Battlefield developer Johan Andersson drops a line about maxing a game out.
Two important other tweets : http://twitter.com/#!/repi/... http://twitter.com/#!/repi/...
It's simple, the console version will be maxed out with a relatively low ceiling. Happy? :D
@Gamingdroid I was not even talking about consoles !!! LOL
It is better when a game is hard to max out. Would you people be happy if someone named the high settings as ultra and removed the ultra part so that you could max it out? You are getting the high settings as well as the ultra so there is nothing lost in it , its just that the ceiling is much higher now. More over you can't call this game unoptimized you all saw how well the alpha ran and the final version is going to be even more optimized. It is the first true 64bit game , first game to properly use direct x 11 and if you do a comprehensive study you will know how well optimized the game is. Be happy don't blame DICE and thank them :-).
Devs should have a scale of 1-15 in terms of graphic settings for textures, shaders, shadows, etc... So then the crappies PC can play their game and the best PC's will have a very hard time running the game on max.
Exactly, make games future proof to a certain degree. Maxing games is just a penis competition anyways, make games playable for a larger amount of computers, suiting to the players desired FPS.
That makes sense. PC Gamers on the platform for more than 20 years would remember how many game developers loved to overshoot the capabilities of the then mid-range gaming rigs (and to some extent dream machines) back then, it was just like challenging the hardware manufacturers to make something that can run their game to the highest settings, and encouraging gamers to upgrade to better hardware. This in my opinion drove growth, innovation, invention, and improvement in the computer industry to what we see today and beyond. Otherwise we'd probably still be stuck with DOS graphics or Windows using software rendering in 2011. I remember wishing way back that the we could play a game with graphics as good as the Mechwarrior 2 introduction movie, and we're way ahead past that now.
People should be happy about this after that poor effort called crysis 2
were u mad about that?
the game u mad bro u mad
currently waiting on the beta because the alpha didn't have the graphics i was expecting and seeing on the trailers.
Looking forward to seeing how my PC handles this. Recently built a new computer for BF3 with a GT 560 TI and a Intel Core i5-2500K 3.7ghz quad core cpu. Don't think I will be able to "max it out" but hopefully it will look great on high settings.
I've got a relatively similar spec as you; I don't expect to max the game out, and I honestly hope I don't. I want the game to be scalable so that 2-3 years down the road when better hardware is available, the game can still keep up with the best of them. Which probably will be the case since this is running on DX11...
"and I honestly hope I don't." So you don't want the game to run at its full potential now, so you can wait 2-3 years so it can run at its full potential then?
I'm not saying I don't want the game looking good now, because I do, but I want an engine that has room for potential with newer and better hardware. BF3, much like the BF2, is a game that will be played for years until the sequel comes around. I'd like the game to not only look good now, but keep up with the best in years to come. If you played BF2, you'd know that BF2 from '05 looks nothing like BF2 on an '08+ spec. I guarantee you, the differences are much more than just framerate. I liken this situation to that of Crysis (the first one) how CryEngine 2, though highly criticized for it's lack of optimization upon release, was clearly ahead of its time that it stands very fair ground against its sequel, Crysis 2. That's what I want, and I hope others share my same wish, in BF3; a highly scalable engine, albeit optimized for today's DX11 cards. BF3 will look great now, but it will look even better (and not just run faster) in years to come. That means increased Tessellation, particle density, physics processing, object drawing etc... Hopefully Frostbite 2 partnered with DX11 can get it done.
who wants to bet this game will become a benchmark for GPU's
my build will be here tomorrow morning!!! i have a radeon hd 6850 and a AMD phenom 2 X4 3.4 ghz quad core. if i add another gpu i will definitely be able to max it out, but i won't do that till next year.
hoping this game will be tough to run,want something that pushes my pc to the max.
Having a game that pushes PC's is good only if the image quality increase is substantial enough to warrant the performance cost. Having a game that pushes hardware just for the sake of it is a bad thing, there are benchmarks made specifically for that purpose. I don't know about you, but ideally I'd want a game that looks the best it can be that's relatively easy to run, but then again we don't live in an ideal world. I still don't get why some people desperately want some games to push their hardware to breaking point, regardless of how it looks.
A developer can make a game like pacman make a GTX590 scream if they wanted to. If a game pushes my system then there better be awesome graphics to show for it.
I thought this was about something as interesting as the level cap. Should've known it was about teh graffix...
More importantly, can I run this game on my calculator?
a difference of pc more ligthining and smooth efects
ALso, higher frame rates mutiple very high resolutions over 1080p for all you home LCD users upto 3 screens with 3D vision support. Better lighting and shadows. Much more view distance, particles, physics, sounds & more more more. Done!
you forgot textures draw distance etc
Most of the games that require rediculous machines to run on max settings are just poorly optimised pieces of crap, they arent innovation in any sense of the word (as described poorly above) REAL innovation is when data can be compressed even further so games can look great and run smoothly on almost any rig, for example what DICE are doing with BF3, its going to be very well optimised for its graphics capabilty and is said to have similar demands to that of Bad Company 2. I dont know why people like sitting playing ARMA II on absolute max while the frame rate chunders along at 12fps in large battles just because its poorly optimised and they think that pushes technology..... Truth is technology is always advancing you cant force it to advance any quicker than it does by making some huge uncompressed game that needlessly juices up performance.
We probably have to go Crossfire or SLI X2 GPUs to game on Ultra graphics settings.
You know what... i think DICE should release a benchmark tool because i'm dying to see what my SLI setup is capable of.
Well I am ready, 2x GTX480 SLi with Zalman coolers to OC if I need to. Great thing about PC, plan your system to be able to add to it over time. And you eventually have a greta rig. Then just do it all over again in a couple years :) I love my hobby.
I hope I can max this out. Please have good CrossfireX profiles on launch. Playing with the graphics I see in the trailers would be amazing but then again bad company 2 had disgusting crossfire support and its not being fixed :/ AMD phenom II x 6 2 x HD6850CF 4gb Ram
in bad company 2 turn on vsync in game in the catalyst turn on triple buffering texture filtering high quality that should stop the flashing black screen at least for about 2-3 multiplayer games.
Well its only happening in bad company 2. 11.8 with cap 2 helped a lot but it still does it time to time. Ill try what you said though, Thanks.
i have 2 6970s and the screen flashes black all the time. does nvidia have this problem?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.