It's sad for DICE that EA can't keep its hands clean. This is why i completly ignore reviews and rather find a demo or if lack of one play it first through some friend (or imaginary if need be ) Some of the questions are just (b,d,e)
They whining they don't get to review the game, because they previously gave their other games bad review? Cry more? So while other sites rate the game good, they rate the game bad. It's no wonder they don't let them review the game, why should they let ungrateful people review?
Daym!
No, no no. The Bizon uses a helical magazine instead of the standard stick mags. The bullets wrap around the interior of that detachable drum like a spiral, thus greatly increasing its capacity.
Bizon's can carry 64 rounds of 9x18 Makarov or 53 of 9x19 parabellum (what most people use).
If anybody here has played Killzone 2 or 3, the Helghast SMG is derived from the Russian pp19 Bizon.
I think maybe I wasn't clear, and I was afraid of that. I meant the aesthetics of the gun, not how it actually acts and performs.
who needs EA servers? I still play BF2 online... that's 6 years of online and counting thanks. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you can still play BF1942 onine.
If you're talking of login servers... I can still log in to BF2. There is absolutely no danger of them shutting down BF logins in the time anybody will be still interested in playing it. There would be a massive stink and bad press for no reason whatsoever. Running a login server + database especially for an older game that might only have a few thousand regulars is not exactly very expensive.
Of course, some of you are wondering if you can even run the game on your machine, or whether you're better off sticking with the console version. Based on my own experience in the beta and with the final retail build, I can say that if you have a DirectX11-compatible video card and a quad-core processor -- not a particularly high bar to clear these days -- you're definitely better off with the PC version. I was impressed when I played the BF3 beta on my aging but still powerful Nvidia GTX 460 with no issues. I was able to max out the settings -- though my monitor at the time only went to a paltry 1366x768 resolution. I went into the retail version armed with a new 1680x1050 monitor and a top-of-the-line GTX 580, and found no problems maxing out the game. I wasn't able to play BF3 on a variety of PC setups, but the early word among those with access indicates that the game looks better than the console on all but the lowest settings. So, even if you have aging hardware, running the game on medium or high (as opposed to ultra) will still serve you just fine.
Battlefield 3: DirectX 10 pitfalls
Owner of a DX10 graphics card (for example 200 and Geforce Radon HD 4000) must be at lower frame rates and content on a "medium" reduced ground-level detail. What bearable in theory and on Radeon graphics cards, is flanked on a Geforce 8, 9 and 200 from a more serious problem: The frame rate on these graphics cards is irregular, as if the fps hung from a rubber band. The twitching is - like micro stuttering - weaker at higher frame rates, but goes away in any level of detail. In principle, any affected Geforce from the 8800 GT up to the GTX 285 The brand new GeForce 285.62 does not help. For more information on this and many DX10 GPU benchmarks can be found in the booklet.
PCGH warning for DX10 users: