Battlefield 3 is one of the most-anticipated games of the year. The combat shooting video game isn’t coming out until Oct. 25, but Electronic Arts showed it off today to the press at its headquarters in Redwood City, Calif.
"to me, the graphics were little more fuzzy and weren’t crisp on the PS 3. It looked almost as if someone had sprinkled black dots throughout the image on the screen in a way that turned down the sharpness." wow!
PS3 version looked fine to me. I'm not expecting PC graphics just something playable
I'm considering on building a gaming pc (a great one) and I was wondering what is the average power consumption on a great gaming pc that can run the near future games at Max Settings? (This is a serious question)
This system http://www.anandtech.com/sh... has these results in power consumption. load and idle. http://www.anandtech.com/sh...
My 480 sure does love to eat power...
800watt modular see you threw most sli or xfire.
get at least an 850w if your going sli, works fine for me and i have tons of usb's ports running on along with two gtx 480's
go AMD if your worried about power consumption their more recent cards slaughter Nvidia there....
Hmm, I would say you don't need the overkill PSU that I bought, the Corsair AX1200. LOL. It's somewhat tough to define what's a "great" PC. If you are going for crazy Eyefinity multi-monitor resolutions, you'd need a lot more power. If you are just aiming for 1080p maxed, you can probably get what you're looking for in the 800W to 900W range. Don't buy a crappy brand of PSU or motherboard. Stick with something like Corsair for the PSU and Gigabyte, MSi, or ASUS for the motherboard. As far as video cards go, I don't know what you're willing to spend. For a single card, something like the GTX 570 or GTX 580 are really nice (but pricey). I personally strongly considered the dual-GPU 6990 card, but I ended up going with a 2-card Crossfire setup with 2 6950s. If you are going with a 2-card setup (you can find 2 6950s for ~$430 or so total if you shop around), I'd very strongly recommend considering the AMD 6900 series. Two 6950s or 6970s in Crossfire are incredibly powerful. I just tried out the benchmark tool for Aliens v. Predator this afternoon, and I was getting >100 fps most of the time with DX11. Crossfire is where the AMD 6900 series really seems to shine, whereas Nvidia seems to have a bit of an edge with overclocking a single card setup.
Thanks guys, I really needed some input on this...... And what about cpu's? I was considering purchasing an i7 that clocked at 3.0 +Ghz and also does it really matter if a game has a resolution higher than 1080p, seeing that I'm going to connect the pc to my Tv and if so can any resolution higher than 1080p be displayed on a Tv that can only go up to 1080p?....... And which audio video input is best for pc to tv (HDMI or DVI)?
For gaming, I'd say the Sandy Bridge chips are the way to go right now. I bought a i7-2600K (@ around 4.2GHz now, as I don't think I need any more than that, but you can get up to 5GHz if you want), which falls in the low $300 range. If you want to get a similar chip minus hyperthreading and a bit smaller cache, the i5-2600K can be had for around $200. I wouldn't recommend the pricey ~$1000 "Extreme" hexacores. What games even utilize that? Those chips are generally only faster than the economical Sandy Bridge chips when 6-cores are supported for the task, which isn't often, and they are quite power hungry by comparison. As with anything related to computer tech, you could also opt to just wait awhile to see what Intel and AMD develop next. I personally thought the 2600K would be just fine for quite some time. It's very easy to overclock safely, quite efficient with the power saving features, and it's very potent.
Defo agree 2500k is almost a must. And if just for gaming its sweet spot. But if you want pay more get little more kick go for the 2600k, But both are extreamly well liked and you can get 4g,s off the bat without need of doing anything other than your useral software for windows. If ypu unsure how to clock with bios.
that DICE will release the game on next-gen consoles as well? The console version of Battlefield 2 (Modern Combat) was released in October 2005 for Xbox, then April 2006 for 360. The game had obvious graphical advantages on the 360 version. It seems to me like this is truly a next-gen game that only PC players will get to enjoy to the fullest. What's to stop DICE from pulling the same move again? I'd sure buy a copy for a future console if it was available.
You make a very good point. I think that would be a really smart move on their part and I would definitely buy both.
While that is a valid point, I don't think the next-gen consoles will be out in 2012 and it's unlikely that they will port it once a significant amount of time has passed. DICE will be busy supporting BF3 and working on BFBC3 probably.
Even so, I would still buy it in 2013. I don't see them cranking out another huge Battlefield game before then. They might, but it hasn't been their style. For the record, I do see the Nintendo in 2012 counting as next-gen (technically speaking, it is), but I was admittedly referring more towards the next Xbox and PlayStation as you probably took it.
Sounds like the article was written by a CoD fanboy
After reading the entire article, I felt the same too.. He kept bragging about MW3 Spec Ops and compared MW3 Spec Ops (2 gamers vs bots) to BF3 (12 vs 12). :/
"Cod..King of Shooters" I can barely contain my laughter. Edit: He also sounds like a retard: Urghh the Ps3 controller makes me fumble hurr durr, but xbox is fine.
I agree. This guy sounds like your stereotypical CoD fanboy. He even prefers 360! Not that that is a bad thing. It's just when I think of CoD fanboy, I expect them to play it on 360.
gamespasm.com is not even a real site, someone made this just to troll BF3... go to gamespasm.com you get ads shot at you and crap.
"Tags: Batltefield 3, call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3, Games" Lol..Also all the related posts at the bottom are about Modern Warfare 3. -First demo: Modern Warfare 3 promises to be another nonstop combat shooter (0) - Yes, folks, there will be a Modern Warfare 3 video game for Christmas (0)
Can you expect anything different from some amateur website...Sounds like a total fanboy. Yea the controller would have made the game play better for him. Sounds like a nobbie toolbox. I can play just as good with an xbox and ps3 controller. It sounds like he's just mad he got his ass kicked
Who is telling you that is a hobby site? How that is setup looks like well planed to discredit the game with subtle phrases through out the whole article. I cry conspiracy! Lol
wtf, can you point out one positive sentence from this hans on preview. i smell BS.
i smell a cod fan boy. brings up cod a few times and wasnt any need to on a battlefield review. think its bullshit,ill re word that,its bullshit fullstop
I am getting this on pc but I hope they can deliver & crush cod on consoles as well!!------------------------ - again..
they had this grainy effect on bad company 1. cant see why theyd bring it back in bf3 with its so called superior engine. doesnt make sence. hoping this article is a bullshit one
I think you could turn that off in BC, couldn't you?
. I said a day of reckoning was coming for fraudster Ea-Dice and it's fast approaching. Frostbite 2 is a decent engine on a high end PC but mediocre on consoles. What Ea-Dice has done is no different than showing CGI trailers even tho that PC footage was nowhere near CGI. I say FANTASTIC...they will not be able to top COD because Activision has been honest with gamers and upfront. Activision has all the money in the world and could of shown 1080p, 60 fps ( it's already 60 fps...lol ) but instead they were honest and have shown the game the way millions and millions will see and play it this holiday season, starting in November. Well done EA...you only fooled yourself and made Kotick look like a genius for calling you out for showing PC footage that about 5% of the gamers will experience.
Being a fan of Activision is the gamer equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. "Activision has all the money in the world" And yet they've been using the same shitty engine since 2007. P.S. The PS3 footage we all saw still looks a world apart from that Michael Bay copycat shooter that Activision shits out every year.
LOL! I was thinking the same thing while watching Transformers 3.
buddy on this site, trust me, dont say anything positive about MW3 or negative about BF3... you will automatically become a troll or a CoD fanboy. Most people on this site are BF fanboys.
Its funny how that is true. While i dont support COD like i did back when COD4 was out i still give it a little attention. Even though i lean towards bf3 now. I mean people are entitled to their opinion and even if my most people think his opinion is stupid (sometimes cod players have no reason behind their statements) its still their opinion
So you are telling me people hating on any Cod after the first MW (which was amazing), and before bf3 was even previewed in any sense or form, are all BF fanboys? Rather than, oh I don't know, hating a terrible game for being just that...terrible.
it's funny that you think the footage that they show in previews or teasers for cod games is running on consoles...it's usually just running on a high end pc. When they demo the game it's usually on xbox but when they show teaser trailers it's running from pc. Also I think that it's funny now that everyone is bringing up graphics when before you guys were all like gameplay>graphics. Battlefield kills COD in gameplay 100% Bad company 2 is already better than any cod multiplayer.
This is stupid!!! Before this battlefield 30fps crap NO ONE ever complained about a shooter being 30 fps. Did anyone call out Bad Company 2 for being 30 fps? How about homefront, crysis 2 anyone? Maybe people had a problem with halo being 30 fps... no killzone anyone oh no? So what's the problem with battlefield 3 being a steady 30 fps???
There's nothing wrong with it running at 30 fps. The fanboys were just spoiled by the PC footage shown, and expected consoles to run at the same speed, with the same graphics as PC. 60 frames isn't necessary for shooting games, which is why 95% of them currently run at 30 fps. 60 frames is necessary for games that require precision inputs such as fighting games and racing games.
I always wondered, what's wrong with 40 or 50 steady fps? There better than 30 frames per second, yes?
Anyone that expected it to run at 60 FPS on consoles is an idiot. Both Bad Company games ran at 30, did people suddenly expect the devs to make the game run twice as fast with improved fidelity?
DICE deserves some of the blame for all this BS because of their comments about having a next gen engine on current gen hardware. The part they left out was that the current gen hardware couldn't handle it without quite a bit of downgrading. Yeah, you'd think people would be smart enough not to expect PC visuals on the current consoles, but let's face it... people are stupid as a rule. Take a good look at the world and tell me they aren't.
Yea Dice should have known that the audience was a bunch of idiots, they got to remember that unlike PC gamers most console gamers don't have any technical knowledge.
DICE have been a bit cheeky. They even put the PC footage trailer on the Playstation store for download.
That's not Dice's fault, its EA that does the marketing. All DICE did was create an amazing new game and engine that looks and runs great on all platforms.
just for curiousty how do u tell it was a pc footage?
DarkBlood, if you check youtube there are quite a few BF3 ps3 vs. pc comparisons. Don't believe what all the whiny little babies are saying, the game looks great on PS3. Better than KZ3, not quite as good as Crysis 2 on 360 tho. The main weakness I could see from the ps3 version compared to PC is the lighting is no where near as good.
@HydroCopper Crysis 2(360) looks better than kz3? news to me. Your opinion most likely. @DarkBlood You can tell the difference from the footage in the Jimmy fallon show. And yes the video that EA put in the psn its clear as day the pc version running.
@cemelc Yes, it is a known fact that the 360 version of Crysis 2 has better graphical fidelity than Killzone 3. The only reason to compare the two is because they are both FPS's. The lighting in Crysis 2 alone is so far ahead of anything that killzone does, it is not even on the same level, not to mention all the COLOR Crysis 2 has. Yes you can argue KZ2 and KZ3 are so grey because of the art style.... but just look at the first 2 Gears of War games compared to gears 3. Gears one and 2, not much color. Gears 3 after years of optimization for the 360 is one of the best looking console games of this generation, looks nothing like the first 2 games. It can no longer be called Greys of War. Guerilla has not yet been able to deliver a killzone game at it's max potential. If you console diehards care so much about graphics, why don't you just buy a gaming PC?
@HydroCopper Its a known fact? again acording to whom... you? The only(and i really mean only) media outlet that wrote crysis 2 has better graphics than anything on console is IGN and i wouldnt call them tech experts. If you want that kind of comparation go to LoT or DF. Guerrilla has delivered in all the fields that count, you know your comment sounds like a bashing spree against the ps3(all while praising a 360 exclusive in the procces) for no reason at all. Here are known fact of fanboys: 1-Bash another console exclusive, because you cant have it check. 2-Write unproved facts as the one and only proof needed check 3-Praise to hell and back the only console exclusive you have this year...while bashing the competition in the procces check. Looks like we have a pattern here.
This is pretty much what I'm expecting... so yea
@ Gran Touring I agree with you I would get BF3 for PC, but my PSN friends don't wanna buy a PC...so I will enjoy BF3 just as much on PS3 as I would PC. Plus I shall save Skyrim for my PC. 2011 is such a great year for gaming!
Why not just get both? Unfortunately, I have to because only one of my friends can get it on PC. I can't imagine being able to play the best version and not doing so.
This review sounds exactly like what I've been fearing with this game. It sounds like it's just going to be BC2 with vehicles. I didn't even like BC2 that much. If it's anywhere near BC2, I'm not buying it. I just hope it's its own game and it MUCH better than BC2.
@Veni Vidi Vici "It sounds like it's just going to be BC2 with vehicles." Um.. BC2 has vehicles, you know? That comment of yours sounded just as much BS [excuse me] as this FAKE-ASS 'hands-on'. -- OT: @the guy who rote the [rather shitty] article Lose the CoD bias/fanboyism, when making a preview/review you should avoid the mention of other games. Stick to the game that's being played, then again we can tell this is BS against BF3 AND the PS3.
I should have said BC2 with MORE vehicles. If you have played ANY of the previous BF games, you'd know the BC series does not have the number of vehicles BF does. Along with the tanks, jeeps, and choppers, BF had jets and the sheer number of vehicles was way more than what is in BC2. It's not the same. I was a huge fan of the previous BF games. This game doesn't even have the Commander feature. That feature made it stand out from the other games. Red Orchestra 2 took that commander idea and expanded on it. Watch one of the vids on Youtube to see what I'm talking about. DICE could have done so much more with the Commander like the Red Orchestra people did. I also have yet to see new multiplayer modes that are different from BC2. I want something NEW. If I wanted to play BC2, I'd play it. I'm sorry. I'm just stating my opinion here. I know many of you are all over the hype with this game but other than (more)destruction and great looking graphics, I'm not seeing anything truly innovative with it. Maybe they haven't shown it yet? That's fine. If they show something innovative, I'll feel much better about this game. As for right now though, I don't see why it took DICE so many years to make this sequel other than just to have the graphical capabilities. Graphics don't make a game with me. So please, tell me what's new about this game that I'm missing other than the shiny graphics?
Hmm, I get your point now. And yes, I do KNOW that BF has more vehicles than BC. I must say that I completely agree with that last part of your comment, the game looks brilliant but I fail to see something truly innovative(not saying there isn't any, it's just that i have very high expectations about this BF). Hopefully DICE will prove me wrong very very soon. Agreed, all these years is what causes me to have these high expectations and failing to see the innovation in this sequel. That one's my fault though. Ps: agreed with your comment and bubbles for a well structured comment [unlike mine] :(
Longtime fan, and yes I agree with you the removal of the command position aswell as the communication clover thingie seems a step backwards...or rather consolized...sadly. Still, the inclusion of proper suppression fire and being 'blinded by the light' (flashlights, etc) seems very interesting.
If you had actually played BC2, you would know that it does have vehicles for land, air, and sea. derp. If Battlefield isn't your style, go play more CoD.
Sorry, I'm done with COD. I look for a series to evolve. COD hasn't done that really since COD4. That's basically what I'm talking about here with BF3. I wanted the series to evolve, and so far, I'm not seeing anything really new other than more destruction. Trust me, I want this game to be good. If only for the satisfaction of making Activision shut their mouths.
thank god this got approved, now that guy can stop spamming the link....
Why does this nobody get a MP preview. Has IGN or GR got one yet? This seems suspicious. Also combat shooting video game. Or as we know it CSVG. Oh wait, FPS.
This article was so poorly written I actually thought it was a translation for a second. It's really that easy to get a job in "journalism"?
lol did he not realise the first demo shown was PC footage and all footage shown up until this point is PC footage except from the console footage on the jimmy fallon show. Doesnt live up to his expectations compared to a high end PC? lol where has he been the last 7 years of gaming?
this article is bullshit
This guy has not played the console version, he's lying. These previews for console would of come out of real gaming sites first.
wait, wait. He said bf3 runs noticeably slower than COD MW3, but does he mean gameplay-wise or tech wise? Bad company2 had a slower pace than COD but it was still better. This guy needs to tell us more details and I don't think he has even played the PC version. but so far, I have to get this.game on PC.
That suggests that he has played MW3 which sounds suspicious as well. My guess. He has not played either game and has never attended an English language class in his life. Why would this no name site get to play the biggest titles of the year before the big publications?
The guy made up the entire article.
If you guys knew anything, you would go listen to the ign podcast. Start listening at minute 49 and you will hear Greg Miller from ign make a comment on how he played BF3 on ps3 and its not looking great. So this guy is actually speaking the truth. Podcast link: http://retromovies.ign.com/...