Anyone try this game yet? First time I found a game that is unplayable with some of the lowest settings. I could walk around 'ok', if i looked at a light or puddle it would crawl and the first gunfight i just quit the game.
The cutscenes ran about .2 fps to where the sound had to wait 30 seconds to let the video 'catch up'
Of course my system isn't all that good, but i played doom3 just fine with medium settings and decent resolution.
Joined: Mon 09-01-2003 6:23PM Posts: 2880 Location: Either at the source below, or in 859 TJ south
Source: TJ South
Would think it's more of a video card thing. Though I'm not suprised stuff is getting up to 512mb RAM required. Most desktops (for those who play games often) already have 1 gig or more.
_________________ The nicest asshole you probably wish you had never met.
Remember, Jesus loves you...but he doesn't put out.
Yea, vid card has a lot to do with it. But min req on video cards that manu's list are retardedly low.
Like for FEAR it lists min is 64 mb geforce 4 card, I don't see how you play it with that and have it not look like doom1. I've got a 128mb 5600ultra and the thing is choking on 'minimal' settings.
Joined: Sun 08-18-2002 10:33AM Posts: 750 Location: Kansas City, KS
Source: CompSci Building
Worked fine on my 6600GT PCIe. IIRC the 5000 series was pretty lackluster except for the high-end 5900's, especially with intensive PS 2.0 work.
_________________ It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of Java the thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Joined: Sun 03-02-2003 3:54PM Posts: 812 Location: St. Louis
Source: RC I
Can't stand that game haha. They had a booth set up at the CPL and I played it there. Whenever you get into a gunfight, there is so much dust and crap coming off the walls/smoke from the gun barrels that you can't see anything.
Joined: Wed 09-10-2003 5:23PM Posts: 1209 Location: 1604 Pine St.
Source: Fidelity
Yeah usually I can play games around 60-80 FPS in 1600x1200 with 2xAA and 8xAF. FEAR demo i think I got around 80 in 1024x768. It was probably around 10-20 in 16x12...
Joined: Mon 10-18-2004 3:38PM Posts: 136 Location: A place better than Rolla...
Source: Off Campus
I played the demo too, all 5 minutes of it, and it strained my system a ton. I can always play games on high settings, but this thing is a monster. I became playable when I used the default low settings, but it looked HORRIBLE. I tweaked it a bit and got it to run okay on a mix of high and medium settings. It seems like a pretty sweet game but its system requirements bring it down.
_________________ In Flames
It's the cowardice that pulls you under...
Joined: Fri 09-10-2004 8:46PM Posts: 255 Location: TJ South
Source: TJ South
ElPupitre wrote:
Can't stand that game haha. They had a booth set up at the CPL and I played it there. Whenever you get into a gunfight, there is so much dust and crap coming off the walls/smoke from the gun barrels that you can't see anything.
Yeah, it's totally unrealistic that a gunfight would seem chaotic. Really though, I liked the more interactive environments since the dust/crap never seemed terrible to me when I was playing it. Of course turning the settings up did seem a little terrible.
Joined: Sun 03-02-2003 3:54PM Posts: 812 Location: St. Louis
Source: RC I
I could care less if it's realistic or not. It's a video game. Inconveniences or gameplay-harming "features" are just that.. inconvenient and gameplay-harming, regardless of whether they're realistic or not.
It's not even a realistic game anyway. The fact that people have body armor/SWAT gear on and they carry anti-terror weaponry doesn't make it a realistic game.
your looking at it from a multiplayer gamer view. I mean even all the 'cool people' turned all versions of quake graphics to turd just to give them an edge on spotting other players and running faster on their machines, well used to anyway.
theres always gotta be a real fancy single player game out there. I know it will have multiplayer but it won't hit off as well as a more functionally built game rather than a 'pretty' one.
Can't stand that game haha. They had a booth set up at the CPL and I played it there. Whenever you get into a gunfight, there is so much dust and crap coming off the walls/smoke from the gun barrels that you can't see anything.
You went to CPL? That's awesome, I've always wanted to go to one.
Joined: Fri 09-10-2004 8:46PM Posts: 255 Location: TJ South
Source: TJ South
ElPupitre wrote:
I could care less if it's realistic or not. It's a video game. Inconveniences or gameplay-harming "features" are just that.. inconvenient and gameplay-harming, regardless of whether they're realistic or not.
It's not even a realistic game anyway. The fact that people have body armor/SWAT gear on and they carry anti-terror weaponry doesn't make it a realistic game.
Well the realism that most people care about in an fps is physics.. (besides in games like ut) and this is where fear is more realistic with all the shit flying from the walls. Obviously any game that features a bullet time type feature is simply going for coolness instead of overall realism. Besides, you can view it as an inconvenience if you want, but it's just adding depth to gameplay. Of course I'm not arguing that playing the game should be a chore, if you don't like it, you don't like it.
Do you really want just another last generation boring fps with updated graphics? Obviously that's what people who play counter-strike want, but they're not the entire market for fps's. Personally I would like to see more environment interaction, and I think fear is at least moving in that direction.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum