So, how bad does bad company 2 run?

Could you guys please tell me how the game runs for you? Also, does it run better or worse than Modern Warfare 2?

Worse than modern warfare 2 obviously.. but quite fair atleast for me, running everything at highest except AA which is at x4 on a 9800GT

Hmm I'm playing 4 GB at 1666mhz, 720 Phenom XII Black Edition, wit ha 8800GTS @ 1920X1080 and I play with sleek frames on all low settings

Hmm I'm playing 4 GB at 1666mhz, 720 Phenom XII Black Edition, wit ha 8800GTS @ 1920X1080 and I play with sleek frames on all low settings

mechwarrior_bob

maxing it out on Dx 10 with E8500 @ 3.8 Ghz, 4 gig ram and 4870x2

Avg frames 50 - 60

E6600 + 2 GB DDR2 + 9800GT

1680*1050 high settings directx 10. 30fps+

I am not sure why everyone thinks the game runs poorly?

I did some benchmarks earlier because of another thread. (e6600 @ 3.0Ghz, 8800GTS 640Mb)

1900x1200

DirectX 9

All settings low: 50-80fps

All settings high (no AA): 35-50fps

I play with all low as well like the poster above with a similar setup , less than 50fps feels jerky on a big screen.

I think a lot of people complain about performance because DirextX 10 fairly crushes the fps, a simple .ini change can set you up with DX9 though.

[QUOTE="mechwarrior_bob"]

Hmm I'm playing 4 GB at 1666mhz, 720 Phenom XII Black Edition, wit ha 8800GTS @ 1920X1080 and I play with sleek frames on all low settings

Lox_Cropek

Bad Company 2 runs smooth for me I have everything on high except HBAO which I have turned off..

C2Q 8200 OC @2.75 GHz
4870 512mb
4.0 DDR 2 800

highest full AA and no AF @ 1440 x 900

specs in sig.. in the event you cannot read:

core 2 quad q8400 (2.66ghz)

4gb drr2-800

sapphire hd 5830 cod4 edition

Runs perfectly with all options maxed out on my 5850.

im dunno why the guys are all posting 50fps max setting setups. Im running it on a laptop with a midrange core2 duo and a low end gfx card on low and the loading times for me are better than mw2. multiplayer really depends a lot more on ping. Single player wise, no battlefield levels arent much bigger (if at all) than mw2 levels but i suppose environment destruction and dice's love affair with vision obscuring dust adds to the equation.

all in all im satisfied by the quality of the port, no complaints really.

No, almost 2/3 out of the levels are huge compared to any MW 2 sp levels. Especially Sangre del Toro, it's the size of a bunch of MW 2 levels.

The PC footage isn't maxed out and as it says no DX 11. You're kidding yourself if you think that AA and shadows are that bad and the game is that blurry on PC also the textures are set on the highes settings (from gameplay, cinematics aren't worth a thing) that video is pretty pathetic but if they wanted to match the console version then they did it, but maybe they wanted to do just that, I didn't see the eurogamer article and frankly I don't care, the game looks better than that..

Anyway if we've reached the point where we're sharing highly compressed inaccurate videos on youtube....then I will just stop, troll away, but you posting a video from youtube shows that nobody should bother taking your opinion into consideration and besides this thread is about how good BC 2 works, your posts have no place here since you don't have it, you're in it just for the attention.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]It's not bad logic, you can't even compare the detail and complexity of BC 2 with MW 2, you considering it a bad port because it needs more power than MW 2, that is a bad logic. BC 2 is the superior game, try playing it next time.GeneralShowzer

yeah mw2 is a lazy port.. the reason why bfbc2 is more demanding on the pc is b/c they took the extra time to make it run well. think of how much better it could have been if metro 2033 was more optimized or if other great console to pc ported games took the extra time to make the pc version shine through.

the pc has alot more torque and offers alot more give than any console ever has plain and simple. its the reaosn why we were killing it in quake III and unreal tournament while golden eye 007 was still sucking its thumb(no offence to the game intended it was stellar for its time). and if people take the time to address games that come multiplatform or get ported to the pc, they wont get shot down the second it shows up. case in point ghostbusters the game.. i remember when everyone was saying zomg total garbadge based on system requirements ALONE.. well it wasnt that bad it just that the developers just threw it out there with what worked... they could have made it a beautiful thing but instead they just went with what worked and shoved it in a box.

granted it was a movie to videogame title which generally speaking damns it but they could have made a much more consistent effort no just shoved it in a box to sell it.

developers are starting to loose sight of videogames as a whole they can be beautiful things.. a virtual manifestation of works of art.. guildwars was a fine example of this argueably halflife 1 & 2 aswell. you dont just make a videogame.. you need to put some heart into it. every developer is guilty of this in some way and there ISN'T anyone whos guilt free. be you a pc exclusive developer or otherwise. and the day someone wakes up and realises this the better.

there are games that are entertaining and then there are larger than life titles.. what seperates them is the effort people put into them.

and you can take that one to the bank....

It needs a decent setup to run smooth and without issues, I run it with the minimum settings, which I do not recommend, try aim for the recommended system requirements and you'll see average to great framerates.Fearlessbro

Most systems that has atleast Core 2 Duo 2.4ghz (ish. could be AMD equivalent) or higher should not have big problems with the game, but people like me who are stuck in dark ages (Pentium D 2.6ghz OC) can get decent play but not fully smooth.

AMD phenom 3.0 ghz 945

4gb DDR2 1066

HD 4850

I run everything on max, 2 AA and 16 Anti. Never had any lag or stutters what so ever on my 720p samsung. 1360x768 res. Looks great. wonder how much it would look with a better monitor. Prolly run worse but w.e

I haven't tried it, but I'm seeing a lot of mixed results from benchmarks and from people on here. Anybody know if I'd max it 1080p steady fps? specs in sig

I'm running an i7 860, 4GB Ram, and a 9800 GTX everything high with 4x AA and i'm getting around 50-60 frames.

how will the game run on these settings:

q9550 @ 2.8 ghz

HD 5850 1gb

3gb ram

1680x1050 max resolution

???

It'll run great. That cpu is begging to be overclocked by the way :D

I have a q6600 @ 3.6ghz, 4gb ram, 5870, windows 7 x64, running it everything on max bar AA (only on x1) and hbao off at 1920x1200 and it very rarely dips below 60fps. Usually hovers around 70fps.

Ofcoure it runs worse than mw2. In my pc i can almost max it, it needs a bit more gpu power. It does not depend on cpu. Anyway i would say its ok because the game looks really really good. it actually looks better than most games out there.dakan45

edit: also you guys should say whether the fps are in multiplayer or singleplayer and dx9 or dx10 because between multiplayer, singleplayer, dx9, and dx10 your fps can vary greatly

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Ofcoure it runs worse than mw2. In my pc i can almost max it, it needs a bit more gpu power. It does not depend on cpu. Anyway i would say its ok because the game looks really really good. it actually looks better than most games out there.ironman388

It runs like butter at 1080p with 2xAA on and all max details. Modern Warfare 2 is built off a much less demanding graphics engine, so it's a tough comparison. Bad Company 2 qualifies as one of the best-looking games out to date.. MW2 doesn't.

AMD phenom 3.0 ghz 945

4gb DDR2 1066

HD 4850

I run everything on max, 2 AA and 16 Anti. Never had any lag or stutters what so ever on my 720p samsung. 1360x768 res. Looks great. wonder how much it would look with a better monitor. Prolly run worse but w.e

Papadrach

It runs pretty darn good just run the game with AA turned off and you should have no lag or just a tiny bit of lag. Hekynn

lol absolutely no slow downs on my rig havent even used fraps to check fps yet.Though the game was designed to use a quad core thus to have optimal performace you would need to couple it together with a decent GPU.

idk if it because I don't have a quad-core or it's windows 7/DX10 but this game runs rather shoddy compared to most PC games. Got a 4890 and it doesn't run that well IMO. MW2 runs maxed out with WAAAY higher frame-rate

It'll run great. That cpu is begging to be overclocked by the way :D

I have a q6600 @ 3.6ghz, 4gb ram, 5870, windows 7 x64, running it everything on max bar AA (only on x1) and hbao off at 1920x1200 and it very rarely dips below 60fps. Usually hovers around 70fps.

-clippa-

Oops, forgot to mention, I was talking about directx11 and multiplayer.

To the above poster, the engine MW2 is running on is a lot older and tweaked and polished and yes it'll feel a lot faster and smoother. Of course infinity ward capped the framerate at 85fps in multiplayer in order to ruin one of the best things about their game but that's just what they do :D

I'm assuming this was to smooth out the p2p but you never know, they could have just done it out of spite.

Yes, the game likes quad cores, the 4890 isn't the hairiest gpu out there but it should still be holding it's own. I'd say it was the lack of quad core, as others have stated, the game likes cpu power. I was really dissapointed with the games performance at first, I think I was expecting cod level smoothness but now I think that the game runs great. I think it was more about the speed and feel of the games being so different that when you come from one to the other, it feels like a step down in performance. What sort of framerate are you getting?

[QUOTE="-clippa-"]

It'll run great. That cpu is begging to be overclocked by the way :D

I have a q6600 @ 3.6ghz, 4gb ram, 5870, windows 7 x64, running it everything on max bar AA (only on x1) and hbao off at 1920x1200 and it very rarely dips below 60fps. Usually hovers around 70fps.

-clippa-

Oops, forgot to mention, I was talking about directx11 and multiplayer.

To the above poster, the engine MW2 is running on is a lot older and tweaked and polished and yes it'll feel a lot faster and smoother. Of course infinity ward capped the framerate at 85fps in multiplayer in order to ruin one of the best things about their game but that's just what they do :D

I'm assuming this was to smooth out the p2p but you never know, they could have just done it out of spite.

Yes, the game likes quad cores, the 4890 isn't the hairiest gpu out there but it should still be holding it's own. I'd say it was the lack of quad core, as others have stated, the game likes cpu power. I was really dissapointed with the games performance at first, I think I was expecting cod level smoothness but now I think that the game runs great. I think it was more about the speed and feel of the games being so different that when you come from one to the other, it feels like a step down in performance. What sort of framerate are you getting?

I haven't tested it or anything, but I can tell it isn't the greatest when I turn everything up. I don't really care what the exact frame-rate is, if it feels sluggish then it is sluggish.

It's not a big deal, it's only one game that doesn't run too well.

I haven't tested it or anything, but I can tell it isn't the greatest when I turn everything up. I don't really care what the exact frame-rate is, if it feels sluggish then it is sluggish.

QuitoFOOL

That's just my point, it might feel sluggish at first because you're not used to it. Seriously, it's not a case of "it's sluggish" but you end up making do, the game has a "heavier" feel to it than something like cod where you're float-flitting around like a ghost on amphetamines :D

If your rig isn't the greatest, make sure you're running directx 9, turn off hbao, turn off aa completely if you can. Check your framerate, so long as it's around 50 or 60 on average, you'll be fine. If it's lower, reduce some settings in the options.

As far as the dual-core versus quad-core issue in BC2.. yes, the game does like quad-core CPUs. However, it will run perfectly on a fast-enough dual-core. I have a rig in my house with an E8400 @ 3.8ghz, and it manhandles BC2.