official Battlefield 3

[trag3dy]

Wasn't the only map in the bc2 beta port valdez?

Yeah..and the bc2 beta lasted 2 weeks as well.

[rajputwarrior]

Yeah..and the bc2 beta lasted 2 weeks as well.

i could have sworn it had two on my ps3...

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Yeah..and the bc2 beta lasted 2 weeks as well.

It actually started on January 28th 2010 and ended on February 25th 2010. I believe that's a full month.

[rajputwarrior]

It actually started on January 28th 2010 and ended on February 25th 2010. I believe that's a full month.

it was definitely longer then two weeks. because i bought my slim when they first came out, ran through metal gear which was the only game i had at the time, and played the beta religiously because it was the only game i had that was MP on my PS3 :rofl:

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

it was definitely longer then two weeks. because i bought my slim when they first came out, ran through metal gear which was the only game i had at the time, and played the beta religiously because it was the only game i had that was MP on my PS3 :rofl:

Yes indeed. See here: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/01/07/bfbc2-pc-beta-update-fr-229-n-dice.aspx

It shows the dates I mentioned.

trag3dy should also take a look at this and this. :p

[rajputwarrior]

Yes indeed. See here: http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2010/01/07/bfbc2-pc-beta-update-fr-229-n-dice.aspx

It shows the dates I mentioned.

trag3dy should also take a look at this and this. :p

wow that's an ownage going through one of the biggest threads in neowin history...

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

wow that's an ownage going through one of the biggest threads in neowin history...

It wasn't my intention to "pwn" him, haha. I simply used a certain skill of mine to remind him of something he once knew. :)

Anyway, I'm still a little disappointed at DICE. Either they're confident that the game won't launch with a lot of bugs or they really want to get it out before Modern Warfare 3. I have a feeling it has more to do with the latter than the former. A beta shouldn't last less than two weeks.

[trag3dy]

lol that was over a year and a half ago. :laugh:

[Vandalsquad]

Crossfire 6870s, OCed. Should be interesting how close I can get to maxing this. My i7 960 and 12gb ram should cover the rest... but still. Hopefully I won't need 6990s in cross. Trying to wait until next gen of cards before an update..

[TheLegendOfMart]

Crossfire 6870s, OCed. Should be interesting how close I can get to maxing this. My i7 960 and 12gb ram should cover the rest... but still. Hopefully I won't need 6990s in cross. Trying to wait until next gen of cards before an update..

Nowhere near, you need SLI 580s to run it in Ultra. The Quad Core, 6950 recommended specs are aimed at running the game in Medium.

[Vandalsquad]

Nowhere near, you need SLI 580s to run it in Ultra. The Quad Core, 6950 recommended specs are aimed at running the game in Medium.

There isn't that much of a difference...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/6

[TheLegendOfMart]

There isn't that much of a difference...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-580-sli-review/6

Im not making it up im going off what the DICE employees on twitter are saying.

The Recommended Specs are for Medium Detail only and to run the game in ultra you need SLI 580s, one 580 wont cut it.

bkohn1 so would one GTX580 run it on ultra? Or do I need two of them?

zh1nt0 @bkohn1 2

http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/116140729864159232

[Digitalx]

Judging by everything else they're saying even though they've made it I'm sure you'll have to take their hardware configuration opinions with a grain of salt. You won't need 580's in SLi unless they're working on next crysis 1 engine to bog your system down with that struggles to have stable 30+ for the next 2 years.

Pretty much there's 3 levels of hardware low, medium and high then standards/quality of play up to 30, in between and 60+ fps.

Let's say SLi 580 you'll probably have ultra @ 1920x1080 with 60+. If you have say i5 2500k + 6970 2GB you may get high/medium @ 1920x1080 at 60fps plus but you can also play ultra but at maybe 30-50 area which is still playable. It will go on like that.

What dice are doing is just looking at the hardware profile without technical details or specifics. They want quality of game so they'll chuck everything in highest fps range even if it reduces visual quality thanks to opinions of consolers who think fps matter on consoles so if it runs best at medium even with a i7 990X @ 4.2GHz 16GB ram and 2xHD6990's that'll be what they suggest.

This is all i've picked up on watching their recommendations on twitter.

[Shaun N.]

The requirements of the PC version seems really high, I wonder what settings the Xbox and PS3 will be like seeing as their hardware is nowhere near the recommended PC requirements

[Fourjays Veteran]

The PC requirements sound ridiculous for medium. :s Hope it is based on trying to achieve massive FPS as Digitalx suggested.

