrading to a Savage 4, but I had to go to the PCI variant, as I didn't have an AGP motherboard. The results... were not good. Little to no performance improvement over my old card, for a whole lot of money.

Re:WTF? (1)

errandum (2014454) | about 3 years ago | (#37882384)

Pff, dual Voodoo 2's all the way. Savage is for grannies that check their e-mail.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882434)

Looks like simcga on my Hercules graphics adapter isn't going to cut it. :(

Re:WTF? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 3 years ago | (#37883324)

3Dfx and glide are the future!

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884046)

I have MMX. Running this game will be a cinch.

Who gives a shit? (2)

Luke727 (547923) | about 3 years ago | (#37881854)

What hardware giveth, software taketh away. Your video card was already obsolete when you bought it.

I can't decide... (3, Interesting)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 3 years ago | (#37881862)

If this is a bigger slashvertisement for Tom's Hardware, or Battlefield 3. Meanwhile, there are much broader testing services such as Can You Run It? [] that will give you data on one page instead of thirty and on a much wider variety of games than Battlefield $$$.

Re:I can't decide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37881924)

Can you run it doesn't give benchmarks. Battlefield 3 is a huge game right now and people give a shit about how it will perform.

Re:I can't decide... (5, Insightful)

master811 (874700) | about 3 years ago | (#37882058)

If this is a bigger slashvertisement for Tom's Hardware, or Battlefield 3. Meanwhile, there are much broader testing services such as Can You Run It? [] that will give you data on one page instead of thirty and on a much wider variety of games than Battlefield $$$.

That site is all very well, but it gives no real world performance. It's all theoretical. According to that site, my PC can "run it" just fine, but it would have to be at the lowest possible graphic settings according to the real world tests.

Re:I can't decide... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37882124)

I"ve noticed that myself, my rig should run The Witcher 2 without too much trouble according to the site, but in practice the system plays laggy and ultimately it's not playable. Kind of like Quake when I first bought it.

Re:I can't decide... (1)

plonk420 (750939) | about 3 years ago | (#37883706)

i wish they'd discussed "smoothness" of the game ... it's a bit twitchy on Ultra (especially in the interrogation sections) on my GTX 560 (accidentally got this instead of a Ti when i thought my ATI card was dying) ... however, it's ever so slightly more smooth on my 5870 (both 1GB cards).
(GTX on X58; Radeon on P55)

Re:I can't decide... (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 3 years ago | (#37882356)

Tom's hardware steals from the newsgroups/Usenet - I have hundreds of post on that
site and am not even a member.

Re:I can't decide... (2)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | about 3 years ago | (#37882360)

benchmark masturbation. some people like this sort of thing. Its a good thing too, because it keeps them in their basements, away from the rest of us.

Re:I can't decide... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 3 years ago | (#37883022)

The funny thing is I can't run that website - browser and OS not supported :)
Something with a giant table has a place especially if you are thinking of getting hardware you don't already have.

Re:I can't decide... (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | about 3 years ago | (#37883244)

All Can You Run It? does is check your system against the minimum and recommended specifications. That's about as "broad" of a "testing service" as determining your eligibility to run a marathon by the number of legs that you have.

Re:I can't decide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884790)

..or you can use the YouGamers Game-o-Meter that actually uses benchmarking data (from 3DMark benchmarks) instead of making wild guesses based on the technical specs of the GPU/CPU (memory bandwidth, shader count etc.) like System Requirement labs does. for checking Battlefield 3.

reviews (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37881968)

Better yet, before reading this article, read some user reviews for the game and realize ou don't care if your machine can run it, because the majority of people think itsterrible and EAs origin software is spyware.

Re:reviews (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 3 years ago | (#37882426)

I love BF3...

Perhaps a poll of CoD players would agree with you but other than that, I think it is a well received game.

Re:reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882994)

User reviews on Metacritic right now show 213 positive, 15 neutral and 61 negative, so I don't think the majority of people think it's terrible.

Re:reviews (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#37883062)

Oh, is that why it has a 90% [] composite critic score? Yeah yeah, technical glitches and whatnot, but as for actual gameplay... oh yeah, you must play CoD and are just trolling. Carry on.

Re:reviews (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#37883326)

Oh, is that why it has a 90% composite critic score?

That's the critics' score.

The actual users' score is considerably lower, approximately 7.1 out of 10 as of 8:40pm. I've noticed that when there is a disparity between the critics' score and the users' score so soon after release, that the users' score tends to go a lot lower the more people play it.

Face it, the people who are playing Battlefield 3 in the week after release are the ones who have been dying to play it for a while. They're inclined not to admit so readily that they're disappointed. But as more people get around to the game, we'll start to see a better sample. It looks like this might be another game which is well received by people who are paid to receive games and not so much by the people who are paying to receive them.

Re:reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883772)

That's crap, if you actually read the user reviews you'll see the vast majority are glowing. The average is driven way down by a bunch of obviously illegitimate 0's, all of which are people complaining about Battlelog and/or Origin, not the actual game itself.

Re:reviews (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#37883820)

The average is driven way down by a bunch of obviously illegitimate 0's, all of which are people complaining about Battlelog and/or Origin, not the actual game itself.

So I can play multiplayer without Battlelog and Origin?

Great, then I take everything back.

Re:reviews (1)

plonk420 (750939) | about 3 years ago | (#37883742)

i was highly against Origin (mainly for convenience reasons... all my games are on Steam), but my lust to see what the Frostbite 2's engine can do [] was greater than my hatred for the platform. i was also hoping to have horror stories to tell about it, but almost disappointingly, i haven't had any. i don't have any plans to get anything else on Origin unless something else pulls me equally hard to itself.

i have heard of punkbuster nightmares, but having gotten shot in the face all day long during the beta (this is my first PvP fps i've really gone after since casual UT/UT2k4 LAN play), my interest is kinda luke warm WRT MP.

