Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BF3 vs BFBC2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 19, 2011 8:27:02 AM

I can max out Battlefield Bad Company 2 and get almost 100fps in most cases. But I am curious about how much more taxing Battlefield 3 and the frostbite 2.0 engine will be on your hardware. Currently, the most hardware-torturing PC games are Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and Metro 2033. Will Battlefield 3 overtake those titles in terms of hardware demand and overall performance?

Can BF3 be played (maxed out) with a playable framerate with existing hardware? I saw the trailer for BF3 and there are some jaw-dropping visuals. But I doubt it will give Crysis a run for it's money. EA/DICE hasn't said much in terms in recommended system requirements. Also, the game isn't even out yet, so nobody knows how it will run on top-end gaming PC's.

I can play BFBC2 on 1920x1080 with 8x MSAA and everything else set as high as it can go. And I get about 85-90 fps, but BF3 might give very different performance results on my machine.

*Core i7 930
*6GB DDR3 RAM
*MSI X58 enthusiast motherboard
*Two Radeon HD 5870's in CFX

More about : bf3 bfbc2

June 19, 2011 12:43:08 PM

the biggest problem your gonna have with your system is norton it will cripple the performance of your pc as time goes on as it will embed itself into your o.s.
get the norton removal tool, uninstall norton run the tool to get rid of any left overs, then in six months come back and tell us that norton has asked for an update....

really m8 get rid of that crap...

as for the game it will run fine on 1 5870 never mind 2.
you may see a slight performance increase but when you turn on all the ambient occlusion fps will drop to 30ish on a single card and on 2 its likely to be 50 fps at best... which is still very playable whether you have 1 or 2 cards.
1thing you will need to do is oc your cpu. as they will be using cpu based physics so the faster your cpu the better the game will perform over all.
m
0
l
June 19, 2011 12:51:38 PM

HEXiT said:
the biggest problem your gonna have with your system is norton it will cripple the performance of your pc as time goes on as it will embed itself into your o.s.
get the norton removal tool, uninstall norton run the tool to get rid of any left overs, then in six months come back and tell us that norton has asked for an update....

really m8 get rid of that crap...

as for the game it will run fine on 1 5870 never mind 2.
you may see a slight performance increase but when you turn on all the ambient occlusion fps will drop to 30ish on a single card and on 2 its likely to be 50 fps at best... which is still very playable whether you have 1 or 2 cards.


I get 35-60 fps with Crysis on all "very high" spec on 1920x1080. There are a few times during heavy action (like the last level) where it slows down a bit, but it's mostly smooth sailing throughout the whole game.

As long as I disable anti-aliasing and motion blur, Crysis can smoothly be played at extremely high settings and at 1080p resolution. If I can run Crysis at those settings, maxing out BF3 should be fairly easy? Maxing BFBC2 is a piece of cake.

When will Crysis be "unthroned" as the #1 torturer of graphics cards? It's been four years and Crysis is still the ultimate nemesis of PC hardware, especially GPUs. Metro 2033 is also extremely taxing, almost as taxing as furmark, especially when trying to run it on 2560x1600 with tesselation enabled and maximum AA.

My monitors refresh rate is 75Hz, so any framerate greater than that number that is limited by the monitor. 50-60fps is extremely playable.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 21, 2011 1:48:30 PM

I'll say it again: I fully expect BF3 to be this generations Crysis. I expect to see CPU bottlenecks, and I'm interested to see how big a hit enabling Tesselation brings...

You'll be able to play, but I doubt any current rig could max BF3 at laucnh...
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 2:19:13 PM

They will need to make the game playable on console as well hence i dont think it will be this gens crysis, it wont be bringing the latest hardware to its knees. However it will much better then the usual games out these days.

I would think a 5870 in CF should be more then enough. Minimum specs are a 8800GTX, 5870 in CF would be atleast 4 times more powerful. I think that should be enough.
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 3:48:09 PM

i think the minimum spec will be an 88gt not a gtx as the gtx has 768mb of ram and you can see below it clearly says 512mb

Minimum requirements for Battlefield 3
OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
RAM: 2GB
Graphic card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card.
Graphics card memory: 512 MB
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-system-requirements/
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 4:10:19 PM

kashifme21 said:
They will need to make the game playable on console as well hence i dont think it will be this gens crysis, it wont be bringing the latest hardware to its knees. However it will much better then the usual games out these days.


This will not be a console port. This was designed for the PC and dumbed down for the consoles. On the consoles it will run at 720p at 30fps.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/06/battlefield-...
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 4:15:23 PM

Everyone is so scared of the BF3 ghost. Wait till it comes out. DICE is a company that knows how to make a great game that runs smoothly. The visuals, although outstanding, are developed by an intelligent and user consciencious company that will make sure it is totally playable. " Oh noes, i cant max out MSAA!!!!!!" whatevs. the most demanding games out are totally playable on single GPU systems , and i dont think DICE would blow toes off at short range to have the bragging rights of best looking game. They will deliver on both visuals, and functionality.
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 7:28:00 PM

Everyone thought Crysis 2 was going to be a bad arse comp killer also and look how it turned out.
m
0
l
June 21, 2011 8:06:27 PM

Battlefield 3 demos were run on PC at E3. Anyone know what they were running under the hood?

My guess is it'll be a little more power demanding than BFBC2 but you won't need twice the PC. In fact, EA promissed to develop for PC first and port it to console (and not the other way around).
m
0
l
June 22, 2011 2:08:17 AM

FlintIronStagg said:
Everyone is so scared of the BF3 ghost. Wait till it comes out. DICE is a company that knows how to make a great game that runs smoothly. The visuals, although outstanding, are developed by an intelligent and user consciencious company that will make sure it is totally playable. " Oh noes, i cant max out MSAA!!!!!!" whatevs. the most demanding games out are totally playable on single GPU systems , and i dont think DICE would blow toes off at short range to have the bragging rights of best looking game. They will deliver on both visuals, and functionality.


Agreed. I'm tired of people's paranoia about this game. Yes, it will require more juice but you won't need to upgrade your machine to play an arcade game. As long as people have an average machine and not some typewriter with a screen, you should be able to play the game fine. Perhaps not maxed out, but you will be able to play reasonably well.
m
0
l
June 22, 2011 4:16:20 AM

I dont think EA/ DICE knows anything about making a great game that runs smoothly. They put it out, update a couple times, and they guess what. *** you consumer, were working on something new for you to spend your money on. BFBC2 has had nothing but issues since day one, and they fix some to create others.
Just my $.02
m
0
l
June 22, 2011 4:29:47 AM

BohleyK said:
Agreed. I'm tired of people's paranoia about this game. Yes, it will require more juice but you won't need to upgrade your machine to play an arcade game. As long as people have an average machine and not some typewriter with a screen, you should be able to play the game fine. Perhaps not maxed out, but you will be able to play reasonably well.


I won't need a 6-core CPU @ 4.0 GHz, 12GB of RAM, and 3-way SLI GTX 580's to play BF3 on it's max settings?
m
0
l
June 22, 2011 11:00:33 PM

no you will need cpu @ 7.3, 32GB Ram, and 6 way SLI 590's just to play on medium at 22fps
m
0
l
June 25, 2011 12:27:58 AM

johnsmith_1985 said:
I dont think EA/ DICE knows anything about making a great game that runs smoothly. They put it out, update a couple times, and they guess what. *** you consumer, were working on something new for you to spend your money on. BFBC2 has had nothing but issues since day one, and they fix some to create others.
Just my $.02


Yeah. Its my favorite game besides Civ5 and I can't even play it unless I run BC2 in DX9 because either the video will crash or I just memory dump. Great game, severely flawed design.

