EPTBattlefield 3 - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
BlueLobster
Singapore205 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On June 11 2011 03:53 BlueLobster wrote: are the minimum specs for BF3 out ? nope, there was a fake one released but an official one has not been released yet. | ||
|
Oneoldfogie
United Kingdom61 Posts
On June 11 2011 03:53 BlueLobster wrote: are the minimum specs for BF3 out ? http://enterbf3.com/battlefield-3-minimum-requirements.php + Show Spoiler + While no official announcement of minimum requirements for Battlefield 3 have been made, we do know what engine the game will be running. Frostbite 2.0. Because of this we can estimate what requirements will be expected when Battlefield 3 hits shelves. Minimum System Requirements Processor: Dual Core Memory: 2 GB Hard Drive: 15 GB for Digital Version, 10 GB for Disc Version Video Memory: 256 MB Sound Card: DirectX Compatible DirectX: 10 Keyboard and Mouse DVD Rom Drive Recommended System Requirements Processor: Quadcore Processor Memory: 4 GB Hard Drive: 15 GB for Digital Version, 10 GB for Disc Version Video Memory: 512 MB Sound Card: DirectX Compatible DirectX: 11 Keyboard and Mouse DVD Rom Drive EDIT: I have no idea of the legitimacy of these having read the above post, so, make your own conclusions. | ||
|
Latham
9568 Posts
On June 11 2011 03:53 BlueLobster wrote: are the minimum specs for BF3 out ? No, not officially but here's a good estimate: http://enterbf3.com/battlefield-3-minimum-requirements.php + Show Spoiler + Minimum System Requirements Processor: Dual Core Memory: 2 GB Hard Drive: 15 GB for Digital Version, 10 GB for Disc Version Video Memory: 256 MB Sound Card: DirectX Compatible DirectX: 10 Keyboard and Mouse DVD Rom Drive Recommended System Requirements Processor: Quadcore Processor Memory: 4 GB Hard Drive: 15 GB for Digital Version, 10 GB for Disc Version Video Memory: 512 MB Sound Card: DirectX Compatible DirectX: 11 Keyboard and Mouse DVD Rom Drive | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
| ||
|
Oneoldfogie
United Kingdom61 Posts
My good old, overpriced, wish-i-never-bought-it-and-built-my-own-computer Alienware has been a trusty companion, but even on BC2 it doesn't like anything over medium  | ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On June 10 2011 00:50 Jswizzy wrote: COD is not a tactical FPS game it's an arcade shooter. I know you're trolling, but I beg to differ. However, I play it at a decently high level, so rush tactics only work if you can peek well and have good set nades. Otherwise, you have to play smart and be aware of your position and theirs at all times, even when in action, but regardless, the strategy is pretty shallow and your tactical options aren't very diverse. On June 09 2011 14:33 blade55555 wrote: Agreed it could be super awesome to watch like 16 vs 16 pro's playing and stuff. I might drool imagining it ^_^ It makes it hard to focus on anything though. An observer can't follow everyone at once, and you don't really get a good feel for what a player is doing just looking at their avatar in 3rd person. I still agree though, main reason I want to get it is for competition. On June 10 2011 00:42 Hoon wrote: The reason why you feel like CoD doesn't give so much health is actually because the weapons do A LOT of damage. In BF, you die quickly because there are 32 players killing each other with tanks and helicopters, so you actually get killed by the explosions. If you play BF in a straight up fight with no vehicles and no medics, you will notice that it takes much more shots to kill someone. Also, the health regen system is not as forgiving as CoD's, so you can't just keep running and shooting like a madman. I think that if you take some time to learn how to play BF, you'll love it and you'll never play CoD anymore. You still play CoD because the game feels much more awarding. + Show Spoiler + Also, quick scope is retarded. Well, someone said 3 to 5 shots, and that's about how much it takes in CoD also, usually only 3 in close range, and maybe up to 7 from long range (more like 5 though). However, I like the idea of medics and this game obviously has more long range engagements than CoD which usually forces you into tight corridors. So, I'm excited, I want to play it, and I'm just giving up on CoD for now since there is no sign that things will get better. On June 10 2011 01:28 Jswizzy wrote: The problem with low health is that it removes much of the skill of a shooter out of a game and allows campers to hide somewhere and get a lucky shot off from their hiding hole. I prefer the 3-5 shot requirement with head shots decreeing that amount by 1-2 shots. That gives you just enough time to have a gun fight in which the player with the better aim has a good chance of winning and not just the guy who was covering a ridge or corner. That's how it works in Black Ops. 3-5 to kill, and 1-2 for head shots. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
DICE Game Desinger @ Twitter: Did you notice the dinosaur in our E3 #Bf3 demo? =) http://i.imgur.com/xkvwS.png #just4fun P.S.: I hope this isn't old news, found nothing while searching this thread. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
I know you're trolling, but I beg to differ. However, I play it at a decently high level, so rush tactics only work if you can peek well and have good set nades. Otherwise, you have to play smart and be aware of your position and theirs at all times, even when in action, but regardless, the strategy is pretty shallow and your tactical options aren't very diverse. How is it trolling to say that I don't consider COD to be a tactical shooter. Maybe we have a different idea about what makes a tactical shooter but to me games like ARMA, Rainbow Six(before Vegas), red orchestra, and America's Army are Tactical Shooters. Battlefield and COD don't play like those games at all. Sure you can use tactics but that doesn't make it a tactical shooter. Having open maps, realistic weapons with sway and recoil, realistic movement, ect make a tactical shooter. Anyways here is what Wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_shooter | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On June 11 2011 06:48 Jswizzy wrote: How is it trolling to say that I don't consider COD to be a tactical shooter. Maybe we have a different idea about what makes a tactical shooter but to me games like ARMA, Rainbow Six(before Vegas), red orchestra, and America's Army are Tactical Shooters. Battlefield and COD don't play like those games at all. Sure you can use tactics but that doesn't make it a tactical shooter. Having open maps, realistic weapons with sway and recoil, realistic movement, ect make a tactical shooter. Anyways here is what Wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_shooter Man I loved America's Army. There was something so fun about actually playing carefully. Always checking where your teammates were reporting from, and keeping the sound ear blastingly loud to try to hear footsteps. CoD certainly is more of an arcade game compared to AA and games even more "real" than that. | ||
|
Parsistamon
United States390 Posts
Good article with mostly old information but some interesting perspective nonetheless. I really like this suppressing fire feature: That's really an LMG's role on the battlefield. So many games in the past have had issues balancing and finding a true purpose for LMGs in their multiplayer. Too often its role was completely superceded by assault rifles, and if not it was often way overpowered. Here, finally, a reason to play as the LMG class. We'll have to see if the application of this feature works out but they definitely have the right idea. | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
 It looks like DICE is taking notes from recent tactical shooters like Project Reality and Red Orchestra. I'm glad they're adding a suppression effect. In most shooters, the LMG did nothing but attract attention from snipers and riflemen. "Oh hey, this guy's spraying his M249 at me, there's no way he can hit me, I'll shoot him with my vastly superior gun" | ||
|
Hoon
Brazil891 Posts
On June 11 2011 04:23 RageOverdose wrote: I know you're trolling, but I beg to differ. However, I play it at a decently high level, so rush tactics only work if you can peek well and have good set nades. Otherwise, you have to play smart and be aware of your position and theirs at all times, even when in action, but regardless, the strategy is pretty shallow and your tactical options aren't very diverse. It makes it hard to focus on anything though. An observer can't follow everyone at once, and you don't really get a good feel for what a player is doing just looking at their avatar in 3rd person. I still agree though, main reason I want to get it is for competition. Well, someone said 3 to 5 shots, and that's about how much it takes in CoD also, usually only 3 in close range, and maybe up to 7 from long range (more like 5 though). However, I like the idea of medics and this game obviously has more long range engagements than CoD which usually forces you into tight corridors. So, I'm excited, I want to play it, and I'm just giving up on CoD for now since there is no sign that things will get better. That's how it works in Black Ops. 3-5 to kill, and 1-2 for head shots. Don't forget that CoD weapons have no recoil at all. In a regular FPS, if you hold down the 'shoot' button, you get no more than 2 shots before losing control of the weapon. In CoD, you can just get a semi-automatic weapon and kill people with a short burst, which brings "3-5 shots to kill" down to "1 quick burst", which is basically 1-2 shots. | ||
|
Warsaurus
United States19 Posts
If it's not done to a high enough level, then it becomes pointless. And since I really really am looking forward to this feature, I hope it's done well. =) | ||
|
Parsistamon
United States390 Posts
| ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On June 11 2011 09:30 Hoon wrote: Don't forget that CoD weapons have no recoil at all. In a regular FPS, if you hold down the 'shoot' button, you get no more than 2 shots before losing control of the weapon. In CoD, you can just get a semi-automatic weapon and kill people with a short burst, which brings "3-5 shots to kill" down to "1 quick burst", which is basically 1-2 shots. That's not entirely true, but the recoil in CoD is easily manageable for must guns (they have different recoil patterns, and the 47 has the simplest as it only goes up). So in general, if using a gun in BF3 means I need to control it more to get good shots, I'm fine with that. I like the idea of not dying the second I get seen. I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually... Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. This suppression feature though, it's interesting. I'll have to see it in action to get a feel for if I like it or not. On June 11 2011 06:48 Jswizzy wrote: How is it trolling to say that I don't consider COD to be a tactical shooter. Maybe we have a different idea about what makes a tactical shooter but to me games like ARMA, Rainbow Six(before Vegas), red orchestra, and America's Army are Tactical Shooters. Battlefield and COD don't play like those games at all. Sure you can use tactics but that doesn't make it a tactical shooter. Having open maps, realistic weapons with sway and recoil, realistic movement, ect make a tactical shooter. Anyways here is what Wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_shooter If you want to argue this you can PM me, but I'm not actually talking about it from a pubbing standpoint anyway where things are a LOT different than competitively (it's almost a different game), as I don't pub CoD anymore (it makes me want to kill myself, metaphorically). | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On June 11 2011 12:50 RageOverdose wrote: That's not entirely true, but the recoil in CoD is easily manageable for must guns (they have different recoil patterns, and the 47 has the simplest as it only goes up). So in general, if using a gun in BF3 means I need to control it more to get good shots, I'm fine with that. I like the idea of not dying the second I get seen. I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually... Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. This suppression feature though, it's interesting. I'll have to see it in action to get a feel for if I like it or not. If you want to argue this you can PM me, but I'm not actually talking about it from a pubbing standpoint anyway where things are a LOT different than competitively (it's almost a different game), as I don't pub CoD anymore (it makes me want to kill myself, metaphorically). Honestly it would be a waste of my time and you would just move the goal post like above. | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually... Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. In BC2, walls basically evaporated into nothingness. It seems that in Battlefield 3, chunks of buildings will still exist after being hit by an explosion. So if you hit the third story of a building with a tank cannon, pieces of wall will come down on the ground and provide cover for troops on the ground level. So we won't have those moments like in BC2 where every building gets destroyed and everyone is looking at each other on a flat map and it's impossible for infantry to do anything  | ||
|
xHassassin
United States270 Posts
| ||
| ||
