Random quotes

[420]

Originally posted by Bander
I have talked to [EA] One Eye a few minutes ago, and he had said he has GeForce FX 5600 256 and says it runs very smooth. Most like, you will be able to run anti-aliasing on also.

^^That one hurts the most. Hope you enjoy your nice smooth gameplay ya bastard. Internal memo probably said "all EA employees must use nvidia cards due to the fact we are fucking over ati users"

Originally posted by mrfresh
Anyways, whovever is having to run settings at medium with a 9800 pro and a P4 you are giving in. Isn't that why you spent the cash? I know I didn't buy top notch stuff just to have my games run like ish. I refuse to "tweak" my stuff because I have already "tweaked" it to where I want it. Now this game runs poorly. That is an optimization issue of EA's part. Sounds to me like the game design was biased towards Nvidia. ATI uprising anyone?

^^Amen Brother

Originally posted by Harmless
Ok, BFV asks for a DX9 compatible card, I really don't mind the video card company preferences, so I’m not going to get into that, however, Radeon cards do fit the description better than the current nVidia cards, so, though EA made the "The Way it's meant to be played" deal with nVidia, and can add nVidia only features taking advantage of nVidia’s proprietary rendering path, they CAN'T take away STANDARD DX9 features, such as AA and AF, just to please nVidia.

This is misleading advertising, as it's not fitting the description of a DX9 compliant game anymore, yet it claims to be one. Users of standard DX9 hardware have the RIGHT to KNOW this is not a fully DX9 Compatible game, but an nVidia proprietary rendering path game, so they can AVOID PURCHASING the game, with the knowledge it’s not going to function properly in standard DX9 hardware. Please write EA Games pointing out this fact, potential legal issues are more likely to cause an impression than random rantings..

so true

Originally posted by RPGreg2600
****ing EA, the ****ing game still runs like ass with no AA, in fact, I think it runs worse. the ****ing gun/HUD still ****ing flickers all the ****ing time, and my ****ing FPS still ****ing sucks.

I'll never buy another EA game again. **** them.

My Favorite.

Originally posted by okra
Like many others i ran out and got BF: Vietnam yesterday.
Installed it and got the VERY bad graphics glitches.

Running a 9700 pro w/ 4.3 cats

I have unchecked "custom" options for the 3d, and set the slider to "balanced"

Still getting graphic glitches (arm/weapon disappearing, explosions not appearing or garbled, artifacts on textures such as helicopters - shows as dots all over it, flashing radio tool tip when in vehicle, etc, etc).

I'd personally like to blast EA, DICE, and whoever was supposedly "BETA Testing" this by saying: you all should quit now, because you are incompetent.

Paying $40 for an unplayable game, and then having to wait for a non-existat, unannounced patch to fix it, is intolerable.

Can someone give me the contact info for EA so I can look into getting my $40 back for this piece of crap BETA release?

thanks.

Originally posted by mrfresh
Well the problem is that some people don't want to sacrifice one thing or the other. Sounds selfish, but to those who have invested a lot of money into their computer just for these games it is not. Think about it. Would a game come out for XBox that as choppy or you had to lower the sound quality just to play? Not in a million years and XBox is only $150. I have spent about $2000 on my computer at least. I want to run at 1600 X 1200 with full settings just like BF1942 and DC. Now I can't because if I do I cannot control my gun accurately which gets me killed and frustrated. Also, some textures are not what were shown in the screenshots and I was looking forward to them. Overall the game rocks and I am so happy I have it, but I would be super pleased to have a patch that resolved these few issues. In fact...that would be heaven.

Originally posted by cajunwolf2
I agree. The thing that gets me is that with EA/Dice in bed with Nvida...its funny that the problem seems to stem around AA & FSAA...just where the ATI cards stomp the nvidia cards...funny that seems to be the problem huh... don't be sheep people. It makes no sence that bf1942 runs great and bfv runs shitty on the same cards..give me a break. The consumer has the greatest power in numbers. LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE DISPLEASED. LET THEM know there marketing ploy failed. Man UT2004 looks good on my 9800pro with AA & FSAA on MAX!

[RichM]

Damn, I really do feel bad for you guys. :/

I'm running BFV with the same settings as I run BF42, and while I'm experiencing a bit of framerate drop when there are a LOT of people onscreen, for the most part it works pretty well...

And, FWIW, my specs:
P4 1.5
768 DDRAM
64Mb GeForce 3 DDR

(It's basically a Dell 8100 with a bit more memory added.)

I hope this issue gets resolved for all of you soonest!

[[BFN] Tuco]

Funny... SWG runs fine on an ATI card. Phew...

FLAME ME!!! COME ON, YOU NANCY BOYS, BRING IT!!!

Heh, sorry. Or not.

Pick it up, if it runs for shit, do something else. Although I must say I'm hoping this is only a minor problem, as I would like to check this out...

[Dick_Justice]

Hmm, I knew that EA/DICE had a deal with Nvidia about especially supporting its GPUs.

But diliberatly (who knows) giving ATI cards such problems is a total rip of. I to own a modern ATI card and I don´t wan´t to be forces to make much comprimises as far as garphics go, just because EA has this damn deal with Nvidia.

I´m sure if enough people protest, then they´ll be forced to do something about it. But untill then...

[Rexxie]

I soooo agree to the first quote you posted 420.

I bought my beloved Radeon 9800 Pro and my P4 2.66 GHz so I could run new games with high settings on. BFV looks pretty crap on my system (I would actually say worse than BF, which I think looks rather nice on my comp now), and in addition to that, in the middle of the game, something makes the screen turn off, then after a while turn on again, and maybe, if I'm lucky, I get back into BFV again.

At first I thought it was my radeon overheating, but obviously this is another problem. I'm really annoyed.

[English]

Do you really think they would set out to make it run crap on ATI? They have too much to loose,it helps no1. People would hate both EA and nvidia. Which would probably mean ATI users would stick with ATI.

Im sure they will release a patch for it soon enough. If the game would have been delayed to fix this im sure u would all be equally pissed off.

Ill just have to wait and see how it runs on my 9600. But I never run anything with AA on so i doubt ill notice anything.

[Rexxie]

Wouldn't think so. I just think they did a really bad job in preparing the game for launch.

[420]

Originally Posted by English

Ill just have to wait and see how it runs on my 9600. But I never run anything with AA on so i doubt ill notice anything.

Yea, well I paid big bucks for a card so I could run AA/AF and its advertised on the box as a dx9 game. I call bullshit.

[urseus]

Does that mean it will run well on my gforce4600 128?


Horay! Now Zoidberg is the popular one....

[Madskillz]

Originally Posted by urseus

Does that mean it will run well on my gforce4600 128?


Horay! Now Zoidberg is the popular one....

I am running the same card but have not tweak my nividia setting since I had to get the lastest nvidia drivers. I suggest you do the same if you havent already

[Sarge]

No urs. Runs like crap on my system. My fist two initial maps ran like ass. I had to lower EVERYTHING. BF ran fine, now I'm chopping and getting glitcxhes like a mofo. I even switched back to 800 by 600. WTF. It runs like ass I think, I don't know wtf is up. Its not particularly sitting well with me as of now. Maybe I'll like it more later, but now I just see it being worse than a MOD for BF.

Wish I hadn't of spent the 40 on it. So far I look at it as a waste of money and space. Blah blah blah. Ea/Dice took it to us on this one.

They even made stuff worse than the 1.6 patch made better. How can that be.?

[Deserter]

im not having any real problems, im running everything basically highest on 1024x768x32 without shadows and such on a radeon 8500

[The Master]

Come on stop bashing EA more then needed, there are many games out there which have crappy performance or bugs on high end Ati cards, and ONLY on Ati cards. Ati has always had driver problems, although its getting over time.
They are speed kings when their drivers recognize a game or benchmark, but on new games / not popular games they often have more problems then unoptimized Nvidia drivers have.

Their drive crew is giving good support and listening to the issues, go and post here http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdis... 9&forumid=59
about new BF/BF:V problems.

Im 99% sure the BF:V performance will improve with the next Catalyst release, BF:V is going to be a major game, so these issues will get priority with their coders.

[urseus]

Sometimes ive found that higher settings make my game run smoother. Strange.

[420]

i like cookies

[Deserter]

i also like cookies, but with milk

[melee]

I was expecting it to run worse than BF42. Have a 2.53ghz P4 and a 9800pro. Seems to a be common specs amongst gamers. BF42 runs at 1600x1200x32 2xAA 4xAF. Really looks nice. I used to have a Ti4400, but I got a 9800pro for AA/AF in BF42 and Being able to run full settings on BFV. Well, I can run semi-smooth 1280x960. Acceptable, but not what I was expecting. The game is otherwise great. Seems like it has alot of errors similiar to what BF42 had when it started. Patches should clear all this up. Releasing a not completely bugfree product is common practice these days. Its a trade off between pissing players off by a delayed product, and pissing them off with bugs.

[NavalLord]

i have an nvidia fx 5900 ultra, all settings maxed, AA and AF on i have no probs, i do feel sorry for you guys, i use to be ATI but since all games are supported by Nvidia i thought it best to use nvidia, pluse when i got my computer the fx 5900 ultra was the best card out
but EA is releasing a patch to fix the ATI screw up problem, they did not do that on purpose it is just that they needed more time to fix it and did not want to push the release date back just so they can fix a problem that 50% of the people have