Wonder how my 5830 will stack up. Has handled everything I've thrown at it so far. Will have to try the beta and see... not spending ?200+ on a video card.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Im sure i read on one of the DICE team twitter that the min/rec specs are aiming for 30fps.

The Alpha ran fine on my Quad i5 Sandybridge with 5850 but then tesselation and Destruction 2.0 werent enabled neither where high quality graphics. Hoping i can scrape by with my spec in high detail if i turn SSAO/AA/Tesselation off.

[rajputwarrior]

Nowhere near, you need SLI 580s to run it in Ultra. The Quad Core, 6950 recommended specs are aimed at running the game in Medium.

that's ridiculous system requirements.

[+SOOPRcow MVC]

I ran the alpha at max settings (which included editing the config files) just fine on my ati 5850 just fine. I'm sure the my new nvidia 570 will run it even better. Although we really wont know until we have the game :)

[Shaun N.]

Wonder how my 5830 will stack up. not spending ?200+ on a video card.

I have a 5770 and I'm hoping it holds up

not spending ?200+ on a video card.

Me either :p

[Elliot B.]

I don't understand - what's unique to this game? The weapons seem the same as from war games in the past 10 years, map are just different layouts from ones we've had for 10 years (if that makes sense).

I play Bad Company 2 but it's practically the same as the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault multiplayer from 2002 - same weapsons etc.

Enlighten me. I'm not being a douche, I need need persuading a little as I don't understand.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I don't understand - what's unique to this game? The weapons seem the same as from war games in the past 10 years, map are just different layouts from ones we've had for 10 years (if that makes sense).

I play Bad Company 2 but it's practically the same as the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault multiplayer from 2002 - same weapsons etc.

Enlighten me. I'm not being a douche, I need need persuading a little as I don't understand.

If you played Bad Company 2 and think that is was practically the same as MoH; Allied Assault, well also not being a douche, but you will never understand if you feel that way, as it is truly NOTHING like that game.

[Elliot B.]

If you played Bad Company 2 and think that is was practically the same as MoH; Allied Assault, well also not being a douche, but you will never understand if you feel that way, as it is truly NOTHING like that game.

I've played them both a lot. Let's assume we're talking team deathmatch - the weapons are practically the same, the maps are similar (not in layout but in style). BC2 has destruction and a tank - but not much else is different to me.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I've played them both a lot. Let's assume we're talking team deathmatch - the weapons are practically the same, the maps are similar (not in layout but in style). BC2 has destruction and a tank - but not much else is different to me.

Well if you really have played both games a lot, I am not sure how you can say not much else is different, as destructibility and vehicles alone drastically separates the two games IMO. Also, Battlefield has never really been a Team Deathmatch game at all. It has always been a team objective based game. Also classes and squads play a huge role in Battlefield.

And technically, you can pretty much say all FPS's set with a realistic tone the weapons are practically the same, but technically the weapons are not the same at all in the two games being compared. One is a WW II based game and the other is a modern based game, so the weapons are not the same weapons at all really. But yeah sure, they are similar, any gun in any war based FPS ever made most of the weapons are similar, you pull the trigger and something fires out of said weapon.

Not even sure why I am trying to explain it to you, especially if you have played them both a lot as you claim and this is the decision and outcome you have come to. So it is really pretty simple, do not play the game if you feel that it has nothing for you. Trying to convince you otherwise is obviously a moot point.

[Elliot B.]

Well if you really have played both games a lot, I am not sure how you can say not much else is different, as destructibility and vehicles alone drastically separates the two games IMO. Also, Battlefield has never really been a Team Deathmatch game at all. It has always been a team objective based game. Also classes and squads play a huge role in Battlefield.

And technically, you can pretty much say all FPS's set with a realistic tone the weapons are practically the same, but technically the weapons are not the same at all in the two games being prepared. One is a WW II based game and the other is a modern based game, so the weapons are not the same weapons at all really. But yeah sure, they are similar, any gun in any FPS ever made most of the weapons are similar, you pull the trigger and something fires out of it.

Not even sure why I am trying to explain it to you, especially if you have played them both a lot as you claim and this is the decision and outcome you have come to. So it is really pretty simple, do not play the game if you feel that it has nothing for you. Trying to convince you otherwise is obviously a moot point.

I just can't help but feel BF3 will feel and play very similar to BF2 and BF1942 but with posher graphics.

[rajputwarrior]

I just can't help but feel BF3 will feel and play very similar to BF2 and BF1942 but with posher graphics.

that's how i feel about the game so far, but to millions of people out there, i'm sure that's fine with them. Also in my mind this game doesn't exist to me because it's not on steam.