GameStop publishes Battlefield 3 PC requirements early

[Emil]

While the Electronic Arts studio DICE has yet to release requirements for the PC version of Battlefield 3, a game retailer has posted them a bit early. Battlefield 3 is…

Read the whole story

 

[Guest]

OC'd 2600K and two 6950 2GB's should do it.

*fingers crossed*

 

[Per Hansson]

Odd that there is a 5GB size difference in retail vs online version?

 

[customcarvin]

Guest said:
OC'd 2600K and two 6950 2GB's should do it.

*fingers crossed*

Unlock those those 6950's to 6970's, and maybe... just maybe

 

[R3DP3NGUIN]

hopefully the zambezi chips will be out by release. Im wating for HD 7000 also. time to upgrade my 6970

 

[fpsgamerJR62]

Judging by the graphics quality of the BF3 game play trailer, I'd say that the recommended requirements are about right for this FPS. If anything, they're even a bit on the low side considering that a lot of gamers will be running the game at 1920x1080 HD resolution.

 

[yorro]

Requirements depend on resolution

 

[Burty117]

Soo... Finally a game that REQUIRES a DX10 and above graphics card hey? Well at least we can be confident this isn't a straight port from the console versions. Still have high hopes for this game, although I feel my GTX260 is going to die a painful death running this!

 

[pcnthuziast]

In my expirience more often than not even the recommended specs aren't ideal.

 

[Burty117]

pcnthuziast said:
In my expirience more often than not even the recommended specs aren't ideal.

there ideal at say 800x600 or may slightly higher, HD res's though, definately not

 

[treetops]

burty117 said:
Soo... Finally a game that REQUIRES a DX10 and above graphics card hey? Well at least we can be confident this isn't a straight port from the console versions. Still have high hopes for this game, although I feel my GTX260 is going to die a painful death running this!

Yeah this surprised me, is it me or is this the first game to do this? I think its a mistake not to offer directx 9. Its gonna cost them a lot of sales. But as someone with a nice rig I am looking forward to seeing the graphics.

 

[Burty117]

treetops said:

burty117 said:
Soo... Finally a game that REQUIRES a DX10 and above graphics card hey? Well at least we can be confident this isn't a straight port from the console versions. Still have high hopes for this game, although I feel my GTX260 is going to die a painful death running this!

Yeah this surprised me, is it me or is this the first game to do this? I think its a mistake not to offer directx 9. Its gonna cost them a lot of sales. But as someone with a nice rig I am looking forward to seeing the graphics.

Thats the thing, I don't think it is a mistake, i think all games should be developed using at least DX10 and above, at the moment, we are litterally stuck on DX9 and it is holding back what is actually capable on PC, I rememeber back in 2004, all ps2 games looked significantly worse that PC versions and I think now is the time that PC finally has some growth again and PC finally gets the graphics and api's to use at its disposal. I could be wrong of course, but If no game developer produces DX10 and above only games, when are we ever going to move forward?

 

[Per Hansson]

treetops said:

burty117 said:
Soo... Finally a game that REQUIRES a DX10 and above graphics card hey? Well at least we can be confident this isn't a straight port from the console versions. Still have high hopes for this game, although I feel my GTX260 is going to die a painful death running this!

Yeah this surprised me, is it me or is this the first game to do this? I think its a mistake not to offer directx 9. Its gonna cost them a lot of sales. But as someone with a nice rig I am looking forward to seeing the graphics.

I don't think it's a mistake.
If you truly have a DX9 only capable graphics card then it's atleast 5 years old now, in no way capable of running any recent games (Geforce 7 series or ATI X series class)

If you have an operating system that is only DX9 capable then it is now just a little over a month left for it's 10:th birthday

If ancient hardware and software like this is what game makers should code for then PC gaming truly is dead, thankfully a VERY select few do see this and develop games with cutting edge technologies in mind.
Those who don't have simply switched to consoles, and if your a PC only user with the above hardware bitching about DX10 only games coming out then please do us all a favor and go and buy a console instead.

 

[pcnthuziast]

Witcher 2 = DX9 executed beautifully. I'm all for moving forward, but CD projekt red squeezed the last bit out of DX9 resulting in a game that looks better than many DX10/11 games.

 

[Raswan]

Per Hansson said:

treetops said:

burty117 said:
Soo... Finally a game that REQUIRES a DX10 and above graphics card hey? Well at least we can be confident this isn't a straight port from the console versions. Still have high hopes for this game, although I feel my GTX260 is going to die a painful death running this!

Yeah this surprised me, is it me or is this the first game to do this? I think its a mistake not to offer directx 9. Its gonna cost them a lot of sales. But as someone with a nice rig I am looking forward to seeing the graphics.

I don't think it's a mistake.
If you truly have a DX9 only capable graphics card then it's atleast 5 years old now, in no way capable of running any recent games (Geforce 7 series or ATI X series class)

If you have an operating system that is only DX9 capable then it is now just a little over a month left for it's 10:th birthday

If ancient hardware and software like this is what game makers should code for then PC gaming truly is dead, thankfully a VERY select few do see this and develop games with cutting edge technologies in mind.
Those who don't have simply switched to consoles, and if your a PC only user with the above hardware bitching about DX10 only games coming out then please do us all a favor and go and buy a console instead.

Amen to that.

 

[Wagan8r]

burty117 said:
Soo... Finally a game that REQUIRES a DX10 and above graphics card hey? Well at least we can be confident this isn't a straight port from the console versions. Still have high hopes for this game, although I feel my GTX260 is going to die a painful death running this!

I'm not going to give my GTX 260 a chance to die. I'll be upgrading it to whatever is the best bang for the buck come October.

 

[example1013]

Wait...but my understanding is that console versions are going to be DX9 anyways, so don't they already have a DX9 version?

And no, there was another game that required DX10. I think it was a Halo game? Everyone was up in arms about it because no one wanted to have to use Vista. Granted, this was 4 or 5 years ago, but people were generally pretty upset about it at the time. Good thing that DX10/11 is (hopefully) a bit more ubiquitous now, at least among PC gamers.

I still feel like the graphics are probably one of the more easily scale-able parts of the game. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the underlying mechanics that actually run the game are the more taxing and confusing parts, and those remain largely unchanged between console and PC versions.

Just realize this: every single second of video footage that has been released to the public so far has been PC footage, but Playstation 3 and XBox 360 users will see the exact same thing, just at lower resolution. All the tank battles, all the building explosions, and all the gunfights will be downsized and thrown on consoles, but will still be just as functional as the PC version.

Even the size of the maps on consoles may be comparable, and DICE could be artificially making smaller maps just to "accomodate" PC users. EA uses dedicated servers, and a Sony-owned studio called Zipper Interactive made a game 2 years ago called MAG that hosted 256-player matches that ran smoothly and without lag at a consistent 30FPS (hosted on dedicated servers), meaning the PS3 is capable of playing maps with four times the player count of any Battlefield game to date. And while the game obviously wasn't visually stunning, that could easily be remedied on modern PCs, which are much more powerful than a PS3.

Combining that with the recent announcement that the game won't come with its own mod kit, and I'm thinking Battlefield 3 is definitely designed with a console in mind. There's no serious push for performance. There's no stretching the limits and trying to make something new. It's just a visually impressive, technically adequate FPS.

 

[hassaan]

Can't wait.

 

[thewind]

example1013 said:
Wait...but my understanding is that console versions are going to be DX9 anyways, so don't they already have a DX9 version?

And no, there was another game that required DX10. I think it was a Halo game? Everyone was up in arms about it because no one wanted to have to use Vista. Granted, this was 4 or 5 years ago, but people were generally pretty upset about it at the time. Good thing that DX10/11 is (hopefully) a bit more ubiquitous now, at least among PC gamers.

I still feel like the graphics are probably one of the more easily scale-able parts of the game. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the underlying mechanics that actually run the game are the more taxing and confusing parts, and those remain largely unchanged between console and PC versions.

Just realize this: every single second of video footage that has been released to the public so far has been PC footage, but Playstation 3 and XBox 360 users will see the exact same thing, just at lower resolution. All the tank battles, all the building explosions, and all the gunfights will be downsized and thrown on consoles, but will still be just as functional as the PC version.

Even the size of the maps on consoles may be comparable, and DICE could be artificially making smaller maps just to "accomodate" PC users. EA uses dedicated servers, and a Sony-owned studio called Zipper Interactive made a game 2 years ago called MAG that hosted 256-player matches that ran smoothly and without lag at a consistent 30FPS (hosted on dedicated servers), meaning the PS3 is capable of playing maps with four times the player count of any Battlefield game to date. And while the game obviously wasn't visually stunning, that could easily be remedied on modern PCs, which are much more powerful than a PS3.

Combining that with the recent announcement that the game won't come with its own mod kit, and I'm thinking Battlefield 3 is definitely designed with a console in mind. There's no serious push for performance. There's no stretching the limits and trying to make something new. It's just a visually impressive, technically adequate FPS.

I disagree with you 100% Have you seen the difference between the xbox metro 2033 and the PC it was almost like a different game! Xbox looked way more cartoonish.
Here is the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGPrSKG0iUA

So I don't believe xbox and ps3 will be the same as pc just lower resolution. There will be a huge amount of difference, with directx 11 brings more tessellation and directx 10 brought lighting, that with the higher restitution will make for a very different looking game on the PC vs what will be on counsels.

 

[Guest]

Instead of putting minimum and recommened requirements they should put resolution and what u need to run it at a stable minimum of 30fps

 

[example1013]

thewind said:

I disagree with you 100% Have you seen the difference between the xbox metro 2033 and the PC it was almost like a different game! Xbox looked way more cartoonish.
Here is the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGPrSKG0iUA

So I don't believe xbox and ps3 will be the same as pc just lower resolution. There will be a huge amount of difference, with directx 11 brings more tessellation and directx 10 brought lighting, that with the higher restitution will make for a very different looking game on the PC vs what will be on counsels.

That's not refuting my point. Obviously I'm simplifying the issue a bit, but not everyone even knows what tessellation is (or even cares). And it's not like tessellation makes the game any more fun to play. Again, this will be a really good-looking game. It already is. Demos have proven that. Will its mechanics be anything above standard, though? Will the game handle better? Will it be any more fun? I don't think so.

Designed with consoles in mind. The PC version may not be a console port, but the console versions sure as hell aren't going to be PC ports, either.

 

[example1013]

Basically, this is a multi-platform title at its roots. I think it's very telling that by just doing some graphical improvements DICE has already exceeded expectations for PC work on a multi-platform game. Like, this is what PC users have to look forward to in a "PC game" that's being released multiplatform nowadays: lighting and tessellation.


Seriously. Just think about this. The minimum specifications list 2GB RAM as required to run this game. Vista and 7 use close to a 1 GB of RAM just to run the damn OS. So a modern PC game in an age where most PC gamers are sporting 5 extra GB minimum only needs 1GB memory and a 5-year-old processor to run it.

Recommended specs only improve to a higher-grade 5-year-old processor and 2 more GB of RAM. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't recommended specs from years ago based on more modern technology than something that's been obsolete for 3 years? I mean, the only thing I'm missing for minimum specs on my 5-year-old iMac is a dedicated graphics card that can run DX10. That's really where we're at right now.

 

[Burty117]

thewind said:

example1013 said:
Wait...but my understanding is that console versions are going to be DX9 anyways, so don't they already have a DX9 version?

And no, there was another game that required DX10. I think it was a Halo game? Everyone was up in arms about it because no one wanted to have to use Vista. Granted, this was 4 or 5 years ago, but people were generally pretty upset about it at the time. Good thing that DX10/11 is (hopefully) a bit more ubiquitous now, at least among PC gamers.

I still feel like the graphics are probably one of the more easily scale-able parts of the game. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the underlying mechanics that actually run the game are the more taxing and confusing parts, and those remain largely unchanged between console and PC versions.

Just realize this: every single second of video footage that has been released to the public so far has been PC footage, but Playstation 3 and XBox 360 users will see the exact same thing, just at lower resolution. All the tank battles, all the building explosions, and all the gunfights will be downsized and thrown on consoles, but will still be just as functional as the PC version.

Even the size of the maps on consoles may be comparable, and DICE could be artificially making smaller maps just to "accomodate" PC users. EA uses dedicated servers, and a Sony-owned studio called Zipper Interactive made a game 2 years ago called MAG that hosted 256-player matches that ran smoothly and without lag at a consistent 30FPS (hosted on dedicated servers), meaning the PS3 is capable of playing maps with four times the player count of any Battlefield game to date. And while the game obviously wasn't visually stunning, that could easily be remedied on modern PCs, which are much more powerful than a PS3.

Combining that with the recent announcement that the game won't come with its own mod kit, and I'm thinking Battlefield 3 is definitely designed with a console in mind. There's no serious push for performance. There's no stretching the limits and trying to make something new. It's just a visually impressive, technically adequate FPS.

I disagree with you 100% Have you seen the difference between the xbox metro 2033 and the PC it was almost like a different game! Xbox looked way more cartoonish.
Here is the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGPrSKG0iUA

So I don't believe xbox and ps3 will be the same as pc just lower resolution. There will be a huge amount of difference, with directx 11 brings more tessellation and directx 10 brought lighting, that with the higher restitution will make for a very different looking game on the PC vs what will be on counsels.

I also dissagree 100%

They have already shown off the PS3 version of the game:
http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/17/ps3-battlefield-3-demoed-on-late-night-with-jimmy-fallon/

It looks horrific when compared to the PC version, first thing I notice is that entire parts of the building are actually missing! all the black and gray air con units for example are completely missing until you either zoom in with a sniper rifle or walk right up to the building, also the textures look amlost messy compared and the bricks on the bilding just "dissappear" rather than fall off.
the smoke effects as well look like almost see through carboard cutouts of lots of white dots rather than actual smoke. Another thing I noticed that the lighting is pretty much fake in most areas and you can tell as it doesn't respond to items covering the light source. All the buildings in the forground are either missing or just light brown boxes sticking out the top of the buildings you can see.

Those are the things I noticed straight away, I could go into more detail but I won't.

Yes I agree technically, their is a version that is at a DX9 standard as their is a console port but thats the point, its a Port of a PC game, the PC version should be of the highest standard, graphically at least, then downgraded to console.

The Witcher 2 is proof that DX9 can produce great graphics still, but that is not what this is about, this is about advancing above anything DX9 is capable of, imagine Witcher 2 with that kind of polish but using DX11 to its full extent? It would look almost life like.

This is about moving the PC Gaming industry forwards, this about raising the Bar for PC gaming as a whole, and this is another nail in the coffin for XP to finally rest in peace.

 

[Guest]

my amd x2 (2,5ghz) and ati 4350 is awaiting this!!

 

[example1013]

burty117 said:
This is about moving the PC Gaming industry forwards, this about raising the Bar for PC gaming as a whole, and this is another nail in the coffin for XP to finally rest in peace.

So mechanically, the game is identical to the console games, and you call that raising the bar. Good to know that graphics are now the only thing separating PC games from console games, and the only way to make a PC-first game is to make an MMO or an RTS. God forbid someone actually push the limits on performance.

Face it. DICE is normalizing this game so that consoles can still run it. No matter what anyone says, Battlefield 3 is being held back by consoles. Why are there no 128-player maps? I'd certainly hope that the average PC today is at least two to three times as good as a PC from 2005, so why not have games that take advantage of that power? Why limit yourself? Why not make the game break older rigs? Why not do something really interesting and actually move the bar under the hood?

I realize that currently there may not even really be the hardware to take advantage of the software, but at the same time, no software calls for that kind of hardware. Neither side is driving for innovation and pushing the boundaries of what the computer can actually do. Sure, your graphics card may get a workout, but what about the rest of the machine?