I am glad I did not spentd $60 on this , NO hardware scalability whatsoever

PLEASE stop comparing his rig to a cell phone. My Pentium 3 in the corner of my room is still more powerful than a cellphone. Clock Rate and memory mean nothing when you're using ARM. x86 is much more powerful (less energy efficient, but much more powerful)

can i haz yer stuff

1.66ghz? Wow, that would struggle maxing Half Life 2!

I .. I .. I don't wanna list off the parts of my relic. I get 30 when no one is around, and about 8 when large numbers are around. Its no worse than when I played quake over a modem ages ago. I'm used to it, though I wish it'd stay over 10fps.

It's YOU'RE, not YOUR.

Also, is this game multi-threaded? Otherwise, a dual core vs quad is irrelevant.

Last, Windows 7 pages RAM before it 'uses' it.

BTW, those going after spelling and grammar. You do realize some of these folks don't have the luxury as English as a primary language, right? Just sayin'.

the reason for low fps is because your CPU is crap, it is used to calculate the people around you, what they are doing, their damage status etc. The reason why you have higher fps in other games even on ultra settings is that, there are far fewer people around you, even on the 64 v 64 maps in battlefield series, you never get that amount of people so close to you as in PS2.

Having said that PS2 is not optimized very well, but if you have a cpu which was only average in 2009, then there isn't much hope for you in this game.

to check if it is indeed your cpu that is the problem, press alt + f in game, it will show your fps and next to it it will show what is bottlenecking your system, either a "CPU" or "GPU".

You know I REALLY don't care about your spects, right? All you're saying is "Take any other modern game that anyone can play smoothly, and add tons of shít and things that only a few computers may handle, and there you have PS2". Great story man, thanks for agreeing that PS2 is unplayable as it is.

I just tried Battlefield 3 in high graphics during multiplayer: 32 fps, hope you have a story for that as well, try to add some zombies to this one.

And don't come with "but it's a free game" because it's no excuse to release a game so unoptimized. Plus, the company behind it has lots of money and manpower, already did a great job with DC Universe and Unreal Engine 3, and these free games don't get money before release, but after it (if they don't suck), so please, free is no excuse.

People seriously try to game with 4 megs of RAM on a Windows 7 system? Wow.... just wow..... I tell family to try and get at least 6, preferably 8, if they're going to game on a Windows 7 system.

And yes, that CPU is slow.

Don't blame the game, it's the hardware. I'm running PS2 on a video card that is going on 6 or 7 years old now (GTX 260 with a 800+ mb video buffer. I should really upgrade it this spring....), but it runs fine. I like to think it has a lot to do with the 2.6 ghz quad core and 8 gigs of RAM...

Your CPU is a piece of garbage.

So I loaded PS2 up on my awesome Gateway (which by the way is rocking a Pentium 2, Voodoo2, and 256megs of RAM) and the **** just won't run you guys. I can play Starcraft on SUPER MAX ULTRA HIGH but I can't run this? **** this game.

I didn't mention the game was free? Unless that comment wasn't directed at me.

I mentioned PS2 runs worse yes, cause it has a lot more entities to process and bigger map to load, the map continuously loads / unloads as you move cause its so damn HUGE. In BF3 the map is loaded on startup so there is no need to add the extra processing power in loading / unloading the map cause its stored in Memory. Also I mentioned that PS2 is running on a NEW engine. So you not only have game optimizations to worry about but you also have engine optimization to worry about.

BF3 during Multiplayer is nothing compared to what PS2 can do. 64 MAX while PS2 can have UPTO 600. I have been in fights where there's more then 64 player on my team ALONE in the small area I have been in.
Try spawning 100's of mobs on Skyrim (there are mods that allow this) and then look at your FPS. It will be a better benchmark then PS2. Even then, Skyrim has no mulitplayer option so its not sending infomation backwards and forwards to you PC. You can't move you Character if you internet speed can't send the data fast enough.
There is also massive sever load that PS2 has to worry about with an ever chaning number of players while BF3 only ever has to worry about UPTO 64 which is a lot goddam easier to manage then nearly 600. So server load might also be affecting your FPS.

There is a LOT MORE then just system specs when it comes to games. Why do you think on most MMO's you don't see anything past a set distance?
WoW is like 200m before you don't see anything, but then again they have a ton of servers to choose from and you bearly see more then about 5 people in the same area except if its a major town or you are in a group.
For example I played wow for about a week before I got bored of it. When I was out doing quests the game was a lot smoother then if I was in Orgrimmar (Orc's Major town) cause there was a lot more then server had to send to my PC to load all the entities in the area.

So like I said STOP COMPARING PS2 to other shooters. The number of players and entity count is MUCH LOWER then other FPS. The only games you can compare it to is other MMO's or Massive Open World based games.