It runs pretty damn good on my computer and it's 4 years old with a new 560 Ti. I run it on medium but can run it on high if I want too.
Difference between MW3 and BF3, well, BF3 looks better.
Install the beta drivers, it runs much better but you should be able to play the game with high graphics if you have a computer that's 1 year or earlier.
Originally posted by Smasandian
It runs pretty damn good on my computer and it's 4 years old with a new 560 Ti. I run it on medium but can run it on high if I want too.Difference between MW3 and BF3, well, BF3 looks better.
Install the beta drivers, it runs much better but you should be able to play the game with high graphics if you have a computer that's 1 year or earlier.
So you have gone higher than 30 fps on your pc, with bf3?
I wonder why the 30 fps cap is necessary on consoles. MW3 will run at 60 frames per second, and it's not as if BF3 will have that much more stuff going on in their game. BF3 will have a 24 player cap in all their matches, which is the same as in CoD. Both games will have jets and helicopters and shit flying around the map at all times, as well.
The Frostbite 2 engine is much more advanced and does a lot more than whatever engine MW3 uses. The physics in BF3 are a reason why you would see a difference in FPS.
I misunderstood FistOfTheNorth, I thought you meant "would a computer be able to get more than 30FPS in BF3". I've never seen a PC game have a limiter on FPS. There's no reason for it. I think they're might be a few games that limit a game to 60 FPS (I think CoD does, not too sure).
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I wonder why the 30 fps cap is necessary on consoles. MW3 will run at 60 frames per second, and it's not as if BF3 will have that much more stuff going on in their game. BF3 will have a 24 player cap in all their matches, which is the same as in CoD. Both games will have jets and helicopters and shit flying around the map at all times, as well.
The things in bf3 like scaling, draw distance, dynamic light and destructible environments wouldn't work out running at 60 fps on consoles. one of the main reasons cod pulls it off is because of it's static environments and the lack of a vast draw distance.
On PC, maybe. It looks like shit on the 360. Doesn't run nearly as well either. It runs like Medal of Honor did, and that game was awful.
After dumping a few hours into the game, I don't think I'm going to buy it. If I had a PC I might, because it's incredibly obvious that the game was designed for PC's (which is a good thing, too many games are ported from consoles these days). As I don't have a PC that can play it, however, there's no point imo for getting a game that's going to look like and play like crap.
I agree with your assessment. I have a PC that can play it and it's great to find a game that is designed for the PC (DICE have stated this).
I think that's a smart move because I think if they ported BF3 to the PC, they would upset pretty much all their fan base. People have been waiting for this game for years and while BF:BC2 was a good game, it's different enough.