Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Aki Feb 12 2011, 01:40 AM

exactly that... anyone got a clue what the likely min specs are and when the actual likely release date is? I get the feeling my 2.4Ghz dual core with 2GB ram an GeForce 9600GT might not cut the mustard... and I'd hate for us to get a brand spanking new clan happy multiplayer and not be able to join in. :S

Posted by: Kadey Feb 12 2011, 10:06 AM

I would imagine somewhere around the Crysis 2 minimums, given that its still on the consoles, and like Crysis 2 will be pushing what they're capable of. Obviously moderately higher for 64 player maps. Now, I don't know what the Crysis 2 minimum specs actually are


This said, I agree that the dual core and 9600 will probably fail - given that from my own early experiences with BC2, its only just really 'good' for that. And BF3, hopefully, will be a whole bigger scale.

Posted by: kermit Feb 12 2011, 11:39 AM

Theres nowhere that its been announced yet. Everyones is just throwing guess around the one thing i do know is it wont support windows XP only windows 7

Posted by: MonkeyFiend Feb 13 2011, 11:48 AM

fraid so regarding XP: http://twitter.com/repi/status/20028015661

Which is a real shame, since there really shouldn't be any technical reason to prevent it.

Posted by: Aki Feb 13 2011, 08:16 PM

Sigh ... finally time to roll out my *ahem* Window7 then huh

Posted by: =R6= Raile Feb 15 2011, 12:54 PM

my advice is to wait and see if it sucks hard before buying/upgrading a pc around it......... 0.o

Posted by: MonkeyFiend Feb 15 2011, 01:04 PM

My PC should cope with it. I have a rather organised PC building cycle of upgrading PC components (CPU/Mobo/Mem) one year then upgrading GFX the next year and so on (possibly with a year or two gap if technology or game requirements haven't moved on).

That being said although I have a windows 7 partition, I still use XP as my main OS simply because I know XP in and out and have no reason to change at the moment. It's jsut a bit annoying that they force you to use 7 even though the main reasons for 7 would be directX 11 and additional memory support - memory is valid, but there's been suggestions that the miniumum would be 2gb anyway (well within XP's capabilities) and the whole point behind DirectX is that it should scale.

Yes you might get some super doopa particle physics with DX11 thats not in DX9 but for lower specced machines, there would be an option to turn this off anyway, in which case you're back to the same level as DX9 again.

I'm coming up to the time where I'll be buying an SSD in the next few months and that will probably have 7 on it, but as Raile says I wouldn't upgrade a computer until knowing if BF3 is going to suck in the way BC2 did

Posted by: Magik5 Feb 15 2011, 03:20 PM

i think theyre slowly trying to phase out xp/dx9, after all they are now both legacy software - how are companies supposed to progress when people are still holding onto old tech

Posted by: MonkeyFiend Feb 15 2011, 04:16 PM

But that's my point - If you aim to have a scaleable adjustable game whereby players can turn down (or off) all the eye candy, effects, post processing and features that are specific to DX10/11 then why not support XP? If you enforce these effects and features as a strict requirement then fine, make it DX11 only.

This is my point: if you include lots of DX11 exclusive effects in a game then allow people to disable them, then in essence you've got DX9

XP does afterall still hold overall market share of 41% compared to Vista (15%) and 7 (25%). Admitedly the number is probably somewhat higher for uptake of 7 on the gaming PC's but you're still talking about excluding a rather large segment of the market. (and that's even before we start on hardware requriements)

DX is just the renderer API for video/sound etc.,. Look at the tech specs between DX9 and 10/11 and a lot of the differences are the instructional sets, programmable pipes handling and shaders/texture guff. A lot of people would care more about the gameplay over graphics. I'd happily take a reworking of BF2 with additional anti-cheat measures/bugfixes/all the SF maps etc., compared to BC2. BF2 was great because of the gameplay. BC2 had lots of pretty smoke effects, burning destructable scenary, planes and helicopters flying in the background and all manner of lovely eyecandy. The game still sucked though.

Finally and rather importantly, BF3 will be on the Xbox 360. The 360 uses a modified console version of Dirext X, which guess what... is based on DX 9 (although the modifications place it a bit higher with a couple of exclusive functions such as stream outs/high speed FSAA cache etc.,)

Posted by: Aki Feb 15 2011, 08:07 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Posted by: deadlysniper3 Feb 16 2011, 09:09 AM

i was just looking on utube the next call of duty 8 it will be called modern warfare 3 and they are working on call of duty 9 i will give more info later

Posted by: deadlysniper3 Feb 16 2011, 09:11 AM

call of duty 9 will be called world at hell

Posted by: =R6= Raile Feb 16 2011, 10:32 AM

call of duty sucks, across the board

Posted by: Aki Feb 16 2011, 11:55 PM

However ... my Balls are Fruity!

Posted by: McJaffa Feb 27 2011, 11:49 PM

And this is related to BF3 / hardware requirements how?