They're not "poor console players", they're lucky little pricks who've had the luxury of playing modern games on hardware that's from 2005/2006.
It's not a "dumbed down version" either, it's simply the best settings that their PS3/Xbox can handle (which is not very much). Considering those consoles will be forced to drag on till atleast 2014 with extra attachments, this is the golden era for PC gamers and is probably the best time to invest some cash into a serious gaming PC. It's 100% worth it.
Remember, us guys at the MMO-Champ Computer Forums will be happy to help with any upgrades/builds you guys may be looking into, don't hesitate to ask! (after you read the stickies of course).
Last edited by Xuvial; 2011-06-18 at 03:01 AM.
WoW Character: Wintel - Frostmourne (OCE)
Gaming rig: i7 7700K, GTX 1080 Ti, 16GB DDR4, BenQ 144hz 1440p
Signature art courtesy of Blitzkatze
30 people on an MMO forum talking about upgrading their PC for BF3..and that's just the ones I saw...estimated ofc but it was well over 20. Get over yourself for real...
You do know there's over 30 million Steam accounts right?
Over 76% of the Steam users are using DX10/11 GPU's
Over 80% of the Steam users are using 2 or more CPU's (2 and 4 being the majority)
Yea I'd say the majority of people that use Steam will be able to play BF3 just fine. Maybe not as well as some of us that upgrade our PC's every year, but a hell of a lot more people than you think.
I would take you up on that putting down $ bet, but since you are crying about it I'm guessing you don't have much money to put down.
OT: I am looking at a $2500-3000 build specifically for this game and Skyrim. Gonna go ahead and update my monitor to 120/240hz and get the Nvision 3d glasses for lulz.
Pretty sure that is still 3 years old.Over 76% of the Steam users are using DX10/11 GPU's
Over 80% of the Steam users are using 2 or more CPU's (2 and 4 being the majority)
Im running 2 Cpu's and i bought mine in 08, i have a newer dx10 card but i doubt anyone is really running a dx9 card anymore.
Keep in mind that whether any PC can run it at "max settings" might be down to one ridiculous option, as was the case with The Witcher 2. The Ubersampling graphical setting had a barely noticeable effect but drops performance by around 66%.
I remember Ubersampling did one of the following:
1) render each frame 3 times and somehow get a better picture that way
or
2) render each frame at a much larger size and then shrink it to the actual display size
Thread isn't supposed to be about whether or not console is better than PC, just about how glorious the screens are! In any case, console does apparently look very nearly as good as it will on PC with medium-high settings, so that's pretty nice.
I definitely like how you can actually tell his facial expression changes in one screen to the next, avoiding the stagnant expressionless NPCs that many games have.
Yeah, a very nice touch.
I'm still going to be getting this on PC, regardless if I can only cap out at a mix of medium to high. Why? Because it's a friggin' FPS that is actually being designed on PCs and ported to consoles, not the other way around. AND, I need my fix of Battlefield fun. Battlefield 2 has started to become a little stagnant after 6 long years.
Hmm will 1 GTX 570 be able to handle this thing or should I look into another one to SLI? :X
Fire/Arcane Mage
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte.../Prtzls/simple
Shadow Priest
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...s/Vyrle/simple
That's exactly what I think the DICE developer was rambling on about - some sort of ridiculous settings like 32xSSAA + Extreme Tesselation, but even at those settings I call bullshit that "the computer that can max-out BF3 hasn't been built yet". SLI or Tri-SLI 580's would be more than enough to max it out.
WoW Character: Wintel - Frostmourne (OCE)
Gaming rig: i7 7700K, GTX 1080 Ti, 16GB DDR4, BenQ 144hz 1440p
Signature art courtesy of Blitzkatze
people here are only talking about graphics.... whilst that is one aspect that pc's are better for (and they're no where near as expensive as people here think, you can build a decent quad core pc with a decent graphics card for about £300-350, In fact I just did for a friend and its fairly powerful for the money, no need to turn down settings in games just yet.
Anyway.. the main point for me in terms of pc v console is the vastly superior aiming/reaction time capabilities of mouse+keyboard for FPS. That alone wins the argument for PC v consoles in terms of FPS games, its a matter of physics not opinion.
3 year old PC hardware isn't that bad though. My PC was built 3 years ago, with a graphics card upgrade a year ago, and I have no problem running every game at Max settings. Even before the graphics card upgrade, my OC GTX 9800 could handle any game with mostly high settings, I just wanted to max everything out!
Also, have you even looked at the survey recently? Looking right now you can see that out of Steam's 30+ Million users:
Over 90% of users have DX10 or higher graphics cards
More than 50% of the graphics cards are capable of running all modern games at fairly high settings (look at the breakdown of the cards if you don't believe me)
Over 40% have Quad core CPUs or higher
50% of people have 4GB of RAM or higher, 95% with 2GB or higher
There are an awful lot of mid to high end PCs that can play any game on the market now. While they won't all be able to play BF3 at high settings, most will easily best anything the consoles can do.
Wow...
Time to get a new videocard,'cuz this looks freakin' amazing