To expand on this MAG did 256 players REALLY well. Granted the engine and FPS sucked ( locked at 24 fps I heard ), but the concepts behind the game and objectives were absolutely incredible. I've spent a lot of time playing games like BF3, Warhawk, Planet Side 2, and IMO MAG is hands down the best out of all of them. I am currently playing the crap out of BF3, and while I love it, it's got a lot of flaws when it comes to depth. More players will not always = better.
This better not be any BS. They seriously need to fix their craptastic netcode or whatever makes the bullets bend. It is unbelievable that a AAA FPS game like this has this problem and they never seemed to get around to fix it. Maybe they couldn't the way it was designed but please get it right Dice. It really really annoyed the hell out of everyone.
The netcode was fine in BF3 Alpha, incredibly responsive and the bullets didn't bend (as much)
I take it you're referring to this:
In which case yeah, that kind of thing happening is just part of the BF3 experience and people have simply grown more used to it. Occasionally something even more extreme happens like going around a wall, running a good ~5 meters and then getting killed by someone on the other side. Or hitting someone with a SPAS-12 in the chest at point blank range, seeing their health bar hit 0%, you still die, and in the kill replay they're still at 100% (so basically your client registered your shot, sent it to the server, server said "nope, he killed you first"). It's keyboard-breakingly infuriating.
Some people just reply by saying "yeah, it's clientside". Except that not even clientside explains these extreme occurrences, at all. In a typical clientside scenario if both players are below <50 ms latency, the game is supposed to be incredibly responsive and the total delay of events should not exceed 0.1 secs between those two players. In BF3 there seems to be a PERMANENT ~200ms added server delay, regardless of which server and regardless of the players' own latencies. So playing at 50ms in BF3 feels like playing at 250ms in CoD or Crysis 2/3.
And to think they had nailed the netcode in Alpha. What the hell, seriously
Also the glitched character animations don't help. Those times where you shot at someone and the bullet didn't hit them even though you had perfect aim because their client (or server? who knows) recorded them being somewhere else. Or you try to shoot someone while they were vaulting over an object and got zero hit markers because their characters became "transparent" while performing the vault.
Add suppression to all of that, and it's a miracle how I've manged to play this game for 350 hours without punching a hole in my monitor
where in my post did I imply the game that was tested was finished code?
I quite clearly said they have a long way to go meaning that they have time but so far it's nowhere near the sort of optimization that AMD's PR department likes to think all next gen games inherently have.
The point is that all this "Super optimized for AMD!" drivel is coming straight from AMD. Guess who you shouldn't trust when it comes to AMD products? AMD.
So you mean AMD said they have optimized drivers for Battlefield 4? why would spend time optimizing games before they are out instead of working on optimizing games that are ALREADY out. What about 320.18? did nvidia make any statement or atleast stop the driver form being able to be updated and remove it from geforce.com? No. guess i shouldn't trust Nvidia products anymore as-well.
Quite the opposite, EA needs to optimize their code else BF4 will dive into a sinking abyss of unplayable games. I mean even a HD 6990 only scores 40 FPS in the game? I get no less than 60 FPS with my HD 5870 in BF3 on high preset. There's no reason for BF4 to not run on high preset above 50 FPS (+/-10 FPS). But according to the chart, it comes in at only 21 FPS.
Not everyone has/cares to spend $1,000 to play a darn videogame. Edited by NateN34 - 7/14/13 at 10:46pm
Not everyone has/cares to spend $1,000 to play a darn videogame.
And that's why consoles exist.
There's a reason devs include "uber" settings that will bring even the latest hardware to a crawl, because they're trying to futureproof their damn game like what Crytek did with Crysis 1 and Crysis 3. With Crysis 2 they were literally THRASHED for releasing a game that ran really well on low-midrange hardware, eventually leading them to release a horribly-done DX11 + texture patch that murdered framerates and consequently made hardware enthusiasts very happy. Holy mother of paradox.
Just lower the damn settings according to your hardware because everything is going to look just as good with a mix of Medium/High as it is on full-Ultra if you're truly immersed in the actual gameplay