Re:reviews (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 3 years ago | (#37884756)

Pretty much the exact same story here. Origin isn't as nice to use as Steam and the price they charge to buy the game over it is ludicrous (I was able to save £15 - on the Limited Edition - by buying the thing in a bricks and mortar store and then importing it - something I've never had to do with a Steam game). The browser interface you have to use to launch the game is deeply irritating as well. That said, it does all work pretty much as described.

The engine is very nice, particularly on Ultra settings. I've been much more impressed by it than I was by idTech5 - not least because Frostbite 2 does seem to "just work" (even with the newest Nvidia drivers, Rage has noticable texture pop-in around the edges). The game itself (and I'm primarily a singleplayer gamer) is the usual soul-less, joyless Brothers of Honor: Modern Company trudge, but you can't have everything, I guess.

Not sure I like this game much (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 years ago | (#37882074)

For reference, I really liked Battlefield 2: Bad Company, and even Battlefield 1942 (playing both on a PS3).

The graphics look great, that is not a problem. But to me it seems like too much action happens at too far a distance - I am often killed in multiplayer by people I never see. I'm used to sniper kills from previous games, thats fine every once in a while but it sure feels in this game like almost every kill is a sniper kill, and that's juts not fun - when I die repeatedly for 10 minutes without ever seeing a single enemy I get pissed off and don't feel like playing.

Even the single player game has this issue, with barley visible enemies hammering me from a distance.

It's not even like I am one of those idiots that runs around like Rambo trying to take out everyone myself. I take cover when I can and even know how to crouch. I join squads, work in a support role and still I seem to die at the drop of a hat.

Yes I probably suck at FPS players compared to many other people since I don't play often (in part why I like to play on a console, where I feel like the best players are limited somewhat by the controls). But I never had this degree of problem with other FPS games and I'm just not sure I can maintain interest enough to play this game casually at all.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | about 3 years ago | (#37882240)

For reference, I really liked Battlefield 2: Bad Company, and even Battlefield 1942 (playing both on a PS3).

The one on PS3 was BF1943 not 1942. I've played all of them. I had bf 1942, bf2, and bf 2142 on the pc. Then I stopped caring about PC games much and played mostly on consoles. Dying at the drop of a hat even when you are in a squad is a symptom of a crappy squad and some bad luck. There are a few things that could help:
1. Learn where the sniper nests are. There are usually a few places that the snipers will usually look for, once you find them stay away from their line of sight. It's not that hard once you know where the bullets are coming from and where to take cover from them.
2. Being in a squad doesn't mean anything unless the rest of the players are also playing with a team mentality. If they are just playing Rambo style, then even if you help them you are going to get killed too. Also, before respawning one of your teammates make sure they are not being attacked and that they are behind cover else you could spawn and die.
3. If you are playing assault with a medic role, then stay behind your squad. that way if htey die, you probably wont. IF they die, check if hte killer(s) is near their bodies. If he is then either surprise attack him and then revive your squadmates or stay behind and not get killed so that your teammates can respawn on you. 4. Try to attack from the sides (unless you are defending). And if you are playing support behind friendly lines, then check to the sides and back regularly or you are going to get killed from behind.

All in all, I do agree with you in that it can be too much happening. It can be overwhelming for those that don't understand what is happening. But once you understand what is going on, it's actually a lot of fun.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

Cederic (9623) | about 3 years ago | (#37882766)

Shame, you missed the best of the bunch: Battlefield: Vietnam.

It still had the pre-modern combat constraints that left knife-fights a viable option, but gave us helicopters, patrol boats and jungle warfare.

Still one of my favourite ever games.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

ihaveamo (989662) | about 3 years ago | (#37883342)

Amen, Brother. One of the best (& under-rated) games ever. Battlefield: Vietnam was (is!) a wonder.

You could do a lot more interesting things in BF:V than in any modern game. Airlift tanks & boats with choppers. Dig "tunnels". Tuneable radio stations. Punji sticks. Bouncing bettys. Hell even back in bf 1942 could could DRIVE aircraft carriers and submarines!. Where's that now in modern games???? Also - a good wild strafe with an m60 WOULD kill someone if they were in front of you. None of this "lucky I can take 5 hits at point blank" rubbish. Men were men and death was quick. Keep your head down if you want to live. We seem to be going backwards.

Here's what everyone missed out on: []

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#37884426)

Killing stuff with very few hits is still present - on hardcore mode.

Driving submarines and carriers makes little sense gameplay-wise. The game is about flag control and assault/defense, not "fapping around with tech".

Granted someone could tell that to people who take jets and helicopters, only to discover that they can't pilot them beyond the first wall.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 years ago | (#37883538)

First, thanks for the correction on 1943, I have not played it for a while and shifted a year.

1. Learn where the sniper nests are.

That's not the issue though - it's not snipers that are killing me, it's every other kind of player. I don't live long enough for snipers to even see me... what I'm saying is that EVERY kill, even from an engineer or support class, feels like a sniper kill in that they are really far away when I die.

Again, although I was annoyed at snipers in BF:BC2 I could deal with them (I only ever played on hard mode too where sniper positions are not even revealed when you die). As you said I figured out generally where snipers were, I could work around them. BF3 feels unmanageable.

Being in a squad doesn't mean anything unless the rest of the players are also playing with a team mentality.

Not wholly true; in BF:BC2 even if a squad was not acting like a squad (often), I could at least simply follow one squad member - then I had about a 50% chance of him being hit first, I could take care of the attacker and either hide until the squad member respawned on me (they often do that even if not really playing as a team) or just revie them as a media.

In BF3 pow, I am dead, squad or no.

If you are playing assault with a medic role, then stay behind your squad.

Being a casual player and mostly playing support roles (sometimes medic) I am ALWAYS staying behind the squad. Doesn't matter, pow dead.

I do agree with you in that it can be too much happening.

I don't think my problem is too much happening, I actually like the chaos. I guess I basically just feel too many weapons screw you over too quickly at a range where even a guy out in the open is hard to discern before you are dead; I had no issue seeing other players in BF:BC2. But then perhaps that is visually too much going on, kind of what you said...

Re:Not sure I like this game much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884462)

Dude, do you think perhaps that you might just be bad at the game? I mean, it's easier than ever to spot players with scoped weapon, and they took the damage model back to bc2 levels from the beta (damn shame).

I'm no pro-player, but I ain't finding it that difficult. Certainly there ain't no magic pow pow gun in the game that everyone uses.

It might be that your not used to the maps yet, and end up walking out smelling some flowers in the middle of a target range?

Honestly, sounds like you need to get to know the game a little more.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882400)

My experience with multiplayer so far is that the enjoyment varies massively depending on the map. (For example, pretty much any game on Operation Metro with 32+ players on it is going to end up a clusterfuck one way or another.)

That said, across the board I haven't found sniping to be too bad; the very visible scope glint, combined with the difficulty of sniping from a distance and only headshots being a one-hit kill seems to balance it out well. But, I am playing it on PC so maybe things are different here.

I do agree about the singleplayer though; the enemies still seemed to have the magical ability to spot you from a hundred feet away as soon as you fire a shot, and then be blazingly accurate in reply. And let's not even get into the quicktime events that completely disregard the controls you've chosen and are hard-coded to E and space.

Full disclosure I guess, I am quite an avid gamer - but so far for me, the multiplayer has overall been a great experience. There are a few rough edges - a spawn system that could work out that the end of a long corridor with four enemy snipers at the other end of it is not a good place to spawn you would be appreciated - but in general I've thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe someday I'll work out how to not be terrible at flying the helicopters, too...

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 3 years ago | (#37882470)

Operation Metro should only be a Rush map. As a conquest map... if Russia gets point B with enough force right off the bad, then it is nearly impossible for the US to move beyond the steps... especially if the RU is playing plenty of Assault and Support roles with lots of grenades.....My friend got 7000 points as an assault class because he launched 3 grenades.... it killed 23 in total before he died....why? because the US stacks up on the steps.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#37884438)

Conquest has the same problem - Russia locks down point B and lets no one through. Game, set, match, and a huge RPG hell in between.

It's not about the mode, it's about the fact that map doesn't scale up with player numbers nearly as well as open maps.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 3 years ago | (#37882444)

Perhaps you need to learn to not run out in the open and use proper tactics when assaulting a point.

It does help to play on a squad that has the ability to communicate with each other.

Already do that thanks (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 years ago | (#37883558)

Perhaps you need to learn to not run out in the open and use proper tactics when assaulting a point.

I don't do that - I am running cover to cover, or sometimes slowly advancing mostly under cover, generally trying to move with other players to take a point. Again, I have played BF:BC2 - what I didn't mention was only on hard mode, where shots do more damage and you cannot see where attackers are located (I liked the challenge of figuring out sniper positions). Although I was not the greatest player I was able to be fairly successful in a lot of rounds. But nothing works in BF:BC3, cover or no, slow or no, and I sure as hell am not running out in the open.

It does help to play on a squad that has the ability to communicate with each other.

Like I said, I'm a pretty casual player - I agree that actually being able to talk to squad members would make you a pretty powerful force simply because you could actually cover each other and know that someone looking in a different direction could warn you before an attack from that direction. But I just don't have the time to have a dedicated group I could play with like that, my playing times are way too random for anyone to tolerate so I've never even tried to find partners figuring it would not be fair to them.

It just feels like BF3 is meant only for the more hardcore FPS players and has lost the feeling of fun I enjoyed with all the other variants. It's too serious now, requires too much of a time investment to get to the point I feel like it might be fun again.

Re:Already do that thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884254)

It just feels like BF3 is meant only for the more hardcore FPS players and has lost the feeling of fun I enjoyed with all the other variants. It's too serious now, requires too much of a time investment to get to the point I feel like it might be fun again.

good.. go play the gazillion other games that ARE targeted for people like you. just because farcry vengeance is more your style doesn't mean there aren't people out there who actually like concepts like skill and challenge in their games.

Re:Already do that thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884368)

You could always get an old copy of BF1942, and download the DC mods. Sure some modern weapons aren't quite that modern (usually no guidance at least) and aircraft have no working instrumentation, but it's fun from a playability perspective. (Who gives a shit if the graphics are old if it's actually fun?) Helicopters can be a little challenging to fly at first, but that's actually part of the fun.

Seems in the case of old games there are two types of servers though. Ones where you can derp about and have fun because nobody cares, and then there's still the hard-core FPS players servers with old die-hards that are nearly impossible for casual players. Once you learn where the fun servers are (for your definition of fun), fav them. Derp-about casual servers still seem to be the minority though.

My only complaint with the game is that infantry based rockets are way too cheap, which means vehicles aren't quite the menace that they should be on the battlefield. They should be somwhat "imba". It's very rare that somebody could just spam rockets like the game allows in any kind of realistic situation. (Stuff like grenade spam on the other hand I find sort of funny and not as annoying, since it has enough limitations where in those cases if you play smart you can avoid it. Mostly because it has a limited range and you can tell where it's coming from.)

My favorite other than some helicopters is stuff like the heavy artillery or AC-130. It's not automated like called-in strikes in some of the newer games, and people actually have to coordinate, cooperate, have some skill, and scout to use them effectively. But damn do they pwn if you can get a half decent spotter or somebody willing to steadily pilot the AC. (Good AC-130 pilots are rare though. Either they go too fast and make the plane bounce or don't know how to orbit steadily enough in a turn by using the side-view. Not to mention few are willing to fly it because of the low kill score you get while everybody else does all the shooting.)

Re:Already do that thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884592)

Dear Casual Player,

I hear Angry Birds is nice this time of the year.

If not, may I suggest a nice, cool, refreshing game of Hearts.

Warm Regards,

Gamers Against Whingers

Re:Not sure I like this game much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882892)

It's very like BF2 and 1942 in that way. 1943 (the console game you played), and BC2 were close-quarters infantry games. You can still get some of that feeling if you want by simply playing BF3 on Rush maps.

Re:Not sure I like this game much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883000)

In real life it depends from environment what is the typical shooting range. Example in Scandinavia, it is 25-50 meters. Most needed shooting position is kneeling as the terran is too much hiding otherwise. So you can pretty easily crawl how much you want.
Still, when engineers starts preparing defence positions, then you have easily a shooting range of 1000 meters or more. And then it is for vehicles, snipers and machine gunners who gets kills.

The typical lifetime of foot soldier is under 7 seconds in fight when it is in urban environment. About 10 seconds when in forrest.
So you don't really want to spend time in visible, as in less than 3 seconds when you are visible, you are shot by at least by one enemy soldier. And if you don't do side movement after sliding to ground, you are definitely getting few shots to position where you landed.

Most crappiest thing to do, is to attack and move over field between you and enemy. No cover and long way. Almost 99% change to be killed, even if moving in cover of armored vehicles what gets destroyed in few seconds.

The sniper is a defensive soldier or then is being called to special situations to take specific targets off, typically a enemy gear like radio or metering scope. It is less usable than machine gunner who is most powerfull pair in the field. You really don't want to pop your head up from good cover when MG starts singing as 7.62x53 caliber goes trough trees and even 1 meter brick walls what typical walls are in buildings.

One thing what is never achieved well in typical FPS games to be illustrated, is a amount of people what is needed to attack specific target where enemy is defending in cover.

In forrest, it is 1:3 ration, what means enemy needs 3 times more men to attack to position. So if enemy has 10 men in defend position in good cover, you would need at least 30 men to attack.

In urban the situation is even force. It is 1:9-12 So you need 9-12 times more men to attack to enemy what is in defensive position in urban. And you really don't want to go there with tanks or any vehicle as they are destroyed right away as environment is not 2D fighting like in forrest, but it is 3D where defender is top of you as well.

In arcade FPS online shooters like Battlefield, there is no matter of how many soldiers are in the field.

Snipers shoots there as easily to 500 meter as any soldier shoots 25 meter range to 2m target.
Machine gunners shoots like guns would not have any recoil or they would be like snipers with just automatic gun.
And people use AT-rockets and AT-missiles as personal one-shot-one-kill weapons or destroying buildings.

Thats why all my friends have forget the whole Battlefield series and gone to Flashpoint, ARMA I or II. As there is the more realistic and more funnier gameplay.
But those arcade shooters dont like it if they need to wait 5 minutes to get permission to fire and single shot will kill you and they usually do die as they run on sight. And shooting a moving target is hard as you really need to stay still and control your weapon. And there is no way that you could just run or move and shoot to longer range from hip.

If battlefield would like to be funnier, even for arcade players. There should be many huge changes (I have not played BF3, just BF2 and BC2)
Like snipers should have need to hold breath until they can shoot and make the weapon loading much slower and harder.
Hand grenades should kill in range of 20 meters, fly only range of 20-30 meters and have that normal 2.5 second fuse time.
40mm grenades should be much harder to use, have the normal timer in them to avoid under 40 meter kill range.
AT-rockets should be very fast, direction weapons with the timer. Like RPG-7 does not have guidance possibilities and it does not fly as slow as does AT-missiles. And they dont kill people unless the it hits directly to person and kill by kinectic power. And they dont blow up buildings or walls as they only punch a small hole to armor (or wall) and directs all the explosive power directly ahead.
AT-missiles are slow ones, but they are single hit weapons for tanks. Never flyes directly to target but hits to top of the target. Has guided launching with wire or then with own system.
Machine guns should only be possible fire from crawling position. Otherwise recoil would be too huge to shoot anything in fast situation. So only from ground or then place the gun to good position like wall or window in a game and place it so it takes 4-5 seconds to get in position. And then having a situation that if gun is placed on window, it has wide shooting range. But when shooting from ground or wall/rock etc, then having only a 20 degree shooting arc.
Every assault rifle should have single shoot mode (if in really would have) what would be needed to get accurate shooting. A recoil would needed to be added and especially speeding up the RPM. Like a AK-47 30 ammo clip is empty in two seconds when shooting keeping trigger finger happy.
Adding a peeking over corner or window and other things. Even better if people could build up a cover, a sandbacks to defence or similars.

Oh, and make the players slower when running. So slow movement would be the key but the spring would be possible but not shooting same time and not fast reflexes to shoot when stopping sprinting or starting.
And no jumping and shooting same time. Every jump would need a 2 second relax time until person could aim and shoot.
Clip changing should be dependable from player skills. So it would not be just single button thing but would need something to do so it would be fast, otherwise player could drop magazine or place it wrong way. Make every shot count.

Oh, one one HUGE demand would be that vehicles would not have single player possibility. Like attack chopper would need two person, a pilot and then a gunner. Pilot would not do anything than just fly the chopper and gunner taking care of everything else.
Tanks, they would need at least 3 men. One driver (only drives), a gunner and a commander. And make the animations to move in and out of vehicles slow, so people could not just jump in and out under a second but it would take 4-5 seconds to get in and out.
And having at least HEAT and AP ammos for tanks would be needed and gunner would need to swap those.

Oh, and allow at least supression to be effective. So if you are under supression fire, you can not shoot. So the one who shoots first, gets change first.
And when getting shot, your aim and movement should change a lot. Like if you are running and you got shot, you should fall and then recover up from the position.
If you get shot while kneeling, your aim should drop or you should fall for a moment. As those who get to firing position first, rules the situation at those positions.

Battlefield 3 has great animations, but the gameplay is not for those who are skilled fighters, only for those who have skilled trigger finger and great ping.

Some of that is in BF3 (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 years ago | (#37884182)

I appreciate your long missive about realism, though it is not really realism I am looking for - I feel like BF3 has gone too far in that direction, and is now in kind of an "uncanny valley" for realistic use of weapons, where neither you nor I am at all happy with what they are doing.

They have tried to address some of the things you've pointed out. If you shoot in the direction of the enemy, their vision blurs to simulate the effects of suppressive fire. A sniper needs to go prone and use a bipod to get really good accuracy in shooting. Actually those changes I am fine with, it's more other things I am disliking... but again the movement towards greater realism I think is taking away BF from what fans are used to, or at least what this fan is used to... someone else makes Modern Warfare already, people can just play that if they want to play that game. I never did.

Aww.. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#37882080)

I'm really disappointed in Battlefield 3. They could have taken a little more time making the single player decent. I can't keep up with all the super players online, so the SP campaign means at least as much to me as MP. At best, I'm going to be cannon fodder for online teams and more likely I'll just play a few times and decide it's not worth going back. Very often, online multiplayer just brings out the worst of cyberspace behavior and that might turn off older gamers like me. I'm more interested in having fun and a challenge than rubbing some noob's face in it and then teabagging him. And what's up with all the gay stuff among multiplayer gamers, anyway? "Hey look, me and maxihk52 are doing 69! How cool is THAT?!"

I understand that the companies are putting all the work into the multiplayer, but still, there must be other gamers like me who will mostly play the single campaigns. All they're doing by short-changing the single players is making them wonder why they should lay out another $60 just to get the same amount of entertainment as two movies back to back. An increasingly important part of any game review is how long is the single player campaign. If Driver:San Francisco is going to be 60 hours of fun and Rage is going to be 5 hours of fun, guess which one I'm going to buy and which I'm going to look for a REL0ADED demo.

Re:Aww.. (1)

neros1x (2492908) | about 3 years ago | (#37884074)

This is where the lack of third-party server support in most modern games really hurts the genre. Back in CS 1.5-1.6 days, yeah, most public servers were full of idiots and not fun. But if you searched long enough, you could eventually find that one server (usually a clan server) that was frequented by at least a small group of serious players and run by admins who had no qualms about banning players for the slightest reason, which would improve the experience immensely. This company-run servers only practice in recent years may have made multiplayer more consistent, but its killed the spirit of online shooters for me.

game (1)

noclegi (2496400) | about 3 years ago | (#37882100)

I like this game really is, however, but a lot of requirements

Two GTX 580 will do just fine at 2560x1600 :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882112) ;)

on this system: ;)

Turned it into a Run & Gun - Rambo type game (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 3 years ago | (#37882190)

It's a huge disappointment. Sure it's gorgeous, but they have made it Battlefield Bad Company clone as they do nothing to facilitate team play which is why BF2 was so fantastic (especially on teamplay servers). Sure BF2 wasn't always a team play game, but it happened if you fell into the right group of folks.

In BF3, the squad system is hidden, the squads are smaller, there is no squad leader, no squad based VOIP, no squad way points, no intrasquad commands, and no commander. I played on teamplay BF3 servers, made no difference.

I want my money back. I won't ever pre-order a game again.

Re:Turned it into a Run & Gun - Rambo type gam (2)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | about 3 years ago | (#37882332)

the squad system is hidden
I'm not sure what you are talking about, the squad system is right there, it's not hard to get into one or switch to another one.

there is no squad leader, no squad way points, no intrasquad commands
There is a squad leader it has a star next to their name. They can order what to defend and or what to attack, so yes there are intrasquad commands. way points are gone unfortunately, but I don't think anyone was using them.

no squad based VOIP
There is squad based VOIP.

and no commander
The commander abilities are now spread over the several classes. This is better as sometimes the commander wouldn't do anything.

I played on teamplay BF3 servers, made no difference.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean with teamplay servers.. if you are talking about "team deadmatch" then you probably want to stay away from it. Team deadmatch has only one objective, kill the other team. This is usually easier accomplished by doing the run and gun type of play.

Sure BF2 wasn't always a team play game, but it happened if you fell into the right group of folks.
Same with BF3, if you want team play you need the right group of players. This has been a problem with the BF franchise since the BF1942 days and I doubt it's going away ever...

Re:Turned it into a Run & Gun - Rambo type gam (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 3 years ago | (#37882544)

Where is the squad based VOIP? I see no VOIP in the game. Just the shitty browser communicator

I see the squads, but they are awkward to use. There is no ordering by the squad leader, it's just crap

Teamplay and tactical gamer are the places for "team games" versus frag fest.

Re:Turned it into a Run & Gun - Rambo type gam (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#37884460)

Ordering isn't "crap" once you get used to it. You just need to function like an actual squad leader, stand a bit back and issue orders like attack, defend and so on.

Takes a while to get used to, but becomes easier once you learn, like most things in the game. Lack of proper in-game voice (for PUGs) is pretty annoying though.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882262)

Spread it over more pages please... I don't like more than one datapoint per page.

fuckin shit review site... damm.

Virtual Machine (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 3 years ago | (#37882394)

That's all nice information, but what I really need to know is what hardware setup and software would allow me to run this game and the spyware it comes with in a virtual machine, so it can not spy out my pc?
Or will I be forced to pirate this? I was going to buy but I guess that won't happen anytime soon now.

Re:Virtual Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882510)

Xen with vga passthrough.

Personal graphic comparison (2)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 3 years ago | (#37882414)

I'm in a clan and it makes gaming so much better. I posted this to the clan site
figured with this thread I could get even more use out of it.

"When I first started playing BF3 I started in
campaign mode to set my controllers (didn't work).

Graphics BF3 Vs COD4

Here's the Heli scene (BF3 and COD4) - both at the very
start where you would want to show off your artwork.

BF3 - Not full screen []

COD4 - Full Screen (1680X1050) [] [] (to show what map)

Also consider your view point and which
required more work (Animation over water, while raining)."

GTX-570, i7-950, Asus P6X58D, 6Gigs of ram, no pagefile.sys

Re:Personal graphic comparison (1)

bakarocket (844390) | about 3 years ago | (#37882536)

I dunno. It looks to me like BF3 probably has a lot more stuff (little facial animations,etc.) going on in the background.

The COD4 graphics are very dated.

Re:Personal graphic comparison (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 3 years ago | (#37883714)

Thanks for call, so I recorded both, when I could (should) of
found it on youtube

My bad, I felt the animation so poor that I skipped
BF3 the briefing and thought it a Heli, it's a vehicle.
CoD4 Cut scene []
BF3 cut scent [] (Language!)

Though dated I see Cod4 decent graphics and BF3 graphics
lots of "fluff" attempting to be more realistic.

I rotated the mouse in both of these and what causes
it to swing side to side at times.

Re:Personal graphic comparison (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#37884474)

You missed the whole "vehicle" sound, obvious driver on the right, and "thought it's a helicopter"?..

Another thing to note, COD tends to pretty up cutscenes, and even so both resolution and textures were visibly crap in comparison to BF3. In BF3, what you get in cutscenes is what you get in the game itself.

5770 (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 3 years ago | (#37882488)

Wish they'd show CF 5770s.. Debating whether or not to buy a second 5770 on the cheap or just upgrade to a newer card

Re:5770 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37882606)

Performance of the Radeon HD 5000 series and 6000 series are identical. The 6000 series is lower power consumption due to a smaller nanometer processor.

Re:5770 (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#37883100)

Same here. They seem to assume that only people with top end cards will Crossfire, when in reality I think it makes a lot more sense for people with middle-of-the-road cards as an incremental update. Not sure if it's worth the trouble, anyways, but I was curious.

Benchmarks always spark controversy (2)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37882828)

Once again we see that the top tier Nvidia is priced wayyyy over the top Radeon, but performs way worse.

I don't understand why there's so much brand fanboyism with computers. This would obviously indicate that it makes sense to buy Radeon if you want your money's worth, since this holds true down to the lower performance cards as well. It's basically been this way for years. Yet, oppositely, Intel has been blowing away AMD's processors for a while now, so you get your money's worth by buying in that direction for that particular product. It just makes sense.

Besides, after the way Nvidia shit all over their loyal fans with that GPU debacle, I'll have a hard time trusting them again, as should anyone else. There are still video cards and laptops floating around out there, particularly on Ebay, which are just waiting to die on some unsuspecting second-hand consumer. I'm always having to warn people about buying anything used with Nvidia products in them until they do their research. Not everyone I know was so lucky though, because I still have a perfectly good laptop laying here with just a dead Nvidia graphics chipset in it, which they gave to me out of disgust when it died immediately after their warranty period expired.

Brand loyalty doesn't do you any good if you're in second place. Or worse, when you're stuck with dead equipment. Look at benchmarks, do some research, and buy what's best for the price. That's the point of PCs vs Apple: we can put any brand of product in it for any aspect of operation to achieve the best performance at a good price. It's silly to do anything otherwise.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 3 years ago | (#37883112)

Humans tend to defend the position they invested in, even if it may have been a bad choice in hindsight.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883118)

You pretty clearly didn't check the Ultra Settings tests. The Nvidia cards were "wayyyy' over the top Radeons on those tests, and the gap was getting wider with each jump up in resolution.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37883138)

You pretty clearly didn't read the cards tested. The Radeon 6990 wasn't on the Ultra page.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883176)

The Radeon 6990 is a $700 card, significantly more expensive than the nvidia 580, thus negating the GPs point.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37883166)

funny you preach about fanbois but one issue and now your anti fanboi

ATI has made shit
Nvidia has made shit

What happens when you go though every single maker of anything and no longer have nothing to hate against?

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37883224)

I don't understand what your point is.

I've been buying video cards since long before ATI and Nvidia were the only choices. Or before 3D was standard, for that matter. Everything from Trident, to Voodoo, to Matrox. I still remember when Nvidia came along and was a joke compared to anything 3dfx made. Then in the end, Nvidia ended up buying them out. Times change.

So my point still stands. Before Nvidia's huge faulty GPU blunder, when they had a better card for a better price, that's what people should have probably gotten over ATI. Today, if people feel safe buying from Nvidia still, and if Nvidia actually makes a better card, then that's fine too. But trust plays a huge part into a purchase, equally so as bang for buck. Intel and AMD haven't done anything shitty like that to their consumers. Even if Bulldozer is a total failure of a product, at least people know that up front. It's not defective, it's just not up to par.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37883488)

my point was you never really made a point, you explained what you meant now but in your op 2/3rds of your post was about how you were never going to buy brand X which is the exact opposite of normal fanboi reasoning

I have bought my share of shit from both, but at the end of the day what choice do I have when I want a top notch 3d video card?

and lol yea Intel and AMD have never burned people in their history ...

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883190)

Every other generation they alternate on who has the best bang/$. I had a Geforece 4 4200 Ti. Then a Radeon 9800. Then a Geforce 8800 GTS. Then a Radeon 6950. Not a fucking ounce of fanboy, but I can see your post is dripping in it.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | about 3 years ago | (#37883294)

Good choices. I went the same way, though with a GTX 460 1 GiB before the 6950 was released. Still waiting for a generation with a high-end card worth the asking price.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about 3 years ago | (#37883406)

That's a pretty accurate recount over the years by my memory as well. But I think you skipped the GTS 250 between the 8800 and the 6950. Alas, I'm still on that generation, and Battlefield 3 appears to demand a lot more.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884884)

I did skip it, my last build (with the 8800) had surprising longevity. I didn't really even feel compelled to upgrade until BF3 (with other recently and soon-to-be-released titles also obviously benefiting).

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 years ago | (#37884326)

The benchmark world only ever reports on one metric, but people buy on wide array of metrics. This is not fanboyism it's just people weighing up one product vs another according to what they see fit.

I am an NVIDIA fan. No not fan, I have taken a few opportunities to buy ATI cards back when they were ATI. My experience with them is terrible. The graphics drivers on my laptop were horrible. The AMD graphics card on my girlfriends laptop fails to be recognised by online driver install tool despite the card being in the list leaving me to the manufacturer drivers, oh and the only graphics card I ever RMAed was an ATI HD4870 which overheated it's voltage regulators, and since the day I got it ran too hot to touch. When I started the RMA process I bought an NVIDIA card which ran cooler, quieter, and when my fixed ATI card returned it was sold on ebay. While I had that ATI card hooked to my TV the colours were all arse about, it failed to output 1080p straight up coming up with some stupid "under scan" which had to be disabled so I could get native 1080p, and it seems the catalyst control centre only worked on certain types of media (i.e. worked on MPGs and DVDs, but not x264).

I would happily spend $50 to avoid this kind of hassle, and I do. NVIDIA drivers seem to me to be more stable, functional, and user friendly. This is fed into my personal benchmark for these cards.

The same applies to Apples. Sure PCs are cheaper, but you're ignoring the usability factor. They are two different operating systems used in two different ways, and while I am firmly on the PC side of the fence I can easily see why some people may be willing to fork out the Apple tax to use their less functional systems.

Re:Benchmarks always spark controversy (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#37884482)

I bought nvidia for CUDA and better openGL, fully aware that I will be getting slightly less bang for a buck. Moved from 4070 to 560Ti. Not regretting it, especially after the whole rage fiasco.

How about some CPU's? (0)

supremebob (574732) | about 3 years ago | (#37882848)

Sure, it's nice to know what video card I should be buying, but how about the CPU?

Something tells me that upgrading to a Radeon 6990 isn't going so be so helpful if you're still running a 4 year old Core 2 Duo.

Re:How about some CPU's? (2)

Hadlock (143607) | about 3 years ago | (#37883918)

i5-750 and it's replacement, the i5-2500k both scream when paired with a GTX 460 1GB or above. I am seeing in the 50-70s at "medium", 40-50s at "high" and high 20s-mid30s at "ultra". the i5-750 stays around 93% through pretty much all of the various multiplayer maps for me. the i5-2500k is about 25% more CPU

No shit (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37882896)

There is no major nail in coffin situation for pc games any more as they are ports of software to run on 6+ year old, cheaply made game consoles, even if your system does suck, drop the resolution and effects a bit and your good to go.

My dual core AMD system with a 9600GT cost less than 200 bucks 3 years ago, and I can still run these games with just an occasional jitter at higher resolutions than the console (not much higher but still), but yet every game release there is some doofy benchmark telling us something that has not changed for over a half decade.

1080p??? (0, Flamebait)

master_kaos (1027308) | about 3 years ago | (#37883168)

Why set your standards so low...

Poor Quality Benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883290)

This benchmark focuses on average framerate, what use is that?

There is no 6990 listed, Crossfire is barely tested, and Ultra is barely tested.

Why have they done such a poor quality benchmark?

I can make my average frame rate for Battlefield 3 250fps at ultra, that doesn't make it accurate in real world gameplay.

Re:Poor Quality Benchmark (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | about 3 years ago | (#37883362)

Read the text between the graphs for answers to your questions.

I preordered BF3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37883474)

But have spent the last week playing The Binding of Isaac just about nonstop. Hm.

Gaming on PC is expensive (0)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#37883650)

I gave up on upgrading the hardware all the time, especially since vendors make it difficult to upgrade a single component. Instead of replacing a 500$ videocard once in a while, now I get a console, so instead of checking systems requirements I only need to find the big bold signs that say "PS3" at Best Buy. Also a console gives me the chance to play on the same huge tv where I watch movies without having a PC in the room. I guess I'm not a serious gamer that needs to program macros on a 10-button futuristic mouse.

As for MP, unless it is with friends I also gave up on that. The cyberspace is full of people that spend a lot of time playing and it's no fun when you just die all the time without having the opportunity to actually play.

Re:Gaming on PC is expensive (1, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 years ago | (#37884322)

you also gave up
1. better control interface. this is a killer for me. I don't even bother with fps on a console. after years of quake, it's like returning to the dark ages.
2. lower latency display with higher resolution and sharper image. graphics heavy games like battlefield3 aren't even 720p on consoles. the output is scaled to 720 by the console, then refiltered again by the tv before display. most hdtvs have horrible latency as well. that coupled with the joypad interface makes the whole game akin to driving drunk compared with kb/mouse. without any gfx upgrades, titles will look better on a pc monitor and gfx card.
3. proper pc titles come with map and mod making utilities, dedicated server binaries that give players the ability to setup and control the game any way they want outside of the vendor's portal, and minimal whitelist style drm at the worst. These things add value to the game to give it longer staying power, and thus mor time for people like yourself to become skilled. consoles cater to the here today gone tomorrow attitude that publishers foster to increase their profits. yes, battlefield 3 fails here.

Re:Gaming on PC is expensive (1)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#37884360)

> without any gfx upgrades, titles will look better on a pc monitor and gfx card

The price tag that comes with this is too high. PS3 games look pretty good on my big screen tv, I don't really care about it being "true" 720p or any other specific format. We're not talking about Wii video quality here.

> consoles cater to the here today gone tomorrow attitude that publishers foster to increase their profits

I have played the GTA and Fallout series a lot on a console, still do. Good games are good games. Also I find it easier to play for a long time when I am seated in my big couch in front of my big tv, not on a desk chair with a "tiny" 24 inch monitor.

This being said, my best gaming experience was many, many years ago when a friend hooked up a VGA projector on his PC and we were playing Tie Fighter with the screen being an entire wall.

Re:Gaming on PC is expensive (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 years ago | (#37884898)

The price tag that comes with this is too high.

ok. you get what you pay for. However, it's not required to buy the highest end hw to play games. the games I like to play require me to see detail on screen, so the size is less important than image quality and low latency.. in fact the larger screen would force me to pan my eyes more often, slowing response. in addtion, unlike crts, modern hdtvs add a ton of lag making time sensitive gameplay (like fighting/driving) a pain in the ass. fps is out of the question. it's ok if you're messing around at a party, but if you really want to do your best, it's annoying. double that if your tv's timing is different from your buddies.' perfect your timing on one and play on the other, see what happens. I know many play that way and do well, but that's because the games are slowed down and paced to make up for it. Compared with traditional pc shooters, gameplay is still like driving a car with a pair of tweezers...and rubberbands

I have played the GTA and Fallout series a lot on a console, still do. Good games are good games. Also I find it easier to play for a long time when I am seated in my big couch in front of my big tv, not on a desk chair with a "tiny" 24 inch monitor.

good compared with what exactly? certainly not the games that lasted for years due to flexible community expandability. I had fun with fallout3 but I wouldn't have bothered with a clunky joypad if that's all I had. inferior controls lead to inferior mechanics. add the ergonomics of a kb/mouse and the couch/tv/controller thing of the 80s and early 90s is painful for all but the simplest games. I am disappointed that the industry decided to backslide rather than move forward to even better interfaces. rather than make newer more challenging stuff, they moved towards games anyone can win... those 'achievements' embedded in every game now are a prime example of this mentality. another would be regen health.

to each their own, but I've largely stopped playing simply because there aren't many good games coming out nowadays.. today's top titles last maybe 5-10hrs at the most and cost $60. they're too easy. the multiplayer ones are hobbled by horrible portals designed simply to keep the players hooked on the vendor in order to keep playing.. that way the vendor can pull the plug if their old product starts to threaten their newest cash cow. it also prevents other threats like community mods and content.

Pity about the EULA (1)

Snaller (147050) | about 3 years ago | (#37883758)

So not getting it.

I downloaded it for free (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 3 years ago | (#37883780)

and tried it out on my hardware.

runs fine, single player is so so.

did the beta, wasn't too bad. Probably buy it after xmas when the prices come down.

Seriously, you want to know if it runs, download the fucking game and try it. If it doesn't, don't waste your money. If it does, then you can safely buy it if you want.

Re:I downloaded it for free (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884860)

Do you steal cars, drive them around for a bit, and then only pay for them when you feel that you've derived worth out of them? Don't give me the "WAH IT'S NOT STEALING" argument, I don't fucking care. It's not an essential, it's a luxury item. If you couldn't work out from the beta and reviews whether you want it or not, don't fucking buy it. Learn to do without.

People like you are why PC gaming isn't doing well in the first place. Prick.

What about integrated graphics? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 years ago | (#37883874)

I wish they had tested the integrated graphics on both Intel and AMD, if only to prove "nope, you still can't do that!" But I had hoped AMD's Radeon graphics were getting close?

Re:What about integrated graphics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37884870)

Nope, not even close. Best integrated ones (AMD Llano) might barely shift it at the lowest settings at 1024x768 or something like that.

I'm a hardcore BF2 fan and won't buy it anyway (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 3 years ago | (#37884454)

This game has very little of the elements that make Battlefield 2 fans so loyal. I have no clue what marketing "genius" came up with the idea to call a Bad Company sequel the long awaited Battlefield 3 and thought we'd be dumb enough to swallow the bait.

BF3 graphics tech talk (2)

Xelios (822510) | about 3 years ago | (#37884928)

For those that are interested in a closer look behind the scenes of the Frostbite 2 engine DICE recently held a 1 hour talk [] about the inner workings of the graphics in BF3. It's pretty amazing what can be done with DX 11 these days.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?