I finally got farcry downloaded and played the first demo and I thought it was very impressive, especially since it was just a demo. Graphics and colors were amazing and vibrant (Hey VIAN, I use an LCD too...). I started up the new bonus demo "research" last night and it looks even better. The controls are a bit convoluted for a shooter and movement is kinda sluggish, but it's more realistic than being able to run 20mph nonstop everywhere. The AI is pretty good.... I don't know, when I was shooting from the bushes the grunts had no problems finding me. The only problem I saw with it is that it was easy to find a spot to ambush them when they came looking for you, but I was playing on medium skill, I'll have to try hard skill next.
wow i think far cry has the record for being on my HDD for the least amount of time....i played for less than 5 mins an deleted it.......it was jus downright unplayable. i hope HL2 and D3 dont run this bad!!!!
having said that i am gonna give it another try...i heard it still looks good and plays well if u have a lot of stuff on low.
i saw a bench mark with a xp1800 and 5700u and i have a xp2000 and a 9500pro so im guessin ill be around the same mark of 55fps @1024x768
having said that i am gonna give it another try...i heard it still looks good and plays well if u have a lot of stuff on low.
i saw a bench mark with a xp1800 and 5700u and i have a xp2000 and a 9500pro so im guessin ill be around the same mark of 55fps @1024x768
yea, i did.. the beginning of it was a bit.. the "train" ride is still in my memory after all these years. i enjoyed it, and played it all the way thru, and it was a great game, but imo it was simply an evolutionary step for the fps genre. it took what was already there and extended it; it didn't redefine the genre.
counterstrike on the other hand was "revolutionary" as it redefined the way fps was played on the interent.. while there were certainly several "team" based games before it, nothing on that scale, and certainly nothing so widely accepted that it changed the whole genre and spawned an explosion of (to a smaller degree) team based multiplayer games such as q3a and ut and the entire generation of "squad" based wargames such as rb series, mohaa and so on and so forth. what's even more amazing is even with all the newer games of this type, it wasn't until fairly recently that coutnerstrike was overtaken as the #1 played game online. to me, that's revolutionary, but i guess to some extent, "revolutionary" is a subjective term
altho it's kind funny that i never got into playing cs lol.... but that doesn't negate the fact so many others did.
I'll give why I thought it was revolutionary-
'Atmosphere'- and this was the biggest area. Games prior to HL had maybe something resembling a story to give you a reason for blowing everything up, HL took it much further and made you entire gaming experience directly tied in to the storyline of the game. The way in which they did this was brilliant. Instead of running in to someone who throws all the answers at you, or reading/listening to some narrative, you are simply thrown in the middle of it and have to try to piece together what the hell is going on. There is no instance in HL where you ask yourself- 'Why am I fighting this guy/thing'? Also NPCs but I'll cover them seperately.
AI- It had it, nothing before it really did. Prior to HL there was 'aware' and 'unaware' AI, they may get complicated enough to try and dodge once in a while, but nothing was like the quantum leap going from titles that came before it to facing the Marines the first time. Then to shock you a bit, you reload after they wipe the floor with you and they don't do the same thing. HL's AI was the first to make you think. Sure, it has certainly progressed far since then, but nothing around prior to it was close.
Useful NPCs- HL's addition of NPCs not just to relay information, but to aid you in your quest through both completing certain tasks for you and actively participating in combat. Picking up a 'Barney' for the first time and having him lay down cover fire for you, and then seeing him getting whacked because you didn't return the favor? Elements like that helped pull people into the game.
Three(four) way- It used to be you versus everything that moved. Half-Life introduced the concept of your enemies having their own enemies. When stumbling upon a firefight between aliens and Marines I would regularly sit back, firing occasionaly to help even the odds, and wait until they were done to go finish them off. Then you had the 'black ops' and it still isn't clear if they are 'good' or 'bad', actually, outside of the aliens it really isn't clear who was 'good' or 'bad' throughout the game. Half-Life wasn't black and white, there were motives behind what each element was doing, and how you viewed those motives depends on how 'good' or 'bad' the other scripts in the game came across to you.
I won't argue against CS's importance in the multiplayer community, however a lot more people played HL then CS over the years(although obviously you have a lot of people that spent a lot more time with CS). Online multiplayer gaming is still small compared to the single player market, though CS did do an awful lot to help narrow that gap. I would say that CS was certainly revolutionary in the MP market, as was HL in the SP market IMO.
It was an ironic statement my friend.
Gen87 said that he plays it at 16x12 with his 5900, not just in this post, but in another as well...
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
revolutionized? it was an fps with a decent story, above average ai, and decent graphics.. if there was anything "revolutionary" it came from the mod community and was called "counterstrike"
RFLMAO!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!
Now I'm pretty sure of your nature.....
FarCry Demo #2 Research Level
FarCry Demo #1 Add-on Research Level
FarCry Demo #1 Fort Level
Chose your experience.
