Battlefield 3 is DICE's third numerical installment in the Battlefield franchise. It features a single player and co-operative campaign, as well as an extensive multiplayer component.
Based on your specs, I'm guessing mid-range settings. Buying the console version wouldn't make any difference.
So you are saying the consoles are Medium settings?
SO WRONG. They tuned down the number of players in MP and the size of the maps so the graphics still look great..
Obviously you are not a PC Gamer, not because of your name-color but your poor knowledge about these topics.
Graphical quality is not subjective and graphics settings does not revolve around texture quality and anti-aliasing. Sure the console version may have high texture quality and lighting but have poor settings on post-processing, particles, volumetric effects, anisotropic filtering, and so on. Thats why its on medium settings.
Uh actually i do play pc games.
By the look of the trailers and the gameplay the console version will look great. You pc fanboys always want to prove a point so badly because Pc gaming is far less populair then Console gaming. And you feel better about yourself knowing you still support it.
You pc fanboys always want to prove a point so badly because Pc gaming is far less populair then Console gaming. And you feel better about yourself knowing you still support it.
I doubt that. By that kind of logic, my favorite tv show is far less popular than American Idol, and my favorite singer is far less popular than Justin Bieber.
Nah, in this case, I just want to see what mayhem happens when you get 64 people on the same map, and I'm also stoked to see what a game that makes full use of tessellation, transparency anti-aliasing, and ambient occlusion looks like. Every once in a while, I want to see what the state of the art in eye candy is, and I think this'll be the game to properly impress. Doesn't hurt that it looks like it'll be a crap-ton of fun too.
All of this arguing is getting me pumped for BF3, I'm even having BF3 dreams at night. I can't wait to see these forums when the game is actually released. Hopefully DICE will be proactive with patching in fixes to balance the game. I have a bad feeling the 64 player conquest matches are not going to be very fun with the way the flags have been placed in Caspian Borders. Ahmad is right, it's a death circle.
Based on your specs, I'm guessing mid-range settings. Buying the console version wouldn't make any difference.
So you are saying the consoles are Medium settings?
SO WRONG. They tuned down the number of players in MP and the size of the maps so the graphics still look great..
Obviously you are not a PC Gamer, not because of your name-color but your poor knowledge about these topics.
Graphical quality is not subjective and graphics settings does not revolve around texture quality and anti-aliasing. Sure the console version may have high texture quality and lighting but have poor settings on post-processing, particles, volumetric effects, anisotropic filtering, and so on. Thats why its on medium settings.
Uh actually i do play pc games.
By the look of the trailers and the gameplay the console version will look great. You pc fanboys always want to prove a point so badly because Pc gaming is far less populair then Console gaming. And you feel better about yourself knowing you still support it.
So you have proven you do play PC games, too bad it is not the topic at hand. Congratulations on dodging the initial discussion, makes me feel good on your lack of proper argument. Yeah, console version looks great, and dog food tastes good to the person who eats shit their whole lives.
Argumentum ad populum, a typical logical fallacy(usually presented by fanboys). Example: "Console gaming is popular, I am correct!".
Quick question to everyone here: My PC meets all of the recommended requirements except for the video ram (recommended 1gb). Can You Run It? (From what other people have said I shouldn't really trust it) tells me that I only have 751.1 mb of ram on my card while everywhere else I've checked (various retailer sites and the card company's webpage) lists it as having 1gb of ram. Is this like hard drive space on a new computer ( a PC will have 500gb hard drive but will have a little less due to the OS installed and whatnot?), or am I being fed false information by either Can You Run It?/Retail sites?
Oh, my card is an AMD Radeon HD6850.
I would like to know this too. Can You Run It? says the same about my video card.
@yorro: And the console version does look great lol.
If you want to spend 1500 bucks to play battlefield at the top max settings. While i can have just as much fun with it on the console go ahead.
Elitest pc gamers lol. You guys make me laugh sometimes.
$1500? I have no idea what kind of system upgrade that would be, but I'm looking at dropping around $200 to upgrade the video card in my 2.5 year old computer for this, and other games, and perhaps to get a bit of a boost in my HD video editing performance. I play games on a number of different platforms, and enjoy them all. I don't think it's so elitist to want to play a game with one of the biggest selling points being 64-player mayhem, if I've already got the means to do so.
Now, if I went out and bought a whole new computer just to play one game, then yes, I'd expect to be called crazy and laughed at...but who's doing that?
@yorro: I do remember a study that showed there are more pc gamers.
But 80% was like people that play games on facebook;. True pc gamers right?
Your link does not even work....
It doesn't matter what games you play, only an elitist will attack you for what you play. Even if you remove casual gamers, PC Gamers still outnumber the Console Gamers(China alone is worth millions)
@yorro: And the console version does look great lol.
If you want to spend 1500 bucks to play battlefield at the top max settings. While i can have just as much fun with it on the console go ahead.
Elitest pc gamers lol. You guys make me laugh sometimes.
Why are you keep coming back to "console version looks great"? We've already established that, my argument is that the PC version will look significantly better and without sacrificing cool features such as map size and player count.
No one spends $1500 on a gaming machine on one game. Your argument is mute.
Insults with no basis, it doesn't help defending your case.
@yorro: And the console version does look great lol.
If you want to spend 1500 bucks to play battlefield at the top max settings. While i can have just as much fun with it on the console go ahead.
Elitest pc gamers lol. You guys make me laugh sometimes.
Nobody spends $1500 on a PC just to play one game, even if people say they are upgrading for BF3 they will not just use the computer for that and the upgrade will benefit them in additional ways.
When it comes down to it I have the luxury of choice between PC and consoles because I didn't want to put up with a second rate PC as my main work/leisure machine. I wanted a computer that could encode video, edit video, do Photoshop work, store vasts amount of data and cope with having many tabs open (not 4-5) while smoothly browsing the net. I added in a decent graphics card and boom, I can play any PC game out at 1080P. It hasn't really even cost me that much, more expensive than console, though, but I've gotten far more use out of this computer making it money well spent.
and I don't know about that. Personally I wouldn't have as much fun if I was playing the console version with inferior visuals, half the player count and half the framerate. It's easy for me to say that as I have the option of playing it on PC available to me, say what you will about graphics and the frame rate not mattering but it's still providing me with a better experience. I'm not even an elitist PC gamer, lately my Steam games have gone untouched and I've found myself on my PS3 and PS2 an awful lot.
@DrCornwalliz said:
@insane_shadowblade85 said:
I apologize for hijacking this thread.
Quick question to everyone here: My PC meets all of the recommended requirements except for the video ram (recommended 1gb). Can You Run It? (From what other people have said I shouldn't really trust it) tells me that I only have 751.1 mb of ram on my card while everywhere else I've checked (various retailer sites and the card company's webpage) lists it as having 1gb of ram. Is this like hard drive space on a new computer ( a PC will have 500gb hard drive but will have a little less due to the OS installed and whatnot?), or am I being fed false information by either Can You Run It?/Retail sites?
Oh, my card is an AMD Radeon HD6850.
I would like to know this too. Can You Run It? says the same about my video card.
A 6850 will be fine. Cards far worse than that were performing quite well on the alpha.
Those online websites that check system specifications are terrible. Don't take anything they say seriously.
As an aside the word moot is also an Australian working class euphemism for cunt. Another entertaining one is Hairy Axe Wound. As to which is the better of the two, the argument is moot.
Jesus Christ people. I was going to upgrade my computer for this game but hey, looks like we are now going to expect a child. Rather then spend the money on upgrading my computer, it is going to baby stuff so instead, I will gladly go with the 360 version. Why? It will be a great game. It may not have the higher player count or better graphics but if it provides Battlefield fun, I don't care. And you know, if you do choose to buy the 360 or PS3 version, it isn't the end of the world. Maybe you like it soo much, you can actually go to the store and pick up the PC version. The sales clerk won't judge you at all. Why? Because it is pointless arguing.
And honestly, the game runs CQ (it's all I play because rush is a load of shit) at about 30-40 fps with everything on medium. I've turned everything to low and it looks exactly the same, and gave me a 10fps boost. I don't know if that's just a beta thing or what but I'll use it. This game seems much more GPU limited than BC2 (which was hardcore CPU limited).
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment