Has anyone tried the new PC demo? I'm running a AMD64 3gig ddr and SLI 6800 and my system was chugging even on the lowest settings......its time to upgrade already...?
Ghost Recon : Advance Warfigher
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Ghost Recon : Advance Warfigher Nah, it's time to complain that they don't know how to optimize games anymore.
HalfLife 2 runs at a great FPS with everything turned on to full (except HDR, and no AA because 1280x1024 resolution seems to hide aliasing well enough).
Then there's games like FEAR, which I agree do have fancy graphics (but not enough ahead of HL2), that somehow need 1024x768 resolution and medium settings (DX8 shaders :( ) to get even a bareable framerate out of them.
Oblivion is equally weird. Sure, it does look amazing and have enormous draw distance (thus justifying the tiny resolution that I need), but their shadow system is almost the worst shadow system I have ever witnessed.
The shadow detail setting controls the number of shadows drawn in a frame -- and the speed difference between low and a bit over that is ridiculous. The shadows in FEAR, on the other hand, are either not drawn or drawn for everything (including, at higher settings, the environment... if I recall correctly).
Not only that, but Oblivion's shadows feature those strange glitches (presumably specific to some particular cards) with shadows going through walls, and look no better than those of anything else.
Thus, their shadow system is somehow less optimized than that of FEAR, Source, or even Doom3 while looking, at some points, much worse. (Since when have shadows faded into sight? And how do shadows from a single light source manage to overlap eachother?)
I'm not upgrading until I see something that really impresses me AND runs like garbage.
Oh yes, and Ghost Recon...
I haven't payed much attention to it, myself. What's it like? I saw an ad for it and I must say it looked depressinly pointless. The ad featured a CG sequence that looks like it's in-game (but isn't, of course) in which guys shot eachother.
It looked really awesome. It must be a great game because people shoot eachother, except this time textures manage to be at full res. and looping/repeated animations are cleverly concealed by the game engine.
Obviously, I need to be proven wrong.
There must be SOME story... or something... in there!
HalfLife 2 runs at a great FPS with everything turned on to full (except HDR, and no AA because 1280x1024 resolution seems to hide aliasing well enough).
Then there's games like FEAR, which I agree do have fancy graphics (but not enough ahead of HL2), that somehow need 1024x768 resolution and medium settings (DX8 shaders :( ) to get even a bareable framerate out of them.
Oblivion is equally weird. Sure, it does look amazing and have enormous draw distance (thus justifying the tiny resolution that I need), but their shadow system is almost the worst shadow system I have ever witnessed.
The shadow detail setting controls the number of shadows drawn in a frame -- and the speed difference between low and a bit over that is ridiculous. The shadows in FEAR, on the other hand, are either not drawn or drawn for everything (including, at higher settings, the environment... if I recall correctly).
Not only that, but Oblivion's shadows feature those strange glitches (presumably specific to some particular cards) with shadows going through walls, and look no better than those of anything else.
Thus, their shadow system is somehow less optimized than that of FEAR, Source, or even Doom3 while looking, at some points, much worse. (Since when have shadows faded into sight? And how do shadows from a single light source manage to overlap eachother?)
I'm not upgrading until I see something that really impresses me AND runs like garbage.
Oh yes, and Ghost Recon...
I haven't payed much attention to it, myself. What's it like? I saw an ad for it and I must say it looked depressinly pointless. The ad featured a CG sequence that looks like it's in-game (but isn't, of course) in which guys shot eachother.
It looked really awesome. It must be a great game because people shoot eachother, except this time textures manage to be at full res. and looping/repeated animations are cleverly concealed by the game engine.
Obviously, I need to be proven wrong.
There must be SOME story... or something... in there!
Yup, a good example of an OK game being well optimized is Far Cry. Arguably still one of the prettiest games out there. It runs very well on my 3200XP, 1GB, GF6600GT machine. so does Half Life 2. Oblivion runs OK, I don't mind a bit of stuutering in an RPG, it isn't CounterStrike, after all, but jeez, for what you see on the screen it really should be quicker.
I think the problem is that Bethesda bolted a bunch of middleware together and it shows. Gamebryo, Havok, Speedtree etc .... Where as Crytek built from the ground up and thus their stuff is quite nice and quite quick.
Allan,
I think the problem is that Bethesda bolted a bunch of middleware together and it shows. Gamebryo, Havok, Speedtree etc .... Where as Crytek built from the ground up and thus their stuff is quite nice and quite quick.
Allan,
Oblivion runs like a lame dog until I turn grass off completely, then it becomes playable. Tomb Raider Legends is very smooth until you turn 'next gen' content on. I guess they ain't kidding calling it that.
HL2 runs great, as does Serious Sam 2 (unless I switch HDR on, which really doesn't make too much difference in that game).
Doom3 / Quake4. Well, since getting my new monitor I did think about reinstalling them but considering that they are fairly boring, I haven't bothered. I would guess that they run OK at 1920x1200 but I'm not about to try.
I haven't tried Far Cry yet, but I will at some point, I'm sure. I've really gone off modern FPS's. Everything after Quake just seemed to lose the plot. Only Unreal Tournament (older versions) managed to retain my interest.
I can't remember what it was called, but there was an FPS where you were in a mech (not a big cumbersome thing, but something fairly rapid). That was one of the most underrated FPS's of all time. Great multiplayer.
Half Life 2 was the high-point, though the constant loading pauses were very irritating. A shame I completed that game on a 5900XT. No real incentive to go through the whole thing again just because I've got an uberfast machine now (compared to the old one!).
I'm off for a blast on MAME and Final Doom before finishing the day with a game of Hexic.
HL2 runs great, as does Serious Sam 2 (unless I switch HDR on, which really doesn't make too much difference in that game).
Doom3 / Quake4. Well, since getting my new monitor I did think about reinstalling them but considering that they are fairly boring, I haven't bothered. I would guess that they run OK at 1920x1200 but I'm not about to try.
I haven't tried Far Cry yet, but I will at some point, I'm sure. I've really gone off modern FPS's. Everything after Quake just seemed to lose the plot. Only Unreal Tournament (older versions) managed to retain my interest.
I can't remember what it was called, but there was an FPS where you were in a mech (not a big cumbersome thing, but something fairly rapid). That was one of the most underrated FPS's of all time. Great multiplayer.
Half Life 2 was the high-point, though the constant loading pauses were very irritating. A shame I completed that game on a 5900XT. No real incentive to go through the whole thing again just because I've got an uberfast machine now (compared to the old one!).
I'm off for a blast on MAME and Final Doom before finishing the day with a game of Hexic.
> I can't remember what it was called, but there was an FPS where you were in a mech
Shogo, mobile armored division. I loved that game and would still be playing it but it does not seem to work with modern graphics cards.
As for GRAW - I was going to download the demo till I saw the minimum specs of 1gig memory, painfull!
Shogo, mobile armored division. I loved that game and would still be playing it but it does not seem to work with modern graphics cards.
As for GRAW - I was going to download the demo till I saw the minimum specs of 1gig memory, painfull!
More to the point:
I dont know what the graphics speeds are supposed to be like on GR: AW, since I own it on xbox 360. Graphics were great and it ran smooth.
But gamewise, I think it is lacking. You only control 4 squad members, instead of 8 I think it was in the origional Ghost Recon... They have added a soundtrack, and pre-scripted triggered sequences, etc., and made it more of a third person shooter than a strategy game that the first Ghost Recon was. It was more like Splinter Cell without the stealth.
I dont know what the graphics speeds are supposed to be like on GR: AW, since I own it on xbox 360. Graphics were great and it ran smooth.
But gamewise, I think it is lacking. You only control 4 squad members, instead of 8 I think it was in the origional Ghost Recon... They have added a soundtrack, and pre-scripted triggered sequences, etc., and made it more of a third person shooter than a strategy game that the first Ghost Recon was. It was more like Splinter Cell without the stealth.
and made it more of a third person shooter than a strategy game that the first Ghost Recon was.
I recalled reading that Ubisoft took some initiative to actually make the game more PC-like, rather then a usual console port like near every other game they make, and apparently they made GR:AW an FPS only, no 3rd-person and what not, and added in some extra maneuvers to make for lack of 3rd-person.
(like peeking around corners, as well as adjusting level design to suit the FPS perspective better)
Regarding speed, no clue here, have yet to try the demo, but I take it near every 360 port at this point will require a beast of a PC to run.
(like Oblivion)
Yeah, everyone dumbs down the gameplay for gamepads and action when it comes to consoles. A realy shame, you should see Far Cry, that got the same kind of treatment and is a lot more linear than I'd have liked.
There's a chance they changed the gameplay in the PC version to something a bit more involved, thats what I'm hoping anyway. Does happen occasionaly, but not if the publisher was targeting consoles. Most cross platform games end up giving priority to one platform, so probably 360 in this case.
There's a chance they changed the gameplay in the PC version to something a bit more involved, thats what I'm hoping anyway. Does happen occasionaly, but not if the publisher was targeting consoles. Most cross platform games end up giving priority to one platform, so probably 360 in this case.
I'm thinking its just poor demo optimizations which is why its so on my PC. Cause otherwise, hardly anyone would even be able to play it....
Wait, this isn't one of those demo's that come out a month before the actual product no?
Last time I had a demo like that (Serious Sam2), it had some serious frame-rate issues with some of the higher-end effects, which were thankfully all cured for the final product.
(great co-op play, just not as great as the original since it tossed more crap to kill at once, stupid console port)
Last time I had a demo like that (Serious Sam2), it had some serious frame-rate issues with some of the higher-end effects, which were thankfully all cured for the final product.
(great co-op play, just not as great as the original since it tossed more crap to kill at once, stupid console port)
Looks lik ethe PC version is different to the 360 version, snippet from gamespot pasted below:
One of the things I like about PC games is that they are often not dumbed down so much for the more casual gamer. Thats why I'm probably sticking to the PC for my next gen system.
don't mistake the PC version for being a port of the Xbox 360 game. The PC version has larger and different levels than those featured on the Xbox 360, as well as a different graphics engine and style of gameplay. It will have a vastly different multiplayer suite, as well. Advanced Warfighter for the PC will ship with two multiplayer modes. There's a cooperative gameplay mode that lets you play the entire single-player campaign with up to four players, as well as a new domination mode, which feels like a nice twist on the conquest mode found in Battlefield 2.
One of the things I like about PC games is that they are often not dumbed down so much for the more casual gamer. Thats why I'm probably sticking to the PC for my next gen system.
One of the things I like about PC games is that they are often not dumbed down so much for the more casual gamer. Thats why I'm probably sticking to the PC for my next gen system.
Okay, it's ancient now but I'm still obsessed with it (and the multiplayer server is still up; just empty).
The game "Tachyon: The Fringe" is a fine example of PC games not being dumbed down, and in my opinion it was amazing. (A shame that it didn't seem to sell well, since I can safely say it was one of the first games to feature VOIP and 100 player multiplayer, and its title clearly suggests potential sequels/spin-offs).
The thing that it did which no console game would dare to do (or be able to do) was utilize nearly every key on my keyboard, accomplishing amazingly deep space flight stuff. For example, U and J would adjust my shields, while I had the num pad set up for diverting energy from systems. The number keys all had uses to change weapons and weapon-fire modes, with 9,0, and backspace doing fancy speed stuff.
Ah, it's all coming back to me...
Okay, sure, they COULD have used on-screen controls for all that (like in Orbiter), but that wouldn't be the same. Something about using the keyboard to adjust everything to do with my ship felt a lot more natural, and meant that the HUD stayed out of my way.
Anyway, that's my thoughts... and why it's probably a good idea to stay away from any game that I make.