I bought Sim City 4 Deluxe the other day over Halo. I used to love Sim City but I forgot just how many hours it took to build a city that probably will not even make a profit and drive you into bankrupcy. I played the game for several hours and how Iam thinking I probably should have bought Halo instead.
I've tried it. It didn't change anything except that instead of spiking to 40 fps it goes up to 29 max (when putting my nose in an extremely plain corner).
flashbacck
Golden Member
- Aug 3, 2001
- 1,921
- 0
- 76
so... exactly how many of the people here experiencing poor framerates are running the retail version and NOT the downloaded one?
GTA is not locked at 30fps. It runs at 30 because you have V-sync on and your computer is too slow to get 60.
MDE
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 13,199
- 1
- 81
I don't think so. My refresh rate is not 30Hz, and even with Vsync on it would be at 85. My computer can handle Vice City at 2xAA\2xAF and still go over 30FPS. There is a framerate limiter option in VC that helps enormously with missing polygons, tearing, etc. It IS locked at 30fps by DEFAULT.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
for the people that says it runs smooth and stop whining about 30fps.. you obviously never tried the game yet...
it runs at around 80fps when there's no one on the screen, and there's just a wall in front of you..
but once there's action going on the screen, like monsters/people shooting at each other.. the framerate will drop to like 2-5fps, and it'll just stutter like a slideshow... completely unplayable.... no matter what resolution you run it at..
that happens when i run it at 800x600....
the only way i can get it to run smoothly is if i turn off luster(bump mapping) and shadows... then it runs smoothly.... and it looks like half life graphics... utter shi?...
UT2003 does look 10x better and runs 20x better...
here's a screenie of halo
it runs at around 80fps when there's no one on the screen, and there's just a wall in front of you..
but once there's action going on the screen, like monsters/people shooting at each other.. the framerate will drop to like 2-5fps, and it'll just stutter like a slideshow... completely unplayable.... no matter what resolution you run it at..
that happens when i run it at 800x600....
the only way i can get it to run smoothly is if i turn off luster(bump mapping) and shadows... then it runs smoothly.... and it looks like half life graphics... utter shi?...
UT2003 does look 10x better and runs 20x better...
here's a screenie of halo
The Sauce
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 4,741
- 34
- 91
Incorrect. I have played most of the way through the game so far and have not experienced any noticeable slowdowns (only when loading a new area it stutters momentarily). It's just time for you to upgrade so we don't have to hear whining about how every new game that comes out in the next 6 months wont run smoothly on your system.
I am personally glad that gamemakers are pushing the limits of current hardware and NOT pandering to those with ancient hardware. I want my games to take advantage of the latest hardware features and give me the best possible experience - even if they have to sacrifice some FPS to do so.
"Incorrect. I have played most of the way through the game so far and have not experienced any noticeable slowdowns (only when loading a new area it stutters momentarily). It's just time for you to upgrade so we don't have to hear whining about how every new game that comes out in the next 6 months wont run smoothly on your system.
I am personally glad that gamemakers are pushing the limits of current hardware and NOT pandering to those with ancient hardware. I want my games to take advantage of the latest hardware features and give me the best possible experience - even if they have to sacrifice some FPS to do so.
"
LOL, Snatch that is the funniest thing I have read thus far. You could MOD U2 to look exactily like Halo and have it run 4X-6X smoother... Halo does push our hardware, too bad it does not bring the graphics bar up to a new level.
Gearbox messed up on this port... They flopped.
I am personally glad that gamemakers are pushing the limits of current hardware and NOT pandering to those with ancient hardware. I want my games to take advantage of the latest hardware features and give me the best possible experience - even if they have to sacrifice some FPS to do so.
"
LOL, Snatch that is the funniest thing I have read thus far. You could MOD U2 to look exactily like Halo and have it run 4X-6X smoother... Halo does push our hardware, too bad it does not bring the graphics bar up to a new level.
Gearbox messed up on this port... They flopped.
Originally posted by: Sunner
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Hmmm,how do you know how it runs if you didn't buy it ?
Because I downloaded it.
I do that with 95% of the game Im interested in, and if I like them, I buy them, Half Life for example.
Games like this are why I do that, the quality of games is just too crappy these days, if I bought every game I was interested in I'd be shelling out ~$250 every damn month and play maybe 1 of those games.
Of course, there are a few exceptions, games where I trust the company to get it right, War/Star Craft for example.
Real world examples:
Half Life, downloaded it, awesome game, ran fine, buggy, but not enough to make me not wanna play it. So I bought it.
WarCraft III, I loved WarCraft I&II, StarCraft, and Diablo I&II, so I figured they'd get that one right too, so I bought it the day it came out, and I never regretted it.
Halo, didn't know much, cept it's supposed to kick ass, so I downloaded it, it just can't run acceptably on my system, despite having a pretty close to top end rig, it's just not fun to play what could very well be a PowerPoint presentation, so I won't be playing or buying that.
Oh and as for detail levels, Im running it at 800x600x32 with no AA and 8x AF, hardly what I'd call stressful.
So in other words you steal $250 worth of games a month, but if they were all good you would buy them ?
The Sauce
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 4,741
- 34
- 91
Eh...I don't know about that U2 thing there Angel. I played both and I am pretty sure that Halo is one of the most graphically spectacular games I have played. I dont remember U2's textures and shading looking nearly as pristine. I'll beg to differ with you on that one.
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Originally posted by: Sunner
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Hmmm,how do you know how it runs if you didn't buy it ?
Because I downloaded it.
I do that with 95% of the game Im interested in, and if I like them, I buy them, Half Life for example.
Games like this are why I do that, the quality of games is just too crappy these days, if I bought every game I was interested in I'd be shelling out ~$250 every damn month and play maybe 1 of those games.
Of course, there are a few exceptions, games where I trust the company to get it right, War/Star Craft for example.
Real world examples:
Half Life, downloaded it, awesome game, ran fine, buggy, but not enough to make me not wanna play it. So I bought it.
WarCraft III, I loved WarCraft I&II, StarCraft, and Diablo I&II, so I figured they'd get that one right too, so I bought it the day it came out, and I never regretted it.
Halo, didn't know much, cept it's supposed to kick ass, so I downloaded it, it just can't run acceptably on my system, despite having a pretty close to top end rig, it's just not fun to play what could very well be a PowerPoint presentation, so I won't be playing or buying that.
Oh and as for detail levels, Im running it at 800x600x32 with no AA and 8x AF, hardly what I'd call stressful.
So in other words you steal $250 worth of games a month, but if they were all good you would buy them ?
Nah it's less these days really, cause I got tired of wasting my time with games that suck.
These days it's mostly games that people talk alot about.
But yeah, I buy good games, I used to buy alot of games a couple of years ago, but quality of both gameplay and the software itself has gone down the $hitter, so, as I said, I ain't shelling out any money unless I know what Im getting, or in a few rare cases, I trust the developer enough to buy it anyway.
Graphics... Is that all that (some of) you guys care about?
I'm starting to wonder if it's an ego thing... Like somehow you are insulted because your PC won't run it at the highest res with details max'd out, so you denounce the game as "crap."
Seriously, does the gameplay become totally irrelevant, because you cannot run it at high fps/res/details?
(And then you wonder why so many games are coming out that have nice graphics but boring gameplay.)
I'm starting to wonder if it's an ego thing... Like somehow you are insulted because your PC won't run it at the highest res with details max'd out, so you denounce the game as "crap."
Seriously, does the gameplay become totally irrelevant, because you cannot run it at high fps/res/details?
(And then you wonder why so many games are coming out that have nice graphics but boring gameplay.)
No, I don't mind games that have great gameplay but boring graphics.
And if a game pushes the envelope in terms of graphics, I understand perfectly why it doesn't run at 1600x1200 with 8xAA, 16xAF, etc etc.
But when a game doesn't look like anything spectacular, and is still choppy at 800x600 on an R9800, I have a problem with that, there's something wrong with that.
And when that choppyness results in me getting killed all the time cause the game turns into a slideshow once more than 5 NME's are on the screen at once, it takes away from the gameplay.
Face it, there's something that smells about the PC port of Halo, and it ain't the hardware it's running on.
Reminds me of Deus Ex, another game that was ruined cause of the crappy technology behind it, I hear patches eventually fixed these problems, but I had given up on that one by then.
I care about graphics to the extent that they have to be smooth (unless of course its a board game where pieces jump around like chess or something) because when they arent, a game is unplayable for the most part. Its nearly impossible to shoot something in an FPS when it moves 5-10 meters a frame, and when you're getting 5 fps that is about how it is in halo. I don't have a good rig, but I expect to be able to get playable FPS when I turn off more than _ALL_ the graphics options (more than all because I had to use command line switches to go below the in-game settings and it STILL plays like crap). If the graphics are not making it run so slow, what is? My vote goes to shoddy programming of some nature.
Halo is the best example to date of a pixel shader heavy game. It is the future that so many on these forums are raving about. Certain levels nearly every pixel on the screen has a shader running for it(more then one if you figure in OD). Outside of player models, it bests Unreal2 in pretty much everything on the visual front(spent some time playing them back to back).
What sort of framerates are you dropping to? I fall in to the low 20s under heavy strain(dozen enemies/marines in the shader heavy boards and large fire fight) with my Ti. That's up better then 100% over the same spots for my Box, running at a higher resolution with more detail.
I don't see what that is. This is what so many have been talking about in terms of the future of PC graphics, pixel shader heavy/limited games. The Master Chief, Covenant Elite and Hunters all have their own shaders going along with a good portion of the environment(water and almost every metallic surface in the game). I think HL2 looks better, due to superior models and animations- and Doom3 looks much better(vastly superior lighting model and better utilization of shader resources IMO), but this is what so many people have been asking for. The shader effects as of now lose a lot of their clarity due to the inability to run at high resolutions(aliasing kills the shader effects unless you can run them at much higher settings) but this will remain a constant for some time with upcoming games with the same theme in graphics engines.
Well, shaders certainly are a good thing, but unless they help make the game look better, it's a waste.
I agree, the terrain in Halo looks very good, the surfaces are certainly better than UT2003, the rest of the game is nothing to write home about though, and in any case playing with all the effects on is just out of the question for me.
With all the effects on, and resolution at 800x600, the game is utterly unplayable, I haven't ran any benchies, but I'd guesstimate framerates drop to around 5 FPS when there's alot of action, even lower for very short periods.
With all the effects turned off, and res still at 800x600, framerates are acceptable, but nothing more, I'd say it drops to 15-20 FPS once in a while.
But then the game looks pretty much like crap.
All in all, I guess I could play the game at the lowest settings, nearly lowest resolution, but to have to resort to that with the hardware I have, there's something wrong with that.
Like I said, this is Deus Ex all over again, great game, ruined by lacking technology, in the end, I lose cause I'm missing a great game, and the developer loses, cause I sure won't be buying the game, and I doubt Im the only one.
I agree, the terrain in Halo looks very good, the surfaces are certainly better than UT2003, the rest of the game is nothing to write home about though, and in any case playing with all the effects on is just out of the question for me.
With all the effects on, and resolution at 800x600, the game is utterly unplayable, I haven't ran any benchies, but I'd guesstimate framerates drop to around 5 FPS when there's alot of action, even lower for very short periods.
With all the effects turned off, and res still at 800x600, framerates are acceptable, but nothing more, I'd say it drops to 15-20 FPS once in a while.
But then the game looks pretty much like crap.
All in all, I guess I could play the game at the lowest settings, nearly lowest resolution, but to have to resort to that with the hardware I have, there's something wrong with that.
Like I said, this is Deus Ex all over again, great game, ruined by lacking technology, in the end, I lose cause I'm missing a great game, and the developer loses, cause I sure won't be buying the game, and I doubt Im the only one.
I never see anything close to 5fps... I run it at 1024 with most of the detail levels set one notch below the highest level, with some still at the highest level, and I never experience a drop in framerate enough to affect gameplay.
Those of you who are complaining about it being "a slideshow", are you running the (patched) retail version?
Those of you who are complaining about it being "a slideshow", are you running the (patched) retail version?
The performance of Halo is disappointing with my XP3000+ and Ti4200, but the graphics are good. I cannot believe it doesn't work with AA on. Very poor testing and quality control.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 388
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter