637 replies to this topic

[Raven]

Even on E6600, I was able to play the BF3 campaign quite well on ULTRA settings (using 275GTX in DX10). There were breaks here and there but it was acceptable. My processor is over 4 years old, so I don't blame DICE for making Frostbite 2 which in fact just gave something for us PC gamers to brag about. In MP I had to lower all settings to maximize my chances which is acceptable since I do the same cod COD also.

In terms of both games, I don't think its worth in comparing the 2 games. BF3 is more team oriented and u can't win with Rambo style heroics. You need a good team to win. In COD the individuality matters a lot. One star player can change the game. The 2 game play types have their own strengths and weaknesses in their own right IMO. If EA wants to compete with COD directly, they should concentrate more on MoH IMO.

[Camille]

since when did an engine determine a games fun factor?

[SquigPie]

Camille, on 15 November 2011 - 13:13, said:

since when did an engine determine a games fun factor?

Well, when the engine is a testament to the stagnation of video games ability to progress. It doesn't prevent the game from being fun, but it leaves a sore taste in the mouth.

[Chyros]

Personally I couldn't care less if they used the DooM 1 engine if they managed to make it look this good and play this fun.

Actually, the change of engine is part of a problem here. It seems to have been based on Treyarch's Black Ops engine rather than IW's MW2 engine and as such some people are suffering extreme lag and desync issues, even if the ping is not very bad. All hosts lag internally though.

The developers are obviously not IW anymore. They took quite a few thing from Treyarch and these things all make the game worse. Though the game is a great improvement in terms of gameplay and overall design compared to MW2, I have to admit it lacks a certain IW shine, especially the maps and some of the gameplay mechanics.

A game composed of CoD 4 mechanics and maps, MW2 maps and weapons, and MW3 hardpoints, perks, gametypes, customisation and graphics (yes, the models and environments still look noticeably more polished) would be completely ideal.

If only the game was moddable....

[Raven]

Camille, on 15 November 2011 - 13:13, said:

since when did an engine determine a games fun factor?

I was primarily responding to the comments regarding the Frostbite's performance.

Apart from that, part of a game's appeal lies on its Visuals. Also the engine's support towards the game's design ultimately have a hand in the games enjoyability. In the they all contribute to the game's fun factor.
----------
I think Chyros posted while I was typing my initial reply. IMO the main reason why the game engine did not change for COD is the consoles. They would not be able to induce so much effects, explosions in a newer engine for the current consoles without suffering performance hits. IW might be making a newer engine already targeting the next gen consoles.

Edited by Raven, 15 November 2011 - 14:15.

[General]

deltaepsilon, on 15 November 2011 - 02:28, said:

General, on 14 November 2011 - 20:41, said:

it is not soulless as BF3 and I still don't get it how the hell BF3 runs slow on bullshit low graphics while MW3 run on highest with same hardware, those who compare this two game obviously not gives objective opinions.

Might be because your hardware is too shitty to run BF3's more advanced engine, compared to MW3's engine which has been used since 2007.

If you want to talk about objective opinions, don't go talking shit mate.

You are a bit right of the objectivity issue but seeing people bash MW3 just because they won't see complete new game than previous one and play a sequel ( which is how it must be since it is continuation of MW2 ) I tend to get annoyed and feel sorry for the game designers who worked hard to create that game.

BUT, I will not upgrade my PC just for the sake of one game when its rival is better and runs smooth on my current specs.
BF3's requirements are ridiculous, thats why we have LOW and HIGH choices on PC, thats what I am trying to say, BF3 at low settings completely rubbish, feels like ps2 games, while MW3 can be played on same hardware with highest settings and it looks awesome enough if not as good as BF3's high settings.

I do respect the hardwork of the artists who did BF3, graphics on Highest settings ( which how it should be ) looks amazing but that is all, nothing more, gameplay is not fun ( IMHO)

[Alias]

I'm pretty sure with BF3 part of the reason it is a lot slower and looks worse is the fact that the maps are orders of magnitude larger, and there's the physics as well.

[Wanderer]

It's the physics-calculations that make it so demanding. They take alot of horsepower to get done right

[Camille]

MW3 has no physics?

in all seriousness though, there's a plethora of stuff that the frostbite engine is doing when rendering the game. i'd say physics are the least of it's trouble.

i think that what makes it run worse is the fact that it runs soft lighting, ambient occlusion, soft shadows, radiosity etc PLUS a shitload of maps and filters to look the way it looks. lighting calculations like these are crazy intensive graphics processes.

[Wanderer]

There's a huge difference between physics in MW and in BF...

[Camille]

...

hence the smiley and "in all seriosuness".

[Wanderer]

In MW, it only needs to calculate penetrations, rolling objects (grenades) ragdolls and the odd object that will get blown up by the fighting. In BF it's much more complicated with vehicles, destructive environment, gravitational effect on the projectiles (bullet drop), penetration of projectiles etc. etc

[Camille]

Wanderer, on 16 November 2011 - 22:58, said:

In MW, it only needs to calculate penetrations, rolling objects (grenades) ragdolls and the odd object that will get blown up by the fighting. In BF it's much more complicated with vehicles, destructive environment, gravitational effect on the projectiles (bullet drop), penetration of projectiles etc. etc

dude,

i know. really didn't you catch my joke?