como alguns devem saber o BattleField 2 não roda nas placas que não possuem o PS 1.4 ou superior e, pesquisando soluções alternativas para esse problema, vi que muitos usuários estão revoltados e quebrando o maior pau com a EA . . .
Para os que não sabem, segundo o fórum de suporte da EA, as únicas placas que suporta o jogo são essas:
Radeon X700 (PCIe)
Radeon X600 (PCIe)
GeForce 6600 (PCIe)
GeForce PCX 5900 (PCIe)
GeForce 5800 Series (AGP)
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
ATI Radeon X800 PRO
ATI Radeon 9800 Series
ATI Radeon 9600 Series
ATI Radeon 9550 (RV350LX)
ATI Radeon 9500 / 9700 Series
ATI Radeon 8500 Series
ATI Radeon X300 Series
NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra
NVidia GeForce 6800 GT
NVidia GeForce 6800
NVidia GeForce FX 5950 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5900 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5700 Series
Para piorar, os desenvolvedores colocaram checagens do PS 1.4 que detonam uma eventual emulação via software.
Os posts mais divertidos:
Battlefield 2: The Video Card Controversy
Battlefield 2: The Video Card Controversy Part 2
Outro post muito bom !
http://forum.eagames.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=685
ProfessorVonSock wrote: Private
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject: GeForce 4 concerns Reply with quote
I realize that I am not the first person to post about this, but I feel like I should be getting my two cents in. EA, if you choose to reply, good for you. If you choose to delete and/or lock my post, I wouldn't be surprised.
The fact of the matter is this. In a recent poll for Half-Life 2, it was found that 8.47% of people (at least who participated in this survey) have a GeForce 4 MX series videocard, an additional 6.18% have a GeForce Ti series card, and an additional 3.98% of people have a GeForce 2 MX. While this may not mean much to some people, what it does mean that if the numbers are accurate (and considering that about 750,000 people took the survey, the chances of it being significantly off are extremely small) nearly 20% of people are unable to play Battlefield 2 without upgrading their computer.
The core of the problem, for those of you who don't know, is pixel shading 1.4. Now, all newer cards support pixel shading 1.4 and above, but the above cards do not. They only support 1.3 and lower. The makers of the game have decided to make the game playable ONLY IF your video card supports PS 1.4.
This problem has been seen before in earlier games. People were able to get around it, however, by emulating PS 1.4 on 1.3 cards. The makers of this particular game, however, have made this impossible, by making redundant texture checks that prevent emulating PS 1.4.
Now that all of that is out of the way, let's get to the meat of the post. I have a Pentium 4 2.4 GHz processor, with a gig of ram and a GeForce 4 Ti 4600. When I bought this computer, it was a state of the art machine capable of running any program (at that time) with maxed settings. My computer is no longer considered "state-of-the-art," but it still runs most games fine. I can run Doom 3 with all settings on medium, and maintain a decent frame rate. I can run Far Cry with settings turned up fairly high, and stay at 60fps. I can run Half-Life 2 with most settings on HIGH and at 1024x768, and my frame rate rarely drops below 50. I have even downloaded the FEAR beta off of Fileplanet, and I can run that fine. What I am unable to run is the new BF2 demo.
I am surprised that some gamers are actually siding with the makers of the game on this issue. You say that it is good that some people are finally forcing me and others to upgrade my computer. Well my question is this: if I can run all of the above games and get good frame rates with decent settings, why should I have to upgrade my computer in order to play one game?
I am all for advancing technology. This is not advancing technology, however. Doom 3 was coded to take advantage of several different pixel shading pathways. If your computer couldn't handle 1.4, it would just turn down some things and use 1.3. This is why Doom 3 runs on many different systems, and yet still manages to look good on all systems.
Half-Life 2 is another great example. One could make the argument that Half-Life 2 looks far better than BF2, and yet it run great on my computer with most of the settings turned up.
No, this is not about pushing technology. The majority of game companies understand that you have to make solutions available to many gamers. That is the price of being a PC gamer. Since all of our systems are different, companies must take that into account, and make the game work on many different systems as opposed to just a few. For example, why do you think that most games are still shipped on CD-ROM as opposed to DVD? Last I checked, even Battlefield 2 has a CD-ROM edition.
Something that really concerns me is the MODs callousness on the issue. In a recent forum post, EAUK_Sentience said that he's "currently running the game very nicely on a 6600GT, you certainly don't need a top end 6800 to run Battlefield 2." I hate to break it to you all, but that is still a $130 video card. You can pick up a new DVD-ROM for about $20. If EA was really concerned about making us all take the next big leap into the future of gaming, why not only ship it out on DVD discs?
My question to you, EA, is how can you justify alienating nearly 20% of your customers by not supporting their videocards. How can you be so calloused as to tell us all "tough luck, go upgrade" as opposed to perhaps a "we are looking into possible solutions."? I, for one, could not wait for this game when I heard about it. But now, I have absolutely no intentions of buying it. I was planning on upgrading my computer in the near future anyway, but due to this bad design decision, even when I do, I will have no intentions of buying it. Unless you find a way to make this game work on GeForce 4 cards, you have lost at least one potential customer. And I am sure I am not alone.