FarCry Demo #1 Add-on Research Level
FarCry Demo #1 Fort Level
Chose your experience.
well gave FC another bash......and its been deleted....for good sorry but this game is playable just on LOW settings...the controls and actions are jus down right horrid...when u press fire its like the royal mail has to post the command to ur computer and inturn the computer posts the impending gun shot back at u...the whole process jus takes too long
the game looks nice....but thats it....and oh by the way with everything set low it is nothing special and actually looks rather cr*p
just another FPS
the game looks nice....but thats it....and oh by the way with everything set low it is nothing special and actually looks rather cr*p
just another FPS
Just finished Fort and Research Levels. Visually interesting and entertaining, but the gaming experience was lacking, too contrived for my tastes. I did get a kick out of the pistol, my fav weapon for the game. Ran it a defaults and ran into a few bugs. The sound, in particular, was inconsistent.
CubicZirconia
Diamond Member
- Nov 24, 2001
- 5,193
- 0
- 71
What do you guys consider unplayable? I'm running the game just fine, and my system (xp 1800+, 512 mb ram, ti4400) wasn't even top of the line when I built it 2 years ago. Sure, FPS in the upper 30's isn't great, but I'll take it considering the quality of the graphics and the age of my rig. I'd agree that the demo has it's issues, but the massively huge jungle/island environments definitely have potential.
30fps and up is playable. And one of the most important things is consistancy in the frame rate.
I think you just need to get a faster system. I get the shot delay's too but that is most likely just a bug and the full version should run just fine on a good system. I havent tried the demo on my 5950 Ultra because I dont download any of that crap on my system unless Im expecting a format soon so I'll just wait until the game comes out and go buy it since Im already conviced of its greatness. The only demo I see myself downloading would be HL2 and Doom3.
Originally posted by: jim1976
Originally posted by: CaiNaM
revolutionized? it was an fps with a decent story, above average ai, and decent graphics.. if there was anything "revolutionary" it came from the mod community and was called "counterstrike"
RFLMAO!!! LOL LOL LOL!!!
Now I'm pretty sure of your nature.....
why, cause i don't think hl turned the gaming world inside-out with something revoulutionary? take time to quit stroking yourself to see how ridiculous that statement you just made was. has nothing to do with telling the truth or bending the truth, it's simply a subjective "opinion". there is not right or wrong answer here, so i find it very difficult to understand what you showing so much pleasure over. dude.. you need a life.
revolutionary: Marked by or resulting in radical change
evolutionary: A process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
i loved half-life, but i don't think it was genre changing or a radical departure from what came before it, that's all. it took many of the shortcoming of fps and did them right. it improved many areas, however none of them were radically different from what came before, they simply extended them and made them better. i think a good case can be made that the "sum" of all these changes added up to something great, but revolutionary? guess i just don't see it fitting the definition.
to me, something like GTA3 was a revolutionary game. it changed the entire action genre (personally, i think the game sucks, but something doesn't have to be good to be "revolutionary").. and took something that was usually a closed, linear game into something wide open and whatever the gamer wanted it to be. a "radical" departure from anything previous, if you will.
or maybe pacman, which kind of defined the whole arcade/console thing... or "pong", the one that started it all, or 3d quake... which started a formula countless fps games have followed...
other games i consider revolutionary for various reasons:
diablo
tribes
starcraft
sim city
i'm sure there are many others... but while i consider half-life as one the the best single players games i've ever played (and being an old fart, i've played alot), it probably wouldn't crack the top 3. and hey.. i can't be wrong.. there is no right or wrong in such a subjective topic
There is Revolutionary.
There is Evolutionary.
There is Innovation.
Revolutionary is a big change.
Evolutionary is a small change.
Innovation is introducting something new.
HL didn't gradually change. It made a big change in a big way, thus revolution. The revolution was brought by many innovations. Game atmosphere as opposed to no game atmosphere. Good AI as opposed to just simple AI that functioned on a 1-bit mode. Extensive story line as opposed to others. Story is better understood through gameplay. That is a lot of evolutions, therefore a revolution.
GTA3 you could call an evolution instead of a revolution. It took GTA and made it 3d. That was something we could assume and would come up soon. PSX just didn't have the power to create it; PS2 barely can. There is nothing revolutionary about the gameplay, because it plays the same. It's more fun however because the graphics are better. The graphics compared to the previous GTA games were revolutionary, but not compared to other games. All other games had 3d already and some featured such large environments.
OpenGL 2.0 would be a revolution if they released it now. Instead they are evolving up to that point by releasing 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5.
There is Evolutionary.
There is Innovation.
Revolutionary is a big change.
Evolutionary is a small change.
Innovation is introducting something new.
HL didn't gradually change. It made a big change in a big way, thus revolution. The revolution was brought by many innovations. Game atmosphere as opposed to no game atmosphere. Good AI as opposed to just simple AI that functioned on a 1-bit mode. Extensive story line as opposed to others. Story is better understood through gameplay. That is a lot of evolutions, therefore a revolution.
GTA3 you could call an evolution instead of a revolution. It took GTA and made it 3d. That was something we could assume and would come up soon. PSX just didn't have the power to create it; PS2 barely can. There is nothing revolutionary about the gameplay, because it plays the same. It's more fun however because the graphics are better. The graphics compared to the previous GTA games were revolutionary, but not compared to other games. All other games had 3d already and some featured such large environments.
OpenGL 2.0 would be a revolution if they released it now. Instead they are evolving up to that point by releasing 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 14K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter