Need For Speed: ProStreet Demo

[Cheex]

Demo Links:
EA
Gamespot
Fileplanet
Gamershell

Graphics are SWEET!! but the gameplay is really lacking. The menus respond incorrectly to my controller and during the races, the control is horrible. The turning is all messed up and the graphics are SWEET!!

The controls feel like the other driving simulators where you NEED a wheel to play it properly. That really sucks.

Pros:
Graphics are SWEET!!
Sounds are GREAT!!
Events seem engaging.
Storyline seems solid.

Cons:
Gameplay.

I am totally unimpressed by this game so far, aside from the fact that the graphics are SWEET!!, the demo has done absolutely NO justice to the NFS franchise. I would rather play Carbon (noted as probably the worst NFS title to date).

I will however, reserve the final judgement to be made on the FULL GAME.

 

[pcslookout]

Graphics may be sweet but how are frame rates when everything is maxed at 1600x1200 resolution, 4x AA and 16 AF ?

 

[Cheex]

I played this demo at the maximum IT allowed me to...1024x768. I did so with all the settings On, High and with 8x AA.

Note: Will update with framerate.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I played this demo at the maximum IT allowed me to...1024x768. I did so with all the settings On, High and with 8x AA.

Note: Will update with framerate.

What size is your monitor ? I don't like this game already if it limit your resolution at 1024x768.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Cheex
I played this demo at the maximum IT allowed me to...1024x768. I did so with all the settings On, High and with 8x AA.

Note: Will update with framerate.

What size is your monitor ? I don't like this game already if it limit your resolution at 1024x768.

17" CRT

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Cheex
I played this demo at the maximum IT allowed me to...1024x768. I did so with all the settings On, High and with 8x AA.

Note: Will update with framerate.

What size is your monitor ? I don't like this game already if it limit your resolution at 1024x768.

17" CRT

You shouldn't be limited to 1024x768 even with a 17" CRT in this game.

 

[Lonyo]

Does it support widescreen resolutions?

 

[Cheex]

I don't like playing out of the 'natural' aspect ratio, 4:3. I could have played it WS or at 1280x1024 (5:4) but I chose 1024x768 @ 85Hz.

Framerates, taken by eyesight, using Fraps while playing:
Min: 37
Avg: 47
Max: 57

This is doing the Grip Race (Circuit).

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Does it support widescreen resolutions?

Yes, WS is supported.

 

[martensite]

I played it at 1920x1200, 2xAA, everything else maxed in-game (except for one setting..think it was shadows). FPS never dipped below 25fps and was hovering around the 30-40 most of the time. The car models are really nice, and the graphics are sweet. Keyboard controls are a bit hard, not impossible to manage, but a wheel would be desirable. May get this one when it comes out.

EDIT: The menus dont retain my keyboard settings sometimes.
EDIT 2: It supports 1680x1050 too.
Quick benching on fraps shows min FPS of 32 and max of 76, avg of 47 for the scenario above on the Grip Race map.
At 1680x1050, the numbers are 36, 91 and 50.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

I just downloaded the demo and my San Diego at 3ghz, 2gb of ram in sync at ddr~550, and an overclocked 7800GT and with absolutely EVERYTHING bottomed out at 1280 x 1024 no AA, no nothing and it chunked so bad I just gave up, I'm not up for buying a new C2D and re-building my system from scratch. The lack of support for older CPU's is obviously the problem and better be fixed by release.

 

[MarcVenice]

Hmz, running a x2 3800+ @ 2.5ghz, and a 8800gts 320mb stock speeds and I managed to run everything on max settings @ 1680*1050, and never dipped below 20-25fps. It still felt pretty good, although I might lower shadows a notch or some other settings to stay above 30 fps all the time. As for the steering, some people are complaining about it, but to me it felt pretty good and realistic. Maybe the car should respond a wee bit faster to input, but that's it. The only thing that annoyed me was cornering, you'd be going 60-70mph, and even if you keep on the gas, and steer, the car will just slow down, it won't tailbreak or accelerate much. As if ESP is messing with me, haha.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: DerwenArtos12
I just downloaded the demo and my San Diego at 3ghz, 2gb of ram in sync at ddr~550, and an overclocked 7800GT and with absolutely EVERYTHING bottomed out at 1280 x 1024 no AA, no nothing and it chunked so bad I just gave up, I'm not up for buying a new C2D and re-building my system from scratch. The lack of support for older CPU's is obviously the problem and better be fixed by release.

Chugged on my X2 4200+/7800GT as well at both 1680x1050 with everything low, and 1280x800 with everything low.

 

[wazzledoozle]

I turned everything up to high in the settings and the game still looks like crap. I think my X850XT cant render some new lighting technique that makes it look good. Right now everything is rendered sharply with high-res textures but no lighting. Looks weird.

Most Wanted and Carbon look much better than this game on my X850.

 

[Powered by AMD]

In my 3600X2 @ 2850Mhz, 2Gb DDR2, X800GTO2, it runs fine in 1440x800 with everything on max, except world shadows and FX, which are in Medium, no AA or AF. And it runs at MIN 25 FPS
At 1680x1050 I have 20 FPS Min and its playable, but I enjoyed better 1440x800.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I turned everything up to high in the settings and the game still looks like crap. I think my X850XT cant render some new lighting technique that makes it look good. Right now everything is rendered sharply with high-res textures but no lighting. Looks weird.

Most Wanted and Carbon look much better than this game on my X850.

I had an X850XT, good card, but I honestly think that it might be your limiting factor in today's games.

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I turned everything up to high in the settings and the game still looks like crap. I think my X850XT cant render some new lighting technique that makes it look good. Right now everything is rendered sharply with high-res textures but no lighting. Looks weird.

Most Wanted and Carbon look much better than this game on my X850.

I had an X850XT, good card, but I honestly think that it might be your limiting factor in today's games.

Well it can play Crysis smoothly with a mix of low/medium settings and still looks good.

Look what they were able to do with the Geforce 3, Celeron 733 MHz, and 64mb of ram in the xbox 1. PC game devs are just lazy. (Usually)

Valve and Crytek are exceptional devs though. Orange Box runs perfectly, all settings maxed out. That's full HDR, dynamic lighting, and whatever new fancy stuff they've put into the engine all on sm 2.0.

I upgrade once every ~2 years. Any game that I cant play between upgrade cycles, I dont buy. Their loss.

 

[jonmcc33]

I thought the demo was crap. Still arcade like. On the grip race I didn't even put my brakes on. WTF? Crap...

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33
I thought the demo was crap. Still arcade like. On the grip race I didn't even put my brakes on. WTF? Crap...

That could be because of the driving style you had selected. with anything below king it will apply brakes for you without showing brake lights, craptastic imho.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: DerwenArtos12
I just downloaded the demo and my San Diego at 3ghz, 2gb of ram in sync at ddr~550, and an overclocked 7800GT and with absolutely EVERYTHING bottomed out at 1280 x 1024 no AA, no nothing and it chunked so bad I just gave up, I'm not up for buying a new C2D and re-building my system from scratch. The lack of support for older CPU's is obviously the problem and better be fixed by release.

Chugged on my X2 4200+/7800GT as well at both 1680x1050 with everything low, and 1280x800 with everything low.

Hrm, it seems it's just our gen video card it hasn't been optimised for. I plugged in an OLD 6200 that was a first gen and software unlocked to a 6600 with 128 and it played better, didn't look quite as good but, ran smoother at the exact same settings.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Cheex
Cons:
Gameplay.

ROFL!

 

[Oyeve]

Hope its better than Carbon. For some reason I cant get into that game. All othe NFS games I loved tho.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Cheex
Cons:
Gameplay.

ROFL!

Whaaaat?

The gameplay seems intuitive but just doesn't seem to cut it in regards to smoothness of control and ease of use. My controller didn't even work correctly in the menus.

 

[cw42]

I played the full version of the game for about 20mins. It's TERRIBLE. Like others have said, game play it's bad. The whole point of this game, driving, is just plain bad. It feels really unnatural because it's difficult to make turns, your car feels like its made of lead and just wants to keep going straight. Also when you do make turns, the game keeps nudging you to go straight (I turned the settings to king mode? so that you're suppose to have max control of your car). Also, the announcer in-game that talks in the menus, and while ur racing seems like a nice idea at first... until you hear him calling out your name (ryan cooper) a billion times over and over.

I liked other NFS, but the driving in this one just sucks.

The only thing that's nice are the graphics, but my 7600GS can't handle much so that's a moot point.

 

[CaptainJackSwallows]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
I turned everything up to high in the settings and the game still looks like crap. I think my X850XT cant render some new lighting technique that makes it look good. Right now everything is rendered sharply with high-res textures but no lighting. Looks weird.

Most Wanted and Carbon look much better than this game on my X850.

I had an X850XT, good card, but I honestly think that it might be your limiting factor in today's games.

Well it can play Crysis smoothly with a mix of low/medium settings and still looks good.

Look what they were able to do with the Geforce 3, Celeron 733 MHz, and 64mb of ram in the xbox 1. PC game devs are just lazy. (Usually)

Valve and Crytek are exceptional devs though. Orange Box runs perfectly, all settings maxed out. That's full HDR, dynamic lighting, and whatever new fancy stuff they've put into the engine all on sm 2.0.

I upgrade once every ~2 years. Any game that I cant play between upgrade cycles, I dont buy. Their loss.

first of all i have to say that crysis on medium or lower does not look too good imo. fary cry on high is easily nicer.

about the xbox, they did NOT have nice looking graphics in first gen titles. it was years after heavy optimization did they get to semi-nice halo2 gfx. this is because ALL XBOXS' HAVE THE SAME HARDWARD CONFIG. they know exactly how to use that 64mb of ram, they know how to use every single mhz, they know the exact limits of every single xbox. they turn down some settings, get lower-res textures, and crappy particle effects. all this on an amazing 640x480!

pc devs can't optimize their one game for the thousands of differently configured pcs. to call them "lazy" is dumb.