[QUOTE=SeasonedHerb;27926118]On some setups, BC2 was optimized badly for. My system (Q6600, 4gb RAM, GTX 285) should have been able to have run it with no issues, and I wasn't able to get over 30 fps no matter what settings.
Now Vietnam on the other hand, runs great. Highest settings and I never drop below 60 fps.[/QUOTE]
Aw' yeah. Vietnam for some reason was heavily op'ted. I still need to upgrade from my old GT 220 though.
All I want from BF3 is to be BF2 on a new engine.
Other than that I really don't care :v:
[QUOTE=T-hunter;27929878]Kinda since every past BF game had those before BC came in.
But i guess i just have slightly higher standards than you[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking kidding me ? the only thing we have from the game right now are some shady scans and you are telling me it will be the same as the other battlefields ? I was just saying how it won't be anything like BC2 from basic information, do you really thing they would screw this up ? and fucking hell man, look at those scans, it already looks amazing.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;27929815][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/jdtPD.png[/img_thumb]
Read that from the scans. Did he think people wouldn't like the game? I got to level 25 in like 2 days because I couldn't stop playing.[/QUOTE]
I have all the upgrades, and I keep playing because I simply enjoy finding small things which are fun to do... For example that Laser Guided Rocket Launcher? I'm still trying to perfect the way of dropping helicopters from the sky which are almost a mile away.
[QUOTE=Toasticle;27929814]best fps 2011[/QUOTE]
Sorry no, while this'll very likely be very fucking awesome, Deus Ex Human Revolution exists.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';27929840]Too bad this doesn't come out till Q4 2011 or ever later.
:<[/QUOTE]
I'm actually quite glad; therefore, I'll be able to buy a new computer by then.
[QUOTE=T-hunter;27929878]Kinda since every past BF game had those before BC came in.
But i guess i just have slightly higher standards than you[/QUOTE]
I don't think your expectations are going to work, considering that BF3 seems to have more shit than BC2 I think you'll be wrong.
Game sounds fucking awesome. 4 classes is perfect for the amount of team if team actions the game requires, 1 for each class and no classes without anything that the team depends on.
I wish they'd switch the primary weapon of the medic and the assault though.
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;27929917]Are you fucking kidding me ? the only thing we have from the game right now are some shady scans and you are telling me it will be the same as the other battlefields ? I was just saying how it won't be anything like BC2 from basic information, do you really thing they would screw this up ? and fucking hell man, look at those scans, it already looks amazing.[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=imadaman;27929955]Sorry no, while this'll very likely be very fucking awesome, Deus Ex Human Revolution exists.[/QUOTE]
Sorry no, while this'll very likely be very fucking awesome, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim exists.
Why in the fuck are we comparing a Battlefield game to a Deus Ex game? And why in the holy hell are we throwing in an Elder Scrolls game as well?
We might as well throw in Portal 2 and Minecraft into this!
[QUOTE=Mane;27930424]Why in the fuck are we comparing a Battlefield game to a Deus Ex game? And why in the holy hell are we throwing in an Elder Scrolls game as well?
We might as well throw in Portal 2 and Minecraft into this![/QUOTE]
Sortof my point. You can put pretty much any game you personally like in that sentence.
there they go with the stupid "frostbite is too complex for SDK" bullshit
[QUOTE=LordApocca;27930405]Sorry no, while this'll very likely be very fucking awesome, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim exists.[/QUOTE]
not an fps
[QUOTE=JerryK;27930470]there they go with the stupid "frostbite is too complex for SDK" bullshit[/QUOTE]
The real issue is that DICE/EA doesn't want to shell out the money for distribution licenses to all the middleware solutions they're using for Battlefield 3/Frostbite 2.0.
Complexity plays a big role as well; how many mod teams do you know work within a locally networked development environment?
people can figure it out
but they're too worried that people will make good and very popular mods and won't buy poorly made DLC, which is a stupid thing to be afraid of anyway
I'm sort of sad about the fact that there won't be any mod tools. "Too complicated"? I'm sure professional modders can figure it out. I'd really like to see something like PR on Frostbite.
[QUOTE=Mane;27930618]The real issue is that DICE/EA doesn't want to shell out the money for distribution licenses to all the middleware solutions they're using for Battlefield 3/Frostbite 2.0.
Complexity plays a big role as well; how many mod teams do you know work within a locally networked development environment?[/QUOTE]
Yea, because they are using the ANT system and enlighten, I can't imagine how much that'd cost. Sucks thought, I'd love to have like a sandbox style editor for BF3.
[QUOTE=JerryK;27930470]there they go with the stupid "frostbite is too complex for SDK" bullshit[/QUOTE]
It's just an excuse, if they wanted to make the game moddable they would, but they don't want to.
Long post:
[QUOTE=Brt5470;27930678]Yea, because they are using the ANT system and enlighten, I can't imagine how much that'd cost. Sucks thought, I'd love to have like a sandbox style editor for BF3.[/QUOTE]
There are far more middleware tools in BF3 than just ANT, but ANT is a huge one.
Why would EA willingly give away such a profoundly expensive design tool like that for free when it cost them millions of dollars to develop and is used in a multitude of their strongest selling franchise games?
Then there's the other major elephants in the room: FB2.0's dynamic destruction system and its audio rendering system. There have been a handful of games that feature the above two systems like BF3 does, but none of them have had to deal with 64 players.
I'm an indie game developer and we're making an FPS game with modding capabilities so I've got a little bit of perspective on this. We really want to give players the tools to make awesome maps and mods, but we don't want people to steal our code or figure out how we're doing certain tricky things.
So we're not going to provide an SDK until after our beta.
And look, much of the time I have played Battlefield games since 2002 has been spent in mods like Desert Combat and Point of Existence so it's not like I don't want mod support. I desperately want mod support for BF3.
You might asking why Bethesda (The Elder Scrolls/new Fallout), Valve (duh), Crytek (Crysis), Bohemia (ARMA 2), and Epic (Unreal Tournament) have extensive free SDKs for their games/engines. It's actually really simple: they're in the business of selling engines as much as they are selling games (with perhaps the exception of Valve). [b]Engines bring in ridiculous amounts of money[/b]. I bolded that just to emphasize how ridiculous the money they bring in is.
It's a lot easier for Bethesda, Valve, Crysis, and Epic to cut down and offer limited free SDKs to indie modders from their mindblowingly awesome premium development kits.
DICE, for whatever reason, is not in the business of selling engines.
At this point though, I would be happy with a map editor like Halo's Forge for BF3.
But again: something like a "simple" map editor like Forge is still a huge development burden that will take time and resources away from developing the actual game.
So it comes down to one simple quesion: Do you want BF3 to be $50 or $150?
Personally, I'd go for the $150 version, but I also realize that I've play Battlefield games for thousands of hours.
[QUOTE=JerryK;27930658]people can figure it out[/quote]
I don't think you figure out how to create a render farm with really, really powerful machines. You just need a lot of money.
How many mod teams do you know with a lot of money?
[quote]but they're too worried that people will make good and very popular mods and won't buy poorly made DLC, which is a stupid thing to be afraid of anyway[/QUOTE]
DICE also released maps for free so I don't think they're afraid of pay-for-DLC.
[quote]Minimum System Requirements
Processor: Dual Core
Memory: 2 GB
Hard Drive: 15 GB for Digital Version, 10 GB for Disc Version
Video Memory: 256 MB
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
DirectX: 10
Keyboard and Mouse
DVD Rom Drive
Recommended System Requirements
Processor: Quadcore Processor
Memory: 4 GB
Hard Drive: 15 GB for Digital Version, 10 GB for Disc Version
Video Memory: 512 MB
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
DirectX: 11
Keyboard and Mouse
DVD Rom Drive[/quote]
Hell like I can ever afford a machine like that.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;27930897]Hell like I can ever afford a machine like that.[/QUOTE]
If you're going off on my point about really, really powerful machines needed for BF3 modding, I just want to expand on that.
[b]Think about the most powerful Windows 7 x64 machine you can buy.[/b]
Got it?
[b]Can it definitely build maps as large and as complex as we're going to see in BF3?[/b]
Nope.
...Well, it could, but you're going to need a couple dozen of those above machines locally networked.
Who has got the money (and space) for that? :allears:
[QUOTE=evilweazel;27924780]Still looks too much like BC2, I don't see a health bar and not enough BF2-esque HUD.[/QUOTE]
Who needs a Health bar if you can have BLOODY SCREEN SO REAL!
The only thing I really liked about BC/2 was the sound, as people mentioned earlier. The sound design in those games were fucking brilliant, with teammates shouting and overpressure effects and shit it actually did a good job of immersing the player somewhat.
Also, I'd rather they did individual countries rather than just Europe, because the equipment across the continent varies a whole shit ton, however it'd take a lot of time and effort. If they just did Britain and France (Inb4 white flag jokes) or Germany I'd be satisfied.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
ohnonononon, not 4 classes, please jesus fuck. Five at bloody least, BF2142 was the last one in the series that had acceptable classes. Recon for sniper/stealthy fucker, Assault/medic to kill shit and heal people, Engineer to kill and repair vehicles and Support to suppress enemies, create strong-points and resupply.
BC was just fucking ridiculous. "Let's give the medic a fucking LMG". That's the most idiotic move they made - A medic is meant to be very mobile, so they can quickly react to their team taking casualties. A machinegunner is the opposite - They need to stay still to ground their weapon and maintain a good firing position to cover their squad, and should only really be moving when the rest of the squad or a vehicle is providing supressive fire themselves.
The fact that the assault class, the guys who are supposed to be doing the majority of infantry-killing, have ammo is stupid too. Let them constantly resupply themselves and they barely have to take a break from shooting the shit out of whatever they see. Same with assault/medic in 2142, but that was acceptable since nobody would play medic if you gave them shit weapons, and everyone would play medic if you gave them decent weapons, IE BF2 once the G36E came about.
The BF2 formula just about right if you ask me. All the classes were pretty much inter-dependent, encouraging teamplay. However, in BC/2 everyone was running around disregarding their teammates were able to continually fuck shit up until their shit got fucked up.
"Pink rabbit hats"
I'm looking at you, tf2.
Yeah for fucks sake not 4 classes. Recon filling the Infiltrator/Sniper class is ok, but Medics should not have LMGs. Who the fuck had the idea to give a class healing, revive [B]and[/B] the highest damage output?
We need 5, if not 6 at least.
I hope it doesn't take years to get to rank 5 like in BF2 :v:
Yeah for fucks sake not 4 classes. Recon filling the Infiltrator/Sniper class is ok, but Medics should not have LMGs. Who the fuck had the idea to give a class healing, revive [B]and[/B] the highest damage output?
We need 5, if not 6 at least.
I'd be happy with customizable faces only.
Swap medkits to assault and ammo packs for the "medic"?
Also, acds, nice triplepost.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
