Viewing Thread:
"Right, BF2"

Considering getting this one, have a couple of questions first to ease my troubled mind.

Is it subscription based, like WoW?
Have they sorted out out that awful unwieldy menu system?
Does Xfire work with it yet?

Cheers

Damarus wrote:
> The 360 has a measily 512mb of ram. BF2 on the PC requires 2Gb to get
> the best out of it.

You can't compare it, at all. The 360 is designed to do one thing - play games, and it's optimised to do that. The GFX and the CPU are all linked directly, unlike a PC where you have the RAM slotted into the motherboard and bus connections to all the other parts.

Also remember the fact that the game is optimised for the single architecture of the console, rather than having to be compatible with hundreds of different setups, which inevitably means it runs slower than it could on everybody's computers.

Damarus wrote:
> A chopper and plane with an analogue stick? Especially the plane
> part, would be far too slow of a responce.

Obviously I meant land vehicles. Tanks work especially well on joypads.

gerrid wrote:
> Stuff

Yes, this does allow for faster ram speeds however it doesn't add any extra ram therefore I can't see the bigger levels being possible.

It's a console. It's not all about the RAM. It doesn't work like a PC.

Turok 2 on the N64 had MASSIVE levels, and that only had 4MB of RAM.

Bought and installing now, quick flick through manual and then go get shot a lot by people much better than me.

And how did me asking a couple of straight-forward, easy questions about Battlefield 2 turn into an argument about consoles vs PCs?
Assclowns

X-fire works fine with it, as far as I know. You get used to the menu, but seeing as X-fire works, just wait for someone else. No subscription.

gerrid wrote:
> Turok 2 on the N64 had MASSIVE levels, and that only had 4MB of RAM.

However it didn't have an awful lot of 'action' as it were happening over the entire level unlike BF2. I know it doesn't need the 2Gb like the PC, which is pretty obvious however I'm fairly positive that it will need more than 512.

Goatboy wrote:
> And how did me asking a couple of straight-forward, easy questions
> about Battlefield 2 turn into an argument about consoles vs PCs?
> Assclowns

=)

Azul mocked BF2 on 360, leading to a rather thoughtless comment from Tiltawhirl thus leading to a debate type thing.

You know how it is in this place =P

Damarus wrote:
> I'm fairly positive that it
> will need more than 512.

That would be true if it worked like a PC, and if it were a PC, but it isn't. There's already been the example of HALO, and there are loads of ported console games that worked on consoles with 16MB of RAM and require 64MB or 256MB of RAM on the PC. What about Doom 3? How much RAM do you need for that on the PC? And how much does the Xbox have? Exactly!

Wow, an EA product crashing my computer whilst installing.
That's unusual....
/weary sarcasm