Battlefield 3 no XP support

This thread is full of lulz.

How can anyone moan that BF3 should honestly be compatible with a 10 year old OS? You expect games manufacturers to hold back on modern technology because you cannot afford to upgrade?

People with old rigs are not the type to pay £30 for a new game anyway.

Deal with it and move on. Or pay up and get with the program. Or just buy a console and stop moaning.
 
Tefal said:
You know thats a dx10+ card + windows 7



in terms of cards it's

cardsp.png
Click to expand...

Thanks for the posting the proper information Tefal. I stupidly didn't check the date on that gif.


Rack said:
Most as in 62% of whom 10% have the cards to actually run this bloated pile. If it were a significant majority I'd be more lenient.

It's possible you're right as regards PC upgrades, if this trend of requirements constantly increasing without anything to show for it in terms of software continues indefinitely then I'm done. I'm not spending a thousand pounds on a new system if all that gets me is the ability to play games that neither look nor play any better than the ones I already have. I don't expect that to be the case though. I expect Relic and Arenanet and Blizzard and Valve to make games that look vastly superior to Battlefield 3 on systems half as powerful. If and when they arrive then I'll upgrade. Before then, well I'm not spending £300 on Battlefield 3.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you're kidding? Or just really dumb. Of COURSE new games look better! Sake man. Go look at StarCraft compared to StarCraft II. Do you notice a difference!? If not, go get your eyes tested.

How on earth do you know it's bloated?! Have you played it yet? Just because it doesn't support DX9 doesn't mean it's bloated. It would probably we worse if it DID support DX9! Even then, a lot of gamers who want to buy BF3 WILL have the cards to play it at full graphics. And those that don't, will simply turn it down a bit.

BF 3 WILL look better than BF2. So stop saying it won't look better:

SharqiBF2VsBF3.jpg
 
Last edited:
moving on....

SYSTEM SPECS :D

have been looking into the specs needed to play this and it looks like I may need a GTX460, but im not ready to upgrade my card as i havn't had it for long but if i do go and get one anyway is there much difference between to 768 GB and the 1024 GB and also why do these cards remind me of the GTX260 are they another rebrand???
 
QlimaxUK said:
moving on....

SYSTEM SPECS :D

have been looking into the specs needed to play this and it looks like I may need a GTX460, but im not ready to upgrade my card as i havn't had it for long but if i do go and get one anyway is there much difference between to 768 GB and the 1024 GB and also why do these cards remind me of the GTX260 are they another rebrand???
Click to expand...

GTX 460 are nowhere NEAR a rebrand...

It's just NVIDIA using there usual naming convention, 400 series, and moving up through the numbers in terms of better cards.
 
madindehead said:
Thanks for the posting the proper information Tefal. I stupidly didn't check the date on that gif.

Please tell me you're kidding? Or just really dumb. Of COURSE new games look better! Sake man. Go look at StarCraft compared to StarCraft II. Do you notice a difference!? If not, go get your eyes tested.

How on earth do you know it's bloated?! Have you played it yet? Just because it doesn't support DX9 doesn't mean it's bloated. It would probably we worse if it DID support DX9! Even then, a lot of gamers who want to buy BF3 WILL have the cards to play it at full graphics. And those that don't, will simply turn it down a bit.

BF 3 WILL look better than BF2. So stop saying it won't look better:

[http://www.callmedom94.net/Battlefield 3/Wake Island/SharqiBF2VsBF3.jpg
Click to expand...

Obviously graphics have improved since Starcraft or Battlefield 2 but since Crysis? I'm just not seeing it. As for bloated it needs a 6850 just for the recommended settings for a game that will run on the 360.
 
Last edited:
Rack said:
Obviously graphics have improved since Starcraft or Battlefield 2 but since Crysis? I'm just not seeing it. As for bloated it needs a 6850 just for the recommended settings for a game that will run on the 360.
Click to expand...

The Xbox version is cut down and runs on standardised hardware. It's not a case of taking the PC version and just tuning back the AA and texture res as you seem to think.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just simple now...
 
The above pic of BF3 ain't even in game....

I cannot see why anyone would stay with Windows XP, it does not run anything better than W7 and there is virtual XP on Windows 7, and can always dual boot for the fare times Windows XP may be needed.

I think people who "prefer" XP are just trying to kid themselves or cba to do the huge effort that is install an OS.
 
orderoftheflame said:
The Xbox version is cut down and runs on standardised hardware. It's not a case of taking the PC version and just tuning back the AA and texture res as you seem to think.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just simple now...
Click to expand...

You're cutting them a crazy amount of slack there, it was one thing when Oblivion needed a 7800 to keep pace or even when Mirrors Edge needed an 8800 to keep pace. But needing a 460 GTX to keep pace with the 360, even if that includes the odd DX10 graphical effect that can't be disabled, is pretty crazy stuff.

That said I've just noticed the requirements I've referred to aren't official, so it could yet be reasonably optimised and GameStop are just trolling Dice here.
 
The 360 will run the game at a much lower resolution and has completely standardised hardware, do you realise how much easier it is to optimise a system when there are no variables to account for? Every single 360 is identical, no PC is.
 
Broken Hope said:
The 360 will run the game at a much lower resolution and has completely standardised hardware, do you realise how much easier it is to optimise a system when there are no variables to account for? Every single 360 is identical, no PC is.
Click to expand...

Which is why the PC version of Mirrors Edge needed an 8800. That argument shouldn't be allowed to run forever though, otherwise you'd need a GT 590 just to run Final Fight.
 
Rack you're talking rollocks to be honest.

The 360 is not running the same game as the pc, it can't.
It's not about 'keeping pace' with the consoles at all, PC hardware can absolutely decimate console gfx output, but developers have far more variables to code for.
 
I'm running the BF3 alpha on a stock 5850 and it really does run smoothly and look really amazing on 1680 x 1050

There isn't much in the way of video options in the alpha so i left it set on auto but i can say for sure it's not running on low settings, Any program that would normally show fps doesn't work properly due to some bug in game (fraps was showing 580 fps most of the time).
 
Squark said:
Rack you're talking rollocks to be honest.

The 360 is not running the same game as the pc, it can't.
It's not about 'keeping pace' with the consoles at all, PC hardware can absolutely decimate console gfx output, but developers have far more variables to code for.
Click to expand...

Really? It kind of seems like they're both exactly the same game with the PC able to turn on a few extra lighting effects and potentially run at a higher resolution. But if you have to turn all those niceties off to get playable framerates at a middling resolution on a 6850 as the recommended specs suggest you do then that is pretty shocking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom