PDA

View Full Version : battlefield 2 to leave geforce 4 users out in the cold....


Pages : [1] 2

Pandora's Box
05-02-05, 11:05 PM
Q: Can you give us a definitive answer as to what the system requirements are?
A: Minimum System Requirements are 1.7 GHZ CPU, 512mb of RAM, Video card that supports 1.4 shaders. That is Geforce FX and higher, Radeon 8500 and higher. (Geforce 4 Cards will not work).
Recommended System Requirements are 2.0 GHZ to 2.5 GHZ CPU, 1gig of RAM, Video Card that supports 1.4 Shaders.

oh boy. glad im not a geforce 4 owner

stncttr908
05-02-05, 11:30 PM
Well Geforce 4 series cards are about 3 years old now, but I don't see why they can't still support them. A lot of people are still running a ti4200 or 4600.

MustangSVT
05-02-05, 11:31 PM
That's dumb of them. A radeon 8500 will be able to play the game, but a Ti4200+ won't be able to?? I upgraded from my Ti4200 last september, but still.. that card is not completely outdated. If a FX5200 can play it, so should a Ti4200 (which normally can run considerably higher settings). :mad:

LiquidX
05-02-05, 11:38 PM
Wow I am kind of shocked by that. The Ti series IMO are some of the best cards ever made and I still have a Ti4200. They pretty much run any game out now pretty decent. That said I cant wait for BF2 which seems it will be a monster being that the specs are pretty high. :cool:

SLippe
05-03-05, 12:01 AM
I liked my Ti4400, very good card. I just got rid of it a little over a year ago for my 5950U. Wow! That does suck for Ti owners.

raysusan
05-03-05, 03:34 AM
what kind of engine is this BF2 using?

killahsin
05-03-05, 04:06 AM
Thats quite strange considering the ti series were far better than the radeon 8500 series. Now the 9x radeon series is a different story

Morrow
05-03-05, 05:36 AM
Thats quite strange considering the ti series were far better than the radeon 8500 series. Now the 9x radeon series is a different story

yeah, but the 8500 supports PS1.4 wherethou the Ti series only support PS1.3.

As indicated above, PS1.4 is required to play BF2 therefore Ti users are left in the cold.

Edge
05-03-05, 06:14 AM
Well that's increadibly lazy of them. They really can't be bothered to make a fallback mode for PS1.1 and PS1.3 cards? Yeesh, it's not like the technology is THAT different from what they've already implimented. And why in the world did they even bother making a fallback mode for PS1.4 cards? The only cards that need that path are the ones based on the 8500/9000 chipset! Yeah, I'd love to see the response they get when people try running this game on 9250SEs :rolleyes:

I swear, these PC developers are getting worse and worse. First they make games that can be played on even the crappiest of the crappy cards and sacrifice visual quality for it (the original Battlefield could run on Integrated Intel Extreme, and didn't even support any bump mapping let alone pixel shaders), and now they don't take an extremely minimal amount of extra time to make the game run on a wider range of hardware without sacrificing image quality.

Fuku2
05-03-05, 06:44 AM
This is remarkably opposite to what I hear about gamers wanting developers to push forward and make games use newer technology to push their systems.

Edge
05-03-05, 07:24 AM
This is remarkably opposite to what I hear about gamers wanting developers to push forward and make games use newer technology to push their systems.
They're "pushing technoloy forward" by supporting cards that are half the speed of the ti4200? Why did they even bother spending time on a 1.x renderpath when it's only for a single line of cards? If they're going to hold the game back by supporting older rendering paths, then they might as well spend the small amount of extra time to make it compatable with ALL PS1.x compatable cards instead of just one. On the other hand, if they want to truely target the high and and not have to hold back, they should've made the engine PS2.0-compatable only (as long as they actually do something worthwhile with the technology, instead of just "all the effects you saw on the GF2mx, except now they're done with pixel shaders!").

six_storm
05-03-05, 07:32 AM
Maybe this will give hardcore fans of BF2 a reason to upgrade! I had a GeForce 4 MX 440 and it wasn't that great of a card IMO. I think that BF2 will run pretty slow on a GeForce 5200FX because . . . . that card really sucks! I had that card for a while and that really just blew.

Fuku2
05-03-05, 07:53 AM
I don't think too many people will have a good time trying to run this game on a low end card even if it does support PS 1.4 (Radeon 8500...ugh, had one, good at the time but not now for newer games). Had a Radeon 9700 Pro too and it's still somewhat good but I upgraded to a higher end card for newer games including BF2.


edit: edited signiture...forgot to change to my newer system.

Pandora's Box
05-03-05, 07:54 AM
Well that's increadibly lazy of them. They really can't be bothered to make a fallback mode for PS1.1 and PS1.3 cards? Yeesh, it's not like the technology is THAT different from what they've already implimented. And why in the world did they even bother making a fallback mode for PS1.4 cards? The only cards that need that path are the ones based on the 8500/9000 chipset! Yeah, I'd love to see the response they get when people try running this game on 9250SEs :rolleyes:

I swear, these PC developers are getting worse and worse. First they make games that can be played on even the crappiest of the crappy cards and sacrifice visual quality for it (the original Battlefield could run on Integrated Intel Extreme, and didn't even support any bump mapping let alone pixel shaders), and now they don't take an extremely minimal amount of extra time to make the game run on a wider range of hardware without sacrificing image quality.


as far as the recommend system requirements go, it looks like the game wont even have shader model 2.0 support. the recommended system requirements say a card capable of shader model 1.4. and technically you cant blame the developers for nvidia's lazyness in not coding their geforce 4 ti series for ps1.4 support.

DaveW
05-03-05, 08:14 AM
I am sure someone will release a hack to play it on earlier hardware. What do they need PS 1.4 anyway? probably just the water effect, its hardly essential. It will probably run like ass though, I remember the original BF 1942 started to struggle on my TI4200 (I had to run it in 800x600 yuk).

Edge
05-03-05, 08:28 AM
as far as the recommend system requirements go, it looks like the game wont even have shader model 2.0 support. the recommended system requirements say a card capable of shader model 1.4. and technically you cant blame the developers for nvidia's lazyness in not coding their geforce 4 ti series for ps1.4 support.
Actually from what I remember, ATI had some kind of a patent on PS1.4 technology, so Nvidia couldn't have integrated it into their cards unless they lisenced the technology from ATI. Hence the reason the ti4200 came out after the 8500, but only supported the PS1.3 standard. However, pretty much all PS1.4 effects can be scaled down to PS1.3 and even PS1.1 from my understanding, it just requires a little extra coding and has to use multiple passes for certain effects (meaning speed would be a little worse, but it would look exactly the same). But the game DAMN well better have PS2.0 support, no way in hell can they use the "pushing technology forward" excuse for leaving the GF4 series behind if they don't even SUPPORT technology that has been out for over 2 years now.

vX
05-03-05, 09:47 AM
so first everyone complains that pc games are held back too much by low system requirements and how developers need to make games more for high-end users in mind.....then when a developer does this, people complain that developers are ignoring older cards and only supporting newer ones and scream of how unfair it is. Damed if you do and damned if you don't it seems.

msxyz
05-03-05, 10:12 AM
If I had to write several PS 2.x shaders and then write a fallback path, I'd go with PS 1.4 too.

Not only the two instruction sets have lot of similarities but PS 1.4 is more flexible that PS 1.1

Not to mention that with the sole exception of GeForces 5200 and 5600, PS 1.4 shaders are executed much faster on geforce FX hardware that a full PS 2.0 path.

These considerations may have influenced the developers when they decided about the graphic engine

jAkUp
05-03-05, 10:17 AM
Makes sense to me... you got to let the old hardware go sometime. We will never have good looking games if the devs have to use resources for legacy hardware. The Geforce4 series is 3 generations old.

Pandora's Box
05-03-05, 10:19 AM
Makes sense to me... you got to let the old hardware go sometime. We will never have good looking games if the devs have to use resources for next gen games. The Geforce4 series is 3 generations old.


you have any idea how big the geforce 4 user base is?

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Edge
05-03-05, 10:25 AM
so first everyone complains that pc games are held back too much by low system requirements and how developers need to make games more for high-end users in mind.....then when a developer does this, people complain that developers are ignoring older cards and only supporting newer ones and scream of how unfair it is. Damed if you do and damned if you don't it seems.
No, it's "damned if you do something stupid, and praised if you do something right". Why does everyone seem to see this as an issue of "not holding the game back for older hardware"? They ARE holding the game back for older hardware, specifically the outdated 8500/9000 series, and they apperently don't even SUPPORT any PS2.0 features for newer cards (or do you honestly consider the 8500 a "newer" card but not the GF4ti series?). Noone complained about Far Cry being "held back by older hardware" just because it ran on a Geforce 1 card, and that's because it actually supported the advanced features that newer cards could take advantage of, unlike BF2 it seems.

All I can say is, the game better look damn good if they feel the need to cut support on cards that even Doom 3 and Far Cry run on. Not to mention the environments better be pretty damn huge as well, since it's recommending you have twice as much RAM as Far Cry did.

vX
05-03-05, 10:46 AM
i think this is pc gamings biggest fallback, old hardware. I'm not one to sit here and be pompous because I have a faster card, but i think after so long, upgrades are needed. You just cant consider yourself a modest pcgamer with old hardware, it's like playing a psone for 10 years instead of ever upgrading to a ps2. Ti series was out in 01/02, I personally feel the fx series should be the min spec of any game, and the 9xxx series on ati hardware. Fact is computer gaming is a fast evolving hobby, you walk into it wih that knowledge and should accept it. If you cant own the latest and greatest, thats cool, but dont make a stink if ur card isnt supported, thats just the way this hobby is.

de><ta
05-03-05, 10:46 AM
you have any idea how big the geforce 4 user base is?

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html


Awesome! You know what this means, all the kiddies from CS will not be able to play BF2 :D

stncttr908
05-03-05, 10:50 AM
Awesome! You know what this means, all the kiddies from CS will not be able to play BF2 :D
Hear hear! :D

Blade
05-03-05, 11:47 AM
Thank god, no counterstrike kiddies :D
Best news i've heard all day.