BFBC2: Poorly Ported to PC

Recommended Videos

Radelaide

New member
May 15, 2008
2,503
0
0
Furburt said:
*interesting points*
That's probably one of the reasons why I like gaming on my xbox. There isn't any insane DRM, and the rendering is pretty much the same on every xbox. I think it's one of the good things about not having a customised unit. I can't imagine that devs would have a difficult job making games when there is a million different varied computers out there with different GPUS, CPUS, sound cards and the such. When it comes to xboxs, you've just got the same materials in every unit.

Plus, I'm mad at Steam right now. Useless bloody thing :<
 

SovietSecrets

iDrink, iSmoke, iPill
Nov 16, 2008
3,972
0
0
BloodSquirrel said:
I bought it for my new PC. It looks FAR better on PC than it does on Xbox. There's really no comparison. In fact, it's best looking game I've ever played (I was thinking about buying Crysis just to give it a run through on my new machine, but BC2 has sort of quenched that thirst)

Edit: to add some details; I'm running it at near max settings (1920X1080) on a $200 graphics card. That's about what I'd expect for a brand new release.
Really now? I run this at max as well and it looks god awful to me. Looks like Call of Duty 2 graphics. Just plain horrible.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
EcksTeaSea said:
Really now? I run this at max as well and it looks god awful to me. Looks like Call of Duty 2 graphics. Just plain horrible.
I'm not really sure how you managed that, and I don't really care.
 

YuheJi

New member
Mar 17, 2009
927
0
0
EcksTeaSea said:
BloodSquirrel said:
I bought it for my new PC. It looks FAR better on PC than it does on Xbox. There's really no comparison. In fact, it's best looking game I've ever played (I was thinking about buying Crysis just to give it a run through on my new machine, but BC2 has sort of quenched that thirst)

Edit: to add some details; I'm running it at near max settings (1920X1080) on a $200 graphics card. That's about what I'd expect for a brand new release.
Really now? I run this at max as well and it looks god awful to me. Looks like Call of Duty 2 graphics. Just plain horrible.
Really? Shall we compare?
And don't forget that Bad Company 2 features much bigger, more expansive maps.
I don't think it was a port. Wasn't it stated that BC2 was rebuilt from the ground up for the PC? The interface and menu options certainly give that impression at least, and I've had no problems running it so far. Only issues have been the connection issues that all the platforms have had.
 

Caiti Voltaire

New member
Feb 10, 2010
383
0
0
Abedeus said:
Yeah, the console version outsold the PC version, but there are still more PC players than on both consoles together...

That makes a LOT of sense. Also, just because you or even a hundred of people have problems with the game, doesn't mean those 2-3 millions have them.
It means a lot of people pirated the game, specifically.
 

YuheJi

New member
Mar 17, 2009
927
0
0
Caiti Voltaire said:
Abedeus said:
Yeah, the console version outsold the PC version, but there are still more PC players than on both consoles together...

That makes a LOT of sense. Also, just because you or even a hundred of people have problems with the game, doesn't mean those 2-3 millions have them.
It means a lot of people pirated the game, specifically.
Or it means that more PC players play online. Or that more PC copies were sold (consider that digital distribution networks like Steam and D2D aren't typically included in PC sales).
 

DairyDuke

New member
Mar 5, 2010
8
0
0
YuheJi said:
Caiti Voltaire said:
Abedeus said:
Yeah, the console version outsold the PC version, but there are still more PC players than on both consoles together...

That makes a LOT of sense. Also, just because you or even a hundred of people have problems with the game, doesn't mean those 2-3 millions have them.
It means a lot of people pirated the game, specifically.
Or it means that more PC players play online. Or that more PC copies were sold (consider that digital distribution networks like Steam and D2D aren't typically included in PC sales).
Because no one would -ever- pirate a new and expensive video game.

I witnessed first hand the lack of sales of the pc version.
 

TOGSolid

New member
Jul 15, 2008
1,509
0
0
Horticulture said:
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).
I7 920 + GeForce 275 reporting in: Like a god damned champion.

ITT - People with shitty computers that don't know how to take care of them complain that a game runs badly.
 

Caiti Voltaire

New member
Feb 10, 2010
383
0
0
Hexami said:
Because no one would -ever- pirate a new and expensive video game.

I witnessed first hand the lack of sales of the pc version.
I don't like piracy, for the most part, but denying that it happens would be niave indeed. The EB by me hasn't sold a single copy, preorder or since release. It was a fact that surprised me actually, given that there always seems to be SOMEONE who will chase after the pre-releases.

To return onto topic, while there is a certain degree of latitude that should be considered, such as not worrying about computers from 1990, if the average computer cannot run a game then you need to go back and redevelop or redesign something. Most games make very little proper use of a GPU and benchmarks will show this, and yet we're told the solution is to get a better card. This is a cop out. Back in the day that we had several deviating GPUs with several different instruction set this was more of an issue, but with just nVidia and ATI that are the major players today and many standards between them, there really isn't an excuse.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
Caiti Voltaire said:
Abedeus said:
Yeah, the console version outsold the PC version, but there are still more PC players than on both consoles together...

That makes a LOT of sense. Also, just because you or even a hundred of people have problems with the game, doesn't mean those 2-3 millions have them.
It means a lot of people pirated the game, specifically.
Uhm. They count online players. You need an EA account, which you can't make with a key-generator.
 

phar

New member
Jan 29, 2009
643
0
0
I think some people in the minority might have trouble with the game. I havent had much trouble, ive run it on my work laptop which is some pretty crap HP and my gaming rig at home runs it fine. I think you just unlucky to have a config that is uncompatible.

I think its one of the better ports weve had in recent memory.
 

Caiti Voltaire

New member
Feb 10, 2010
383
0
0
phar said:
I think some people in the minority might have trouble with the game. I havent had much trouble, ive run it on my work laptop which is some pretty crap HP and my gaming rig at home runs it fine. I think you just unlucky to have a config that is uncompatible.

I think its one of the better ports weve had in recent memory.
It's not a bad port at all as far as the technical side goes but 'not bad' doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement. And unlucky in this day and age means either one of two thing: you're playing with a PC that is old and needs upgraded and in this case if you complain about the game not working on your computer you probably deserve a nine-iron embedded in your skull, and people with combinations of new hardware that are untested - or in some cases - should have been tested but there was a lack of quality assurance.

Now, whilst the former happens with every game and it grows tiresome to the point that people have knee-jerk reactions to people complaining about configuration as having clearly insufficient systems. This is even less helpful than the people whom do have aged computers complaining. I realise people don't like me speaking in this way sometimes, but an iota of common sense (not quite as common as inferred) is neccesary. Until and unless you have system specs it's unhelpful to just go 'lol works for me u must have old computer'. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is probably the kind of internet idiocy that really should get people added to some sort of depopulation list along with the people who do idiotic stunts and the kids who eat lead paint or sniff glue.

I realise that I raise Mass Effect 2 as an example in my posts a lot but this is for a reason. Any degree of quality assurance on the PC would have revealed that many systems could not play past the introduction because of a bug that causes the game to think you're not 'looking' at usable items and thereby cannot use them, causing the player to conveniently not be able to get the gun out of the locker in the first scene or use the door to get out. There really has been a certain laxity to quality assurance in games lately. In the last decade even we have seen more and more buggy releases. Its certainly not a new phenonemon but it is a problem - a legitimate problem that people need to pay more attention to, and demand more done about, or it will persist.

It's clearly evident from this thread that while there are some people who have inferior configurations whose complaints can then be legitimately discarded, there are some people who have the requirements or superior to the requirements who still experience trouble and thereby have completely legitimate complaints.
 

Boba Frag

New member
Dec 11, 2009
1,288
0
0
Snotnarok said:
I never got this console vs PC war, what's so funny about it?

First off you realize your fancy console games are made on PCs right?

Consoles are neat, PCs are neat, why is it always fighting?
Late post, I know, but I have to agree.
Preferences are there for a reason, but it's always good to switch it up every now and then. Putting down the controller to play DOW 2 on LAN is always fun.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,308
0
0
Boba Frag said:
Snotnarok said:
I never got this console vs PC war, what's so funny about it?

First off you realize your fancy console games are made on PCs right?

Consoles are neat, PCs are neat, why is it always fighting?
Late post, I know, but I have to agree.
Preferences are there for a reason, but it's always good to switch it up every now and then. Putting down the controller to play DOW 2 on LAN is always fun.
Preferences? Sure that I can say is understandable, but to say something else sucks while there's really no grounds for it? Sure we can all agree the Virtual Boy was a disaster and no one will really back that system up. But "LOL PS3SUX" yeah I got a lot of information from that, mostly based on said persons intelligence.

I dunno I stopped bashing consoles when I got my Playstation, I realized that all consoles have neat games and sometimes the only way to play said neat games is to get past this retarded bias people get and play the stupid thing. My friend hates PS3, I got him to play Heavy Rain on it and like it, my cousin hates 360 and I co-op-d him in RE5. My favorite Fanboy deterrent as some know is to just say "Look your Playbox Vii may have this and that but the Sega Genesis has blast processing, I think we KNOW who's got the better console here!" most will laugh and said fanboy goes into a rage that the Genesis was garbage. That's fun though.

Everyone stop your bitching on what's better, it's all preference and opinion so no one is going to win that fight, so shaddap and just play the games that make consoles worth owning! Sheesh!
 

Craftybonds

Raging Lurker
Feb 6, 2010
429
0
0
Yukinari said:
Oh look at that, my Xbox 360 copy is running great.
Seriously, if people didnt only have a PC, they would have a bit more options is all im saying.
Only true for non-pirates.
 

Bosola

New member
Mar 6, 2010
65
0
0
I like to hear certain PC zealots bemoan 'poor ports' gimped by the 360's hardware, all the while not only *tolerating* low-spec PC hardware, but actually promoting it as counterpoint to the observation that PC gaming is, generally speaking, a somewhat expensive past-time.
 

xDarc

Elite Member
Feb 19, 2009
1,333
0
41
Bosola said:
I like to hear certain PC zealots bemoan 'poor ports' gimped by the 360's hardware, all the while not only *tolerating* low-spec PC hardware, but actually promoting it as counterpoint to the observation that PC gaming is, generally speaking, a somewhat expensive past-time.
It's all about timing your upgrades and understanding the hardware advancements.

"Conroe" or Core 2 Duo was the time to upgrade. Quad cores were, and still are- unnecessary for general use, including gaming. Intel is basically sitting on their next chip, "Sandy Bridge" to let the i7 sales play out. The first ones will be out around Q1 of 2011.

The effect of the transition, the clock per clock performance difference, is expected to be what core was compared to netburst. So, in other words, it'll be huge.

Will have gotten 4+ good years out of the E6600 come 2011. Whatever they're gonna call Sandy Bridge will be viable a long time too, new architectures are the way to go.