Amazing Photo-real Battlefield 3 images are "In-game" o.O

http://fpstribe.com/featured/ea-confirms-astonishing-battlefield-3-screenshots-are-in-game/

This.....just so....ASTONISHING

Ermm.... Bio...

Are you sure I'll be able to run this?

My next paycheck = new graphics card

oh shit...

Sonji wrote:

Ermm.... Bio...

Are you sure I'll be able to run this?

This is max, no. Lol, you will able to run at normal.

Real life graphic FTW.

Wish I had a gaming PC, but I'm stuck with my 360...

ghost23 wrote:

Wish I had a gaming PC, but I'm stuck with my 360...

Invest in one. Best choice I ever made

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

Wish I had a gaming PC, but I'm stuck with my 360...

Invest in one. Best choice I ever made

BBC made a compelling argument as to why it's worth paying £250 for each part.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

Wish I had a gaming PC, but I'm stuck with my 360...

Invest in one. Best choice I ever made

Well I have the choice to either buy basically every one of this years blockbuster on consoles (Battlefield 3, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3, Modern Warfare 3, Skyrim, AC Revelation, Halo CEA, Forza 4, Batman Arkham City) or I could build a new gaming PC and have no cash left over. I chose all the games.

That's the only reason I'm not buying a PC. I could save up for a year and buy one for $500 or I could buy games. Like ghost, I choose games.

TRF wrote:

That's the only reason I'm not buying a PC. I could save up for a year and buy one for $500 or I could buy games. Like ghost, I choose games.

Yea seriously PC gaming is so messed up now a days.... You build an expensive gaming rig that can run games at max settings and in a few years that gaming rig won't mean squat shit. On average I'd say PC gamers probably invest more on hardware than they do on actual gaming software which is fucked up.

And you know what the screwed up part is? PC developers are LAZY. Look at the console graphics we have now running on EXTREMELY outdated graphics cards. Instead of optimizing their game engine to run better on older hardware they keep raising the requirements and roll out new graphics cards. I mean SERIOUSLY if Forza 4 and God of war 3 were on the PC I doubt they would be able to run on graphics cards that were made 6-7 years ago despite the console counterparts doing the same thing.

With a console I get a unified platform and a huge array of great exclusives (Oh and exclusives I know for sure won't go multiplat in the future *cough* Crysis...*cough* Minecraft) and I can "run" ALL games on what a PC could run at medium-high specs (which is pretty friggen good considering the age of the consoles). All for 300-400 dollars RETAIL (and you can get consoles cheap off of the amazon and ebay now a days). And the extra money that I would have spent upgrading parts in a couple years go to GAMES. All of the gaming software (25+ games) I've bought this gen come up to atleast 4-5 times the cost of the actual console...Which is how it SHOULD be.

/rant

Anyways I can't wait for BF3 but they need to show us some multiplayer gameplay already.

Alanski wrote:

TRF wrote:

That's the only reason I'm not buying a PC. I could save up for a year and buy one for $500 or I could buy games. Like ghost, I choose games.

Yea seriously PC gaming is so messed up now a days.... You build an expensive gaming rig that can run games at max settings and in a few years that gaming rig won't mean squat shit. On average I'd say PC gamers probably invest more on hardware than they do on actual gaming software which is fucked up.

And you know what the screwed up part is? PC developers are LAZY. Look at the console graphics we have now running on EXTREMELY outdated graphics cards. Instead of optimizing their game engine to run better on older hardware they keep raising the requirements and roll out new graphics cards. I mean SERIOUSLY if Forza 4 and God of war 3 were on the PC I doubt they would be able to run on graphics cards that were made 6-7 years ago despite the console counterparts doing the same thing.

With a console I get a unified platform and a huge array of great exclusives (Oh and exclusives I know for sure won't go multiplat in the future *cough* Crysis...*cough* Minecraft) and I can "run" ALL games on what a PC could run at medium-high specs (which is pretty friggen good considering the age of the consoles). All for 300-400 dollars RETAIL (and you can get consoles cheap off of the amazon and ebay now a days). And the extra money that I would have spent upgrading parts in a couple years go to GAMES. All of the gaming software (25+ games) I've bought this gen come up to atleast 4-5 times the cost of the actual console...Which is how it SHOULD be.

/rant

Anyways I can't wait for BF3 but they need to show us some multiplayer gameplay already.

A good gaming PC can last until the end of a console generation.

Sonji wrote:

Alanski wrote:

TRF wrote:

That's the only reason I'm not buying a PC. I could save up for a year and buy one for $500 or I could buy games. Like ghost, I choose games.

Yea seriously PC gaming is so messed up now a days.... You build an expensive gaming rig that can run games at max settings and in a few years that gaming rig won't mean squat shit. On average I'd say PC gamers probably invest more on hardware than they do on actual gaming software which is fucked up.

And you know what the screwed up part is? PC developers are LAZY. Look at the console graphics we have now running on EXTREMELY outdated graphics cards. Instead of optimizing their game engine to run better on older hardware they keep raising the requirements and roll out new graphics cards. I mean SERIOUSLY if Forza 4 and God of war 3 were on the PC I doubt they would be able to run on graphics cards that were made 6-7 years ago despite the console counterparts doing the same thing.

With a console I get a unified platform and a huge array of great exclusives (Oh and exclusives I know for sure won't go multiplat in the future *cough* Crysis...*cough* Minecraft) and I can "run" ALL games on what a PC could run at medium-high specs (which is pretty friggen good considering the age of the consoles). All for 300-400 dollars RETAIL (and you can get consoles cheap off of the amazon and ebay now a days). And the extra money that I would have spent upgrading parts in a couple years go to GAMES. All of the gaming software (25+ games) I've bought this gen come up to atleast 4-5 times the cost of the actual console...Which is how it SHOULD be.

/rant

Anyways I can't wait for BF3 but they need to show us some multiplayer gameplay already.

A good gaming PC can last until the end of a console generation.

This.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Sonji wrote:

Alanski wrote:

TRF wrote:

That's the only reason I'm not buying a PC. I could save up for a year and buy one for $500 or I could buy games. Like ghost, I choose games.

Yea seriously PC gaming is so messed up now a days.... You build an expensive gaming rig that can run games at max settings and in a few years that gaming rig won't mean squat shit. On average I'd say PC gamers probably invest more on hardware than they do on actual gaming software which is fucked up.

And you know what the screwed up part is? PC developers are LAZY. Look at the console graphics we have now running on EXTREMELY outdated graphics cards. Instead of optimizing their game engine to run better on older hardware they keep raising the requirements and roll out new graphics cards. I mean SERIOUSLY if Forza 4 and God of war 3 were on the PC I doubt they would be able to run on graphics cards that were made 6-7 years ago despite the console counterparts doing the same thing.

With a console I get a unified platform and a huge array of great exclusives (Oh and exclusives I know for sure won't go multiplat in the future *cough* Crysis...*cough* Minecraft) and I can "run" ALL games on what a PC could run at medium-high specs (which is pretty friggen good considering the age of the consoles). All for 300-400 dollars RETAIL (and you can get consoles cheap off of the amazon and ebay now a days). And the extra money that I would have spent upgrading parts in a couple years go to GAMES. All of the gaming software (25+ games) I've bought this gen come up to atleast 4-5 times the cost of the actual console...Which is how it SHOULD be.

/rant

Anyways I can't wait for BF3 but they need to show us some multiplayer gameplay already.

A good gaming PC can last until the end of a console generation.

This.

This, I built Sonji a $550 rig a couple days ago that can run pretty much every game out there on max with a respectable FPS (30+ at least) all the parts in the rig are 2+ years old and his rig will be able to play any game for the next (AT LEAST) 3 years on normal to max settings (depending on how many FPS he wants). The myth that PC parts become outdated 2 months after you buy them is just that, a myth. Also you're probably right, PC gamers probably do spend more on their hardware because they get their software so damn cheap, BBC's Steam library is worth $1400 retail, you know how much he actually paid? A little over $300. And the reason games like GoW wouldn't run on 6-7 year old PC cards is because PC aren't unified like consoles, not because the developers are lazy. Now hating on the (grossly exaggerated) cost of a gaming PC is irrelevant, it's like a guy hating on a Ferrari because his Dodge Neon can get him from point A to point B.

This game looks fucking beautiful.

Sonji wrote:

Alanski wrote:

TRF wrote:

That's the only reason I'm not buying a PC. I could save up for a year and buy one for $500 or I could buy games. Like ghost, I choose games.

Yea seriously PC gaming is so messed up now a days.... You build an expensive gaming rig that can run games at max settings and in a few years that gaming rig won't mean squat shit. On average I'd say PC gamers probably invest more on hardware than they do on actual gaming software which is fucked up.

And you know what the screwed up part is? PC developers are LAZY. Look at the console graphics we have now running on EXTREMELY outdated graphics cards. Instead of optimizing their game engine to run better on older hardware they keep raising the requirements and roll out new graphics cards. I mean SERIOUSLY if Forza 4 and God of war 3 were on the PC I doubt they would be able to run on graphics cards that were made 6-7 years ago despite the console counterparts doing the same thing.

With a console I get a unified platform and a huge array of great exclusives (Oh and exclusives I know for sure won't go multiplat in the future *cough* Crysis...*cough* Minecraft) and I can "run" ALL games on what a PC could run at medium-high specs (which is pretty friggen good considering the age of the consoles). All for 300-400 dollars RETAIL (and you can get consoles cheap off of the amazon and ebay now a days). And the extra money that I would have spent upgrading parts in a couple years go to GAMES. All of the gaming software (25+ games) I've bought this gen come up to atleast 4-5 times the cost of the actual console...Which is how it SHOULD be.

/rant

Anyways I can't wait for BF3 but they need to show us some multiplayer gameplay already.

A good gaming PC can last until the end of a console generation.

MY FUCKING ASS!!

A NVIDIA G70 GPU or an ATI R500 series GPU can't run any of the new shit now a days. And if they can then they run at minimum specs at low frame-rates. Yet guess what? The 360 and PS3 GPU's are based on the same series I just mentioned. Not to mention the outrageous RAM requirements for some games. Some games running at minimum specs on PC require atleast a GB while PS3 and 360 have less than 500 MB of usable RAM. It's mainly because the Ps3 and 360 OS don't take up anywhere near as much RAM as Windows does.

Alanski wrote:

Sonji wrote:

Alanski wrote:

TRF wrote:

That's the only reason I'm not buying a PC. I could save up for a year and buy one for $500 or I could buy games. Like ghost, I choose games.

Yea seriously PC gaming is so messed up now a days.... You build an expensive gaming rig that can run games at max settings and in a few years that gaming rig won't mean squat shit. On average I'd say PC gamers probably invest more on hardware than they do on actual gaming software which is fucked up.

And you know what the screwed up part is? PC developers are LAZY. Look at the console graphics we have now running on EXTREMELY outdated graphics cards. Instead of optimizing their game engine to run better on older hardware they keep raising the requirements and roll out new graphics cards. I mean SERIOUSLY if Forza 4 and God of war 3 were on the PC I doubt they would be able to run on graphics cards that were made 6-7 years ago despite the console counterparts doing the same thing.

With a console I get a unified platform and a huge array of great exclusives (Oh and exclusives I know for sure won't go multiplat in the future *cough* Crysis...*cough* Minecraft) and I can "run" ALL games on what a PC could run at medium-high specs (which is pretty friggen good considering the age of the consoles). All for 300-400 dollars RETAIL (and you can get consoles cheap off of the amazon and ebay now a days). And the extra money that I would have spent upgrading parts in a couple years go to GAMES. All of the gaming software (25+ games) I've bought this gen come up to atleast 4-5 times the cost of the actual console...Which is how it SHOULD be.

/rant

Anyways I can't wait for BF3 but they need to show us some multiplayer gameplay already.

A good gaming PC can last until the end of a console generation.

MY FUCKING ASS!!

A NVIDIA G70 GPU or an ATI R500 series GPU can't run any of the new shit now a days. And if they can then they run at minimum specs at low frame-rates. Yet guess what? The 360 and PS3 GPU's are based on the same series I just mentioned. Not to mention the outrageous RAM requirements for some games. Some games running at minimum specs on PC require atleast a GB while PS3 and 360 have less than 500 MB of usable RAM. It's mainly because the Ps3 and 360 OS don't take up anywhere near as much RAM as Windows does.

I've been using the PC I have right now for like a good 3 - 4 years. Still runs modern games incredibly well.

Well even then your GPU is a good 2 generations ahead of the 360/PS3's GPU . There are monumentally hugggeee advantages of developing for a unified platform. For example, Crysis 2 on PC isn't as much of a resource hog as Crysis despite it looking better than Crysis. This was because the CryEngine 3 is more efficient at taking full advantage of given resources. Why? Because they were developing it for CONSOLES and they were forced to streamline the game engine which in turn made the PC version better overall.

"We also implemented special tricks like fibres to run two threads extremely efficiently on a single hardware thread. The PC gained scalability from that as well, running on quad-core is much more efficient than on a dual-core. But in the near future the engine will be even more task-orientated to scale on arbitrary core numbers.............The optimisations necessitated by the migration onto consoles also ensure a good experience on PC too. A base-level quad-core CPU in combination with the classic NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT - astonishingly - still manages to provide a smooth, responsive experience"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-crysis-2?page=2

Who would have thought! Now a GPU that is 3-4 generations old can run Crysis!

@Bio...I don't want you to think that I implied that gaming PC parts need to be exchanged every couple of months.

Can't delete this post for some reason.

BioRevenant wrote:

it's like a guy hating on a Ferrari because his Dodge Neon can get him from point A to point B.

People who say PC is a waste of money, look here. Of course the hardware is more expensive, but you get a lot more for what you pay!

[quote="BioRevenant"]

Alanski wrote:

Well even then your GPU is a good 2 generations ahead of the 360/PS3's GPU . There are monumentally hugggeee advantages of developing for a unified platform. For example, Crysis 2 on PC isn't as much of a resource hog as Crysis despite it looking better than Crysis. This was because the CryEngine 3 is more efficient at taking full advantage of given resources. Why? Because they were developing it for CONSOLES and they were forced to streamline the game engine which in turn made the PC version better overall.

"We also implemented special tricks like fibres to run two threads extremely efficiently on a single hardware thread. The PC gained scalability from that as well, running on quad-core is much more efficient than on a dual-core. But in the near future the engine will be even more task-orientated to scale on arbitrary core numbers.............The optimisations necessitated by the migration onto consoles also ensure a good experience on PC too. A base-level quad-core CPU in combination with the classic NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT - astonishingly - still manages to provide a smooth, responsive experience"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-crysis-2?page=2

Who would have thought! Now a GPU that is 3-4 generations old can run Crysis!

@Bio...I don't want you to think that I implied that gaming PC parts need to be exchanged every couple of months.

Crysis at max > Crysis 2 at max by far, ask any PC gamer or look it up yourself. The reason CE3 is less demanding is because it does less, period. Cryengine 3 is considered a dumbed down cryengine to work on consoles by the PC community. Anyone that says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about, CE2 ran an open world game and made it look more impressive then CE3 running a linear game.

[quote="BioRevenant"]

BioRevenant wrote:

Alanski wrote:

Well even then your GPU is a good 2 generations ahead of the 360/PS3's GPU . There are monumentally hugggeee advantages of developing for a unified platform. For example, Crysis 2 on PC isn't as much of a resource hog as Crysis despite it looking better than Crysis. This was because the CryEngine 3 is more efficient at taking full advantage of given resources. Why? Because they were developing it for CONSOLES and they were forced to streamline the game engine which in turn made the PC version better overall.

"We also implemented special tricks like fibres to run two threads extremely efficiently on a single hardware thread. The PC gained scalability from that as well, running on quad-core is much more efficient than on a dual-core. But in the near future the engine will be even more task-orientated to scale on arbitrary core numbers.............The optimisations necessitated by the migration onto consoles also ensure a good experience on PC too. A base-level quad-core CPU in combination with the classic NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT - astonishingly - still manages to provide a smooth, responsive experience"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-crysis-2?page=2

Who would have thought! Now a GPU that is 3-4 generations old can run Crysis!

@Bio...I don't want you to think that I implied that gaming PC parts need to be exchanged every couple of months.

Crysis at max > Crysis 2 at max by far, ask any PC gamer or look it up yourself. The reason CE3 is less demanding is because it does less, period. Cryengine 3 is considered a dumbed down cryengine to work on consoles by the PC community. Anyone that says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about, CE2 ran an open world game and made it look more impressive then CE3 running a linear game.

Crysis 1 had better texture quality but overall Crysis 2 has a better variety of environments and lighting. But that's besides the point. You can't compare the maximum capabilities of an engine based off of ONE game. CryEngine 3 was optimized so that it could run on consoles but that in turn made the engine run more efficiently on PC. The engine itself is updated to feature DX11 support, real multi-core support, better lighting (deferred lighting/real time global illumination and better color grading), better physics (deformation improvements), etc. So yes CryEngine 3 is a far more capable engine than CryEngine 2 and is more efficient so that it could run on consoles.

And no I'm not going to ask any ignorant PC noob from that elitest cult (yes I went there) that you call are PC community when I could just look at Crytek's own technical papers and slides to know what's up. They think Crysis 2 was a so-so game because it's on consoles and it's not the graphical benchmark that they were hoping for when the reality is that Crysis 2 is FAR better gameplay wise AND story wise.

Yea I agree with Alan, the PC community wanted to see another graphical benchmark but instead they got better gameplay & a better story in Crysis 2. Now some of those PC elitest are bashing the CryEngine 3 by calling it "dumb down" when it looks great both on PC & consoles.