Battlefield 2: The Video Card Controversy Part 2

Published by

data/avatar/default/avatar01.webp
"Battlefield Modern Combat will be the Battlefield 2 Xbox port. The Xbox uses a tweaked version of the GeForce 3 running PS 1.3 and is programmed for in DirectX. This is clearly showing that DICE can make the Battlefield 2 engine run on GeForce 3/4 Ti hardware." I stopped reading right there... These guys obviously have no idea what so ever what they are talking about. The console version Modern Combat is not at all the same game and most definatly not the same engine. If they had looked at any of the screenshots they would have found that out darn quick. The only thing the games have in common is the basic concept, enviroment and name.
assets/images/contentteller/avatar_disabled.webp
so what you are saying is: let every OS simply support only the latest stuff ... means: when you have windows running you are only able to install it on SSE3 support CPUs which run on a board with DDR2 support and can only be installed on SATA disks .... right ?
data/avatar/default/avatar01.webp
I don't see what thats got to do with it... BF2 has support for PS3.0, it uses it for lots of things. Most obvious is the displacement mapping effects on sandbag walls. Anyway... I guess what people complain about is the fact that the card that they think should be able to run the game does not. Dice/EA probably just did not think it was worth the extra time to make it run on those cards, probably because they would not run the game all that well in a bestcase scenario anyway. Doom 3 running great on PS 1.3 gpu? I'd beg to differ. I've played Doom 3 on a high end GF4 card, the experience was not all that pleasant. Replaying the game on my current 6800GT card is a completly differant game, much better than the first time in every way imaginable. In the case of Doom 3 I'd actually had a better experience with the game if it had not run at all on a GF4 GPU. That's maybe just me though...
data/avatar/default/avatar03.webp
I thought that guy would learn his lession about his "blog", when people told him off in the comment section over here last time. But he comes back with even more rubbish. Obviously,he writes this b.s.to generate sensationalism/ controversy, in hopes of getting a wide group of audience to read his crap. (Then with enough traffic, start his own website, advertising revenue and etc.)