BFBC2: Poorly Ported to PC

[Zing]

I have no graphical issues whatsoever personally, running i7 920 and HD 5850 on full high settings.

However I do sometimes have my FPS shoot to 1-2 when i open the scoreboard, but I'd say thats a problem with EA's terrible online support.

 

[runedeadthA]

and all of us console players are laughing at all of the PC people who cried that B:BC2 wouldnt have these problems.


MUHAHAHAHAHAHA, *snip*

You may laugh now but remember the famous quote: "First they came for the Mac users, and I did nothing, No one cares about Mac. Then they came for the Pc gamers and I did nothing, I was a 360 fan. Then they came for the PS3 fanboys, and I did nothing, it was overpriced and overcomplicated anyway. And then they came for the 360. And all that was left to play, was the Wii........."

Slightly More on topic: The dedicated servers (hopefully) suck only because EA rushed the game out before the Devs were fully preped, lets all hope the problem is fixed.

 

[Dr. Dice Lord]

My friend Nate has a Quad core and a 9000 series Nvidia GPU, says the game runs fantastically.

Verily! Overclocking the graphics card for me had much the same effect. The GTX260 is a very versatile card.

I have a quad-core and the Nvidia GTX260 as well. Runs awesome, looks better-than-awesome. And now that I can finally log in its great... So, after patches and all I have zero complaints.

As for the console vs. PC thing--I never really got it either. On one side of my TV there's a 360, and on the other end is my PC. Why all the rage'n? lol

 

[xDarc]

Game run remarkable well on E6600 @ 3.02 and 8800 GTS(we have the same proccessor, what kind of graphics card are you running?

GTX 260.

What's funny is it ran fine until I switched from 32 bit xp to 64 bit win 7. Even setting the game to run at DX9 in 7 still caused hitching. The game will run in bursts at a very smooth 40-50 FPS and "hiccup" frequently. My CPU usage is 100% and my graphics card is not even breaking a sweat. The game is just poorly optimized.

I'm going to try and create a custom profile for the game from the nvidia control panel and see if that helps. Setting the amount of frames to render ahead to 6-10 in the settings.ini also helped.

I'm considering going back to XP because I'll be damned to buy a quad core when they really aren't necessary for gaming yet. Waiting for the next "tock," aka Sandy Bridge. Gonna build a new system around it at the first price drops sometime in mid to late 2011.

 

[Horticulture]

It runs and looks fantastic for me (i5 750+5850). The only issues I have stem from EA online disconnects.

Since a lot of dual-core users are reporting issues, I wonder how it runs on the newer Intel dual-cores with hyper-threading (4 threads on 2 physical cores).

 

[Hithel]

A lot of people with dual cores are complaining of poor performance in BFBC2. Me included.

What are you basing this on? Random forum posters? Not a very good source.

I'm on a E6750 which certainly is no powerhouse these days but I'm doing fine.

 

[xDarc]

i got no probs with it... im running a 1.6 dual >.> yea i know its time for a upgrade 8500gt as well...still no probs

WHAT!?!?
that's a bit below min spec i believe.
hell, i think with logic its impossible, you must be mistaken maybe on purpose..

If they're running in DX9 on win xp 32... the specs can be a hell of a lot lower. How low, I'm not sure. I do know most of the complaints on this come from 64 bit windows 7 users.

 

[Abedeus]

What are you all talking about? Somehow my PC cheats on me, or I just don't have ANY problems with BFBC2.

Maybe your GPU is crappy.

My friend Nate has a Quad core and a 9000 series Nvidia GPU, says the game runs fantastically.

That's because if something doesn't work well on a Quad core, then the game itself is broken, not the computer.

Quads suck for gaming. Get better GPU instead of a quad.

 

[ShotgunSmoke]

Quad core here, game works perfectly. Too bad I can't see through the f*cking sand.

Quads suck for gaming. Get better GPU instead of a quad.

May I ask why?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

One of the reasons why I'm getting the game for my 360 tomorrow.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

The sad reality is that most developers either ignore or throw together ports to the PC because they don't see that there is not that much money to be made to be worth it. Firstly, PC ports require different setting and graphic settings, which are absent in consoles since they all run the same (Aka, no PS3 will play GoW3 any better then any other PS3, but a 2007 PC will play Crysis worse then a 2010 PC). Secondly, the potential to lose customers to pirates is very high. Spore has been pirated over 1 million times. The consoles don't run this risk, since they have so much anti-pirating safe gaurds. Finally, they have to shell out the money to Microsoft to be able to use be able to port to the PC (since they have 90% of the market) while developers on the console level have lower prices because of the competition between the three consoles.

 

[Urock]

I have no problems on my PC, and I use a dual core too. Maybe you people just download porn from the wrong places, that'll ruin a PC you know.

Runs fine for me and three of my friends. We're all running multi-core PCs. Come to think of it, the only guy with problems is the one who downloads...

Kidding.

 

[ender214]

A lot of people with dual cores are complaining of poor performance in BFBC2. Me included. Running an E6600 at 2.8ghz. More than adequate... unless the game is a bad port and only uses a small fraction of most people's available GPU power.

There's your problem. You need to upgrade to quad-core. You can't expect a game to run well if you run it below recommended settings.

 

[Zannah]

My friend Nate has a Quad core and a 9000 series Nvidia GPU, says the game runs fantastically.

That's because if something doesn't work well on a Quad core, then the game itself is broken, not the computer.

I have a Quad Core, and the game runs like you would expect an old Ps2 game to run.

 

[Abedeus]

Quad core here, game works perfectly. Too bad I can't see through the f*cking sand.

Quads suck for gaming. Get better GPU instead of a quad.

May I ask why?

Because VERY rarely games use 2 cores, or even 4 at the same time. Unless you have that new i5 that boosts one or two cores when the other two are not used, you waste half of your CPU's power.

Only games where there are multiple aspects controlled by the CPU and need tons of calculations (AI, physics, some graphic effects) use all 4 quads. Usually only RTS games use 'em.

Also the game works well on both my Windows XP 32-bit AND Windows 7 64-bit.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

A lot of people with dual cores are complaining of poor performance in BFBC2. Me included. Running an E6600 at 2.8ghz. More than adequate... unless the game is a bad port and only uses a small fraction of most people's available GPU power.

Some people are reporting, through the use of an EVGA Precision tool for overclocking, that their GPU is being utilized to about 1/3rd full capacity or less. If you search the web there are tests and screen shots out there.

The reason for this is that the xbox uses a triple core processor at 3.2ghz, but only has like 256mb of video ram and a weak GPU.

That's the first thing I thought when I started checking my performance issues, that this game wasn't nearly pretty enough to require such high end hardware... and it turns out it isn't. It's just made like shit.

If you think this is bad, most PC users can't even play past the first room in Mass Effect 2 because of how the game handles determining the last thing you looked at. I laughed when people were told it was because of their graphics cards when I was on the forums - I have a geForce 9800 so if that can't handle it I don't know what will, but more importantly, it beats the sod out of anything the consoles have.

 

[xDarc]

A lot of people with dual cores are complaining of poor performance in BFBC2. Me included. Running an E6600 at 2.8ghz. More than adequate... unless the game is a bad port and only uses a small fraction of most people's available GPU power.

There's your problem. You need to upgrade to quad-core. You can't expect a game to run well if you run it below recommended settings.

This game wouldn't need a quad core if it was properly optimized and utilized the GPU as it should. There is no reason that this should run worse than Crysis besides bad design.

 

[Radelaide]

Yep, it runs and looks like shit, doesn't really have proper dedi servers, and this from the developer that said they were going to treat the PC really well.

We've been screwed again brethren! Let us forsake these fools and buy from the developers that actually care about us. To Stardock! Awaaay!

Cry moar. From what I've seen, the game runs perfectly fine. I think that PC gamers are so horribly sensitive these days. You haven't been screwed over by the devs, your computer may not meet the requirements for the game. They didn't screw you over, you screwed yourself over.

Tssh. PC gamers (some of you, not all) man up.

 

[Weaver]

You can OC an E6600 to 3.0ghz pretty easily.

 

[Caliostro]

Running an E8200, 2gb Ram, and a GTX 275. With everything on max I stay around 40-60 fps at all times.

Sounds like pebkacs to me.