Battlefield 3 = no dx9

mglover070588 said:
True, but for me gameplay is just as important as graphics in an FPS game.
Crysis may not be the best gameplay out there (by far imo) but it makes mer say 'wow'.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying we need graphics enhancements, but take BC2 for an example. It looks waaaaaaaaay better on a PC than on console, but the gameplay is still fairly shallow. DICE heard us but only half responded; we got great graphics and dedi servers, but they kinda forgot we also meant we want gameplay differences to the consoles.

Not to say I don't like BC2 though.
 
Swi1ch said:
I'm not denying we need graphics enhancements, but take BC2 for an example. It looks waaaaaaaaay better on a PC than on console, but the gameplay is still fairly shallow. DICE heard us but only half responded; we got great graphics and dedi servers, but they kinda forgot we also meant we want gameplay differences to the consoles.

Not to say I don't like BC2 though.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I have played BC2 a lot. I am rank 34 already out of 50.

My gaming time on BF2 (around 350 hours) is twice that of BC2.
However on BF2, I could play for another 10 years and I wouldn't hit top rank.
 
Long as it has 64 players, bigger maps than bc2 (I expect at least the size of gulf of oman 64 player version) and jets, then I'm not bothered if they drop dx9.
 
Tefal said:
all they've done is remove dx9support for the pc, that's hardly making it "pc game".


The engine clearly still supports dx9 no problem otherwise it wouldn't have a console version.

dx9 was probably removed for cost/ease of design purposes rather than to make it a "true" pc game, and has just been spun that way.
Click to expand...

This.
 
I'm glad they are killing off DX9, it means things are finally starting to move along again, news like this just means progression and progression is always good.

It also means the PC version wont be a console port, it will hopefully be built specifically for PC, I love BC2 and I think the PC version is fantastic but the slightest bit of news that indicates the PC version will be built from the ground up for the PC gets me moist
 
Sounds too good to be true, it must be a trap. Its a console port but they mangled the os code so it doesnt work on xp, rather then fix its covered with a deliberate 'no dx9'

You can get destroyable items and buildings even in bf2. Its the range that was impressive with bc
 
skullman said:
This.
Click to expand...

This.

They just say this as a political way to fob the pc gamers off.

If there is no DX9 then how the hell can it run on consoles, its obviously a lie.

Its got to the point that we dont really need stronger hardware for gaming on pc's now untill the next generation of consoles.
The funny thing is our pc's are at least 3x the power of a console its just the developers arent making them purely for pc, and are keeping it back for consoles.

So really our current gaming pc's will do what next gen consoles will do.

Really ticks me off :(
 
Last edited:
Why is everyone getting there hopes up over scrapping DX9? Last time i checked graphics were not the hallmark of gaming and the mechanics of the game will not be affected. Just because it might look prettier won't make it any better or worse of a game.
 
Margaret said:
Hilarious, developers/publishers say PC doesn't have a big enough revenue yet they go and alienate a massive amount of people by removing DX9 support. Good job.
Click to expand...

They did exactly the same thing last time with battlefield 2. They decided not to support geforce4 cards because their pixel shader was too basic. People were forced to upgrade, and seeing as the game was so good, on the whole they were happy to do it.
 
jimbob27 said:
They did exactly the same thing last time with battlefield 2. They decided not to support geforce4 cards because their pixel shader was too basic. People were forced to upgrade, and seeing as the game was so good, on the whole they were happy to do it.
Click to expand...

I had to upgrade for BF2 back in 2005 (1gb ram made it run badly on 64 player maps).

Was it worth it? Well, 350 hours of gameplay later I can say....YES!
 
Evilsod said:
Why is everyone getting there hopes up over scrapping DX9? Last time i checked graphics were not the hallmark of gaming and the mechanics of the game will not be affected. Just because it might look prettier won't make it any better or worse of a game.
Click to expand...

Well if it was built up for dx10/11 it would be more efficent for the same looks so you could do more (ie more destruction/objects etc), so it could affect game play by giveing them more options for the same hardware.
 
dx10 isnt just graphics. dx10 and 11 introduce efficiency savings elsewhere as well. If they are able to just assume everyone has access to those it should yield something new and/or uncap the extremes in the game maybe including player numbers

Ive yet to see a dx10 game which did that though, long time waiting for nothing much so far thanks to consoles but mainly the failure of vista adoption pretty much, this rumour is possibly true just maybe because win7 isnt crap and has sold and is selling far more widely
 
So PS3 and XBox 360 only support DX9. But I thought these consoles have different system software whereas DX9 is only supported in Windows, so how these consoles got Dx9?:confused:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom