apoppin
Lifer
two wrongs don't make a right . . . touting HL2 beta benchmarks as a reason to get a 9600/9800 was wrong . . . proved way wrong . . . and touting the beta benchmarks of FEAR is still wrong as a reason to get a 7800gtx.
the real reason to get a 7800gts is 'because you want one'.
Originally posted by: apoppin
let me explain it to you then . . . STALKER was in an IDENTICAL position last year . . . . there were beta benchmarks and it was scheduled for release in a FEW WEEKS according to its website and major retailers.
Well, guess what? it's a NO SHOW.
Perhaps the devsgot bought out by a console maker for it's exclusive launch . . . who knows?
HL2 was delayed for an ENTIRE YEAR after a release date was announced [and there were benchmarks also].
So this "BETA BS" may never make it to market . . . or it may be a year late . . .
:roll:
That's got nothing to do with how the game ran. They weren't delayed b/c the code was suck and it ran like shyt. There were other factors that lead to the release being set back. My point is, the game is scheduled for release in a few months, whether or not it does come out for whatever reason, is irrelevant. The developers believe the game is ready for release, if something comes up that sets it back a year, ok. It's not gonna be because the code is so incredibly fvckt it needs to be rewritten.
The Beta has been exclusive to Fileplanet subscribers for a while now, and every once in a while it opens up to the public.
I've got a 3000+ (754) at 2.4ghz, 9800/X800 pro, 1GB pc3200
It runs fine on my 9800 pro in 8x6 low/medium which is a $100 card. I don't agree with needing a godlike system to play it, I agree with needing a godlike system to play it at 12x10+ with max settings and AA/AF. On my X800 Pro I can run it 10x7 medium.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
Originally posted by: apoppin
let me explain it to you then . . . STALKER was in an IDENTICAL position last year . . . . there were beta benchmarks and it was scheduled for release in a FEW WEEKS according to its website and major retailers.
Well, guess what? it's a NO SHOW.
Perhaps the devsgot bought out by a console maker for it's exclusive launch . . . who knows?
HL2 was delayed for an ENTIRE YEAR after a release date was announced [and there were benchmarks also].
So this "BETA BS" may never make it to market . . . or it may be a year late . . .
:roll:
That's got nothing to do with how the game ran. They weren't delayed b/c the code was suck and it ran like shyt. There were other factors that lead to the release being set back. My point is, the game is scheduled for release in a few months, whether or not it does come out for whatever reason, is irrelevant. The developers believe the game is ready for release, if something comes up that sets it back a year, ok. It's not gonna be because the code is so incredibly fvckt it needs to be rewritten.
The Beta has been exclusive to Fileplanet subscribers