Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
I think it will take the next gen of gpu's to make the most of it. I think that it will run ok this gen but at high res it will slow down in heavy fighting
Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -
- Thread starter [TFU] Thegoon84
- Start date
- Status
I think it will take the next gen of gpu's to make the most of it. I think that it will run ok this gen but at high res it will slow down in heavy fighting
Really? I would have thought the current generation of top end cards would be more than enough. Yes it looks purdy but all the new tech we have at the minute is pretty overkill for every game out there (thanks consoles) with the odd exception of some badly optimised games. Havn't seen their full potential put to the test and although this game loooks lovely, it isnt lightyears ahead of whats out there already (it is easily ahead but not overly far to tax what we have available). just my thoughts which could be complete parp.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Thank god, the more "crysis/farcry" type games out that push hardware forwards and the other games companies to match the quality of the best stuff out the better, thats the best possible thing for PC gaming, games that push the need for more hardware and games that set a benchmark other companies have to match.
You bring out a game that looks like that and the COD guys will have a game that looks so old in comparison they'll finally make a new engine and push forwards, and then so will someone else, then so will a dozen other companies, and then the need for the next gen of consoles comes out to keep console gaming even slightly up to date, and the whole industry moves forwards, fantastic.
As for saying this is a marginal step forwards, not even slightly.
This is what people seem to not be understanding, and Pottsey if you read the gpu forum simply doesn't understand in terms of gaming complexity.
Diminishing returns, the harder the newer effects get the more power they take to use. Pottsey thinks mobile gaming is catching up because you have a few games on there, but prebaking textures and very basic lighting take next to no power, half decent lighting takes a HUGE amount of extra power and insanely high quality lighting will take massive amounts of power extra again.
But realistically, if that is in game footage it could easily be the best looking game to date, animation, I said it was small changes and it was, but its actually going from a model with only a few pivot points to something with far more complex motion, but that brings a heck of a lot of other downsides, AND bonuses to it.
The downside is buggyness, instead of making sure clothing doesn't clip and looks realistic with just the arms moving back and forth, now you've got to check everything looks right when the arms move left and right, when the shoulders move, when the shoulders move relative to the hips, etc, etc, etc. Its exponentially more complex even if the actual movement itself is only a minor adjustment. However the realism of their movement is something I've not seen before(in a real game, or a real time tech demo).
An advantage off the top of my head, is potentially better hit detection as each part of the body gets more complex and more complete, and in terms of seeing a guy get shot, rather than just a chest hit and ragdoll effects where 4 points swing about rather daftly, the guy can now be shot in the left shoulder, and he can spin and move as if hit in that left shoulder specifically, again adding to the realism.
The closer you get to "realistic" looking effects, you'll be looking for exponentially more power and complexity to achieve it.
ANyway as said, the more one game pushes the more other games have to push to follow.
I mean this comes out and looks like amassive leap forward, and Dragon Age 2 comes out and looks like a massive leap backwards..... Bioware/EA will look like idiots and their next game will most likely be a massive leap forwards.
I agree Podmonkey,there is plenty of graphics capable of going to run BF3,imm sure my 5870 card will run anygame for next few years with ease.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Not saying it will run poorly but if bf2 is anything to go by they tend to push the hardware. For example bf2 was the first game that really needed 2gig ram for better loading times and did need fairly new gc at min specs. But iam just speculating, keeping the hype rolling i say
I'm not sure the animation will make a massive difference to performance, especially when you consider they are obviously suitable to be run on comparatively steam driven console hardware. Yes, when you crank the graphics right up there might be some issues, but the animation side of it is something that's going to be shared across all platforms, so I think it's safe to assume that the performance impact of whatever improvements they've brought should be minimal.
Source?
Was in a Dice tweet, if I can find it I'll link it.
will try harder 
For dice that stems from before the bad company 2 launch, Gordan Van Dyke made the call for the devs to not post on the official forums as much and since that its just been twitter. Slightly pathetic that the official forum is near devoid of official replies from developers and you have to go to a third party "trend of the moment" site to get info.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,017
- Location
- Midlands
I'm actually worried about the reception of this game from the pc gamers. Knowing their childish moaning hard to please attitude, i hope dice don't abandon the platform and make ports like the rest of the devs.
- Status