If BF3 has similar issues I'm going to rage.
m
0
l
June 26, 2011 4:46:07 AM

They probably aren't going to make it super computer stressful considering not everyone has a super computer, I'm guessing its going need a tad bit more than BF:BC2
m
0
l
June 26, 2011 7:41:32 PM

The specs are going to be similar to Bad Company 2, but obviously a little higher. An employee supposedly said that there is no computer which can max Battlefield 3 as of now. The trailers of the game are also said to not be shown at max settings. While the requirements are going to be higher the game is also not going to be a console port and so it will be very well optimized. They used a single GTX 580 for the show but being in Pre-Alpha I'm sure they haven't gotten to optimization yet.
m
0
l
June 27, 2011 12:03:37 PM

Quote:
They probably aren't going to make it super computer stressful considering not everyone has a super computer, I'm guessing its going need a tad bit more than BF:BC2


Not everyone has Vista/7 either, but that isn't stopping them from ditching 50% of their potential market.

Based on past experiance [BFV and BF2 in particular], I'd be shocked if any current rig could max BF3 at playable speeds. Heck, BC2 is a CPU hog as it as, and with a much more robust physics engine, I expect most CPU's to simply not be able to shoulder the load at max settings.

And then, everyone who's been complaining about lack of graphical progress on PC's will start to rage that the game is too slow to max out.
m
0
l
June 27, 2011 2:31:33 PM

gamerk316 said:
Quote:
They probably aren't going to make it super computer stressful considering not everyone has a super computer, I'm guessing its going need a tad bit more than BF:BC2


Not everyone has Vista/7 either, but that isn't stopping them from ditching 50% of their potential market.

Based on past experiance [BFV and BF2 in particular], I'd be shocked if any current rig could max BF3 at playable speeds. Heck, BC2 is a CPU hog as it as, and with a much more robust physics engine, I expect most CPU's to simply not be able to shoulder the load at max settings.

And then, everyone who's been complaining about lack of graphical progress on PC's will start to rage that the game is too slow to max out.

I'm pretty sure the complaint refers to the lack of games showing graphical prowess thus impeding progress to hardware and technology. One game coming out per year or so that pushes the limits isn't enough for the industry to make leaps and bounds technology wise.
m
0
l
June 27, 2011 5:12:26 PM

I've changed my mind. I hope BF3 is a total Hardware Whore. Then we can all say: "...but can it run Battlefield3?!"

It wasn't a bad thing that Crysis was so over the top. In fact, because it was so demanding is what gave Crysis its reputation. So its not totally unbelievable that BF3 could be the same in that respect. As long as the SP campaign isn't something a 16 year old aspiring science fiction author made up, it should be all good.
m
0
l
June 28, 2011 12:02:29 PM

Quote:
I'm pretty sure the complaint refers to the lack of games showing graphical prowess thus impeding progress to hardware and technology. One game coming out per year or so that pushes the limits isn't enough for the industry to make leaps and bounds technology wise.


Well, considering there haven't been any significant graphical upgrades to the DX API since DX 9.0a launched, that makes sense. The only major enhancement in the DX API over the last few years is Tesselation, and for most games, its too slow to use. The rest [DX10 and 11 in particular] are just speed enhancements and architectual changes.

The problem now is that we are at the point where every incremental upgrade in visual quality requires significantly more processing power, and thus, we only get graphical bumps as cards power increases. Thats why when you look at NVIDIA/AMD presentations, they focus on new AA modes and the like, because thats the only real way tomake things look better at this stage.

I said it two years ago, and I'll say it again: Rasterization is tapped out. Until we move to Ray Tracing, we won't be seeing significant bumps in graphical performance [hence why I want more focus on physics and gameplay elements].
m
0
l
June 28, 2011 11:22:11 PM

I sense the fear over the specs required to play this game with every setting maxxed out but calm down people, really?

If "no current hardware could ever play it at full settings on launch day" how were EA able to show it off at E3 on a PC?

Secondly, why would EA/DICE make a game that only 3% of PC owners could play at max settings? Simple answer is that they wouldn't.

BF3 is going to be the 'show off' game to have on your gaming rig for the next year at most, before something even more power-hungry comes along to take it's crown. Crysis 3 or even Duke Nukem Forever 2!?! Hehe :-)
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 12:51:23 PM

Quote:
If "no current hardware could ever play it at full settings on launch day" how were EA able to show it off at E3 on a PC?


Medium settings.

Quote:
Secondly, why would EA/DICE make a game that only 3% of PC owners could play at max settings? Simple answer is that they wouldn't.


Crysis & Warhead. So they can and did. I'd even throw BF2 into that category.
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 2:20:22 PM

I think I read somewhere that they were not playing the game on highest settings at E3... but dont quote me on that. if those are medium settings I will settle for that, it still looks amazing.
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 8:13:05 PM

I loled, current lastest/best machines won't be able to run BF3 maxed out? what the hell are they going to develop it on then? how are they going to test it if their own machines won't be able to run it? lol, honestly, some people need to go out and buy common sense
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 8:35:18 PM

All of you people need to chill. I've grown quite tired of listening to how revolutionary this game is and how it will require the fastest pc on the planet to run. The graphics honestly do not look that spectacular. All this game is is BC2 with double the players, bigger maps, and jets. That's about it. So I honestly do not believe for a minute that no machine today can max it. Please post the link where a DICE/EA employee states that, and I will reconsider.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 12:03:49 PM

Quote:
I loled, current lastest/best machines won't be able to run BF3 maxed out? what the hell are they going to develop it on then? how are they going to test it if their own machines won't be able to run it? lol, honestly, some people need to go out and buy common sense


*points at Crysis*

You can test graphical goodness @ 15 FPS, but its sure not "playable" speed.

Quote:
All of you people need to chill. I've grown quite tired of listening to how revolutionary this game is and how it will require the fastest pc on the planet to run. The graphics honestly do not look that spectacular. All this game is is BC2 with double the players, bigger maps, and jets. That's about it. So I honestly do not believe for a minute that no machine today can max it. Please post the link where a DICE/EA employee states that, and I will reconsider.


And a massivly updated physics engine, and 64-player multiplayer, and MUCH larger maps, etc.

I'm going on Dices past history on this one, and that history shows that BF games tend to break most PC's come launch time. And based on what they are implementing, I fully expect BF3 to crush most every PC out there.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 1:19:55 PM

maxing out bf3 may be an issue for some. any1 with a an i7 920 or up and a 460 ins sli or equivalent crossfire should be able to max it and get 60 fps.
dice can make demanding games but on low settings virtually every 1 can play there games as long as you hardware is less than 3-4 years old and you bought a decent setup then not a budget 1 then you will be able to at least experience it.

i should at least get 90 percent of max on my single card setup and get 60fps.
and my system is approaching 2 years old now. to get the final 10 percent i thing your talking gfx cards with 2 or more gigs of ram or extreme crossfire/sli setups...
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 2:43:53 PM

trogdor796 said:
All of you people need to chill. I've grown quite tired of listening to how revolutionary this game is and how it will require the fastest pc on the planet to run. The graphics honestly do not look that spectacular. All this game is is BC2 with double the players, bigger maps, and jets. That's about it. So I honestly do not believe for a minute that no machine today can max it. Please post the link where a DICE/EA employee states that, and I will reconsider.


EA and DICE have already stated that this is the direct sequel to BF2... maybe you aren't familiar with BF2 but it was pretty amazing . The Bad Company series was effectively just a side project to the actual BF series.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 3:47:58 PM

easymark26 said:
EA and DICE have already stated that this is the direct sequel to BF2... maybe you aren't familiar with BF2 but it was pretty amazing . The Bad Company series was effectively just a side project to the actual BF series.

Really? Because when I look at this game, it looks nothing like BF2 or 2142. It looks much more like the Bad Company series. Which is fail. They said it is supposed to be a direct sequel, but the way they are marketing it and showing it, it doesn't look like that at all. BF2 had a commander in multi-player. Does BF3? Nope. BF2/any true battlefield game(all except Bad Company 1 and 2) was muli-player only/no single-player. Yet they are wasting time with a single-player story for BF3 that will most likely suck just like the ones in both bad company games and their new Medal of Honor did. I simply do not understand why they would bother. Almost all shooter campaigns suck. Nobody buys a shooter for the sp. How people think this game looks like a true sequel and not another Bad Company is beyond me. Btw, I own BF2, 2142, and both Bad Company games. My brother owns 1942 and Vietnam. So I have experience with all of them.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 5:52:23 PM

just because you don't appreciate the single player, doesn't mean other people are the same way.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 7:15:46 PM

I appreciate the single player if it's good. But the sp for BC1 and BC2 sucked, most will agree. And if you think there needs to be a sp in Battlefield you are playing the wrong kind of game. They are spending time that could have been used to perfect the multi player. Are you saying you honestly want Singleplayer in BF3? You didn't have it BF2 or any other true battlefield game, why is it in this one? I don't get why people are fine with them adding single player. It's stupid.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 8:21:03 PM

from what i read somewhere, the pc version of bf3 was running on a single gtx 580 and an i7 cpu (non sb). cant find the link but it should be somewhere out there in the interwebs
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 8:22:05 PM

trogdor796 said:
Really? Because when I look at this game, it looks nothing like BF2 or 2142. It looks much more like the Bad Company series. Which is fail. They said it is supposed to be a direct sequel, but the way they are marketing it and showing it, it doesn't look like that at all. BF2 had a commander in multi-player. Does BF3? Nope. BF2/any true battlefield game(all except Bad Company 1 and 2) was muli-player only/no single-player. Yet they are wasting time with a single-player story for BF3 that will most likely suck just like the ones in both bad company games and their new Medal of Honor did. I simply do not understand why they would bother. Almost all shooter campaigns suck. Nobody buys a shooter for the sp. How people think this game looks like a true sequel and not another Bad Company is beyond me. Btw, I own BF2, 2142, and both Bad Company games. My brother owns 1942 and Vietnam. So I have experience with all of them.


they bother with sp to appeal to a wider audience
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 8:24:31 PM

BF:BC series def doesn't feel like the old BF2 series. It was a new engine, with tweaked gameplay (i.e. no jets, and all other vehicles don't behave/feel like they use to in BF2).

We'll see how it plays but from what I've seen (not played) I'm really hyped about how BF3 will play/feel.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 9:38:28 PM

tomshwuser said:
they bother with sp to appeal to a wider audience

You mean the audience that they catered to with the bad company games, not the players of true and past battlefields, who I feel have been betrayed. They tried remaking MoH recently to go back to their old roots, and look how that turned out. I fear BF3 will turn out the same exact way. I hope I'm wrong though, I really do.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 10:55:09 PM

trogdor796 said:
You mean the audience that they catered to with the bad company games, not the players of true and past battlefields, who I feel have been betrayed. They tried remaking MoH recently to go back to their old roots, and look how that turned out. I fear BF3 will turn out the same exact way. I hope I'm wrong though, I really do.


to some extent you have a point, that audience imo is the console players, i dont see any of them buying a game that does not have some sort of single player. i have yet to see a pure multilayer game in consoles without some kind of single player thing going on. then again i have not gamed on consoles since i had my gamecube and dreamcast so i might be wrong.

I see the sp portion of bf3 as a nice add on...like i did on bc2, i think i tried the sp portion after more than a year after i bought the game as a time sink while i went directly to mp from day 1. i think that is the core of the bf games, multiplayer madness. the sp portion is a nice way to show off their new tech...dont forget also that their main competition has a strong fan base for the sp portion of their game, you cant expect to go out and compete with less.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 10:59:13 PM

trogdor796 said:
You mean the audience that they catered to with the bad company games, not the players of true and past battlefields, who I feel have been betrayed. They tried remaking MoH recently to go back to their old roots, and look how that turned out. I fear BF3 will turn out the same exact way. I hope I'm wrong though, I really do.

I think you are correct, we have already seen this done with Dragon Age 2 vs DAO. In attempt to please new audience they alienate the existing one. :( 
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 11:41:50 PM

trogdor796 said:
You mean the audience that they catered to with the bad company games, not the players of true and past battlefields, who I feel have been betrayed. They tried remaking MoH recently to go back to their old roots, and look how that turned out. I fear BF3 will turn out the same exact way. I hope I'm wrong though, I really do.

I'm fairly sure that the new MoH was made by anotehr company called Danger Close with DICE slapping their name on it to try and boost the multiplayer sales because MS new the game would tank worse than it did without.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 11:43:02 PM

So MoH is probably a bad comparison as far as BF3; a game that has been in development for quite some time now
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 4:03:13 AM

tomshwuser said:
to some extent you have a point, that audience imo is the console players, i dont see any of them buying a game that does not have some sort of single player. i have yet to see a pure multilayer game in consoles without some kind of single player thing going on. then again i have not gamed on consoles since i had my gamecube and dreamcast so i might be wrong.

I see the sp portion of bf3 as a nice add on...like i did on bc2, i think i tried the sp portion after more than a year after i bought the game as a time sink while i went directly to mp from day 1. i think that is the core of the bf games, multiplayer madness. the sp portion is a nice way to show off their new tech...dont forget also that their main competition has a strong fan base for the sp portion of their game, you cant expect to go out and compete with less.

Warhawk for PS3 is, I own it and it's great. It' getting a sequel soon too. The game released nearly 4 years ago and many people still play. But yes, I guess the reason for single player could be the consoles, something this game shouldn't even being made for. Look what happened to Crysis 2, it didn't even launch with dx11, what a joke. I know BF3 is going to, but the fact that this game is on consoles shows they are just trying to get more money. This leads me to beleive the game will not live up to the standards of BF2, but nobody will realize it and just buy it anyway because they think this game is just fine with it's single player and everything else that separates it from a true battlefield game.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 6:05:51 AM

I'm quoting the Development section of the Game BF3 from Wikipedia,We can think Wikipedia a reliable source,Don't we?

"Battlefield 3's lead platform is the PC rather than a console.[5]

Battlefield 3 will use a new Frostbite engine built especially for the game. Known as Frostbite 2, it will deliver more advanced destruction, sound, and graphics than previous versions. The updated Frostbite 2 engine can realistically portray the destruction of buildings and scenery to a greater extent than previous versions. [13] Battlefield 3 uses a new type of character animation technology called ANT. ANT technology is used in EA Sports games such as FIFA, but will now be adapted to create a more realistic soldier, with the ability to transition into cover and turn their head before their body, as well as "drag fallen comrades into safety and mount weapons on almost any part of the terrain".[14][9]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_3

I think EA has not released the official requirements as EA wants to give us surprise...I mean may be EA has create a new idea to make game in which the graphics will be superb but the requirement will be less..I'm saying as you can find at development that the game character animation is gonna be with ANT engine which "is used in EA Sports games such as FIFA" and we know that FIFA doesn't need any high-configuration PC,so Is it not little Hope for Gamers?(excluding me,I'm talking about yours,the Hard-core Gamers)
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 8:47:32 AM

trogdor796 said:
Warhawk for PS3 is, I own it and it's great. It' getting a sequel soon too. The game released nearly 4 years ago and many people still play. But yes, I guess the reason for single player could be the consoles, something this game shouldn't even being made for. Look what happened to Crysis 2, it didn't even launch with dx11, what a joke. I know BF3 is going to, but the fact that this game is on consoles shows they are just trying to get more money. This leads me to beleive the game will not live up to the standards of BF2, but nobody will realize it and just buy it anyway because they think this game is just fine with it's single player and everything else that separates it from a true battlefield game.

Im not trying to split hairs here, but you are praising a console game then criticizing consoles for causing companies to form a single player campaign? I thoroughly enjoy single player campaign and am not too into multiplayer unless it is co op. Just my cup o tea. I guess I should blame consoles for bad multiplayer just because Im not into that sort of thing? Yeah ill just do that, its much easier to complain about stuff than it is to accept that people have different taste than i do. Screw game developers and their stupid attempts to make money to put into other games for us, those assholes.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 5:51:24 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
Im not trying to split hairs here, but you are praising a console game then criticizing consoles for causing companies to form a single player campaign? I thoroughly enjoy single player campaign and am not too into multiplayer unless it is co op. Just my cup o tea. I guess I should blame consoles for bad multiplayer just because Im not into that sort of thing? Yeah ill just do that, its much easier to complain about stuff than it is to accept that people have different taste than i do. Screw game developers and their stupid attempts to make money to put into other games for us, those assholes.

Maybe you should read the message I was quoting? He said he didn't know of a game for consoles that was only multiplayer. I provided him with an example to show that games like that do exist. It's not about people having different tastes than I do. I'm fine with that. It's about game developers ruining a series, which they are by including singleplayer in BF3. If you like single player games and not multiplayer, why are you playing Battlefield in this first place? It's not a single player game. The true ones never have been, and never should be. But EA and DICE don't care about their origins and what made the original battlefield games great. Instead, they simply want to make more money, and to do that they are making it for consoles and adding in SP to appeal to an audience that shouldn't be playing Battlefield in the first place. I know your still going to disagree with me and try to say people like single player, and you can have your opinion. I won't rob you of that. I just don't like that fans of the true battlefield games may not end up with a true successor like they were promised.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 10:28:08 PM

trogdor796 said:
Maybe you should read the message I was quoting? He said he didn't know of a game for consoles that was only multiplayer. I provided him with an example to show that games like that do exist. It's not about people having different tastes than I do. I'm fine with that. It's about game developers ruining a series, which they are by including singleplayer in BF3. If you like single player games and not multiplayer, why are you playing Battlefield in this first place? It's not a single player game. The true ones never have been, and never should be. But EA and DICE don't care about their origins and what made the original battlefield games great. Instead, they simply want to make more money, and to do that they are making it for consoles and adding in SP to appeal to an audience that shouldn't be playing Battlefield in the first place. I know your still going to disagree with me and try to say people like single player, and you can have your opinion. I won't rob you of that. I just don't like that fans of the true battlefield games may not end up with a true successor like they were promised.

Sorry, you just sound like one of those old grumpy men sitting on the front porch yelling at the kids on how things used to be and how things are too different now, and used to be better. If DICE wants to make a stellar single player campaign, let them, im sure they wont forget about the people that they attracted in the first place with their multiplayer. This thread is based upon alot of speculation, system specs, can i run it stuff..... and now how the multi will suck. let it come out then be the judge, i just sensed alot of hate from you so far in the thread and wanted to apply some ointment to the deep wounds you are licking fom DICE and the audacity of them to go a different direction with BF3.
m
0
l
July 1, 2011 10:36:20 PM

We all know we are going to get it.....it's something new and it's the biggest topic on forums about upcoming games. So wether it follows the traditional BF series or not your still going to fork over the money for it. People bash what they call "2nd Rate" COD series and complain that they feel betrayed by the developer and so on....but they still buy it.
m
0
l
July 2, 2011 10:13:19 PM

I will wait and read the reviews before I buy it. After their "remake" of MoH turned out, I will actually be very surprised if BF3 lives up to all this hype its been getting.
m
0
l
July 3, 2011 6:05:25 AM

trogdor796 said:
I will wait and read the reviews before I buy it. After their "remake" of MoH turned out, I will actually be very surprised if BF3 lives up to all this hype its been getting.

As stated before, the " remake" in question was developed by Danger Close, not Dice. So you references and comparions based on such are completely invalid. Stop bitching and just wait for it to come out. Srsly, man im sure everyone is tired of hearing speculative opinion about somethign that has yet to be released. STOP WHINING
m
0
l
July 3, 2011 6:07:14 AM

And who designated you as the be all know all about DICE and BF games? we like to keep things positive in this forum, but i feel the need to put some check in, cause you are just beating the dead horse as of now.
m
0
l
July 3, 2011 8:09:46 AM

Of course many people are going to buy Battlefield 3. I played BF2 AND Bad Company 2, and while both had a different feel, they were both good for their own reasons. Either way, BF3 will blow MW3 out of the water. And personally, I enjoyed the BC2 campaign, and felt thoroughly compelled to beat it on hard.
As for graphics, c'mon people. They've been making the game since BF2, and they have stated how optimized it is. I think there's no cause for worry.
And even if the game at e3 wasn't maxed out, those graphics still (in my opinion) give crysis a run for it's money.
m
0
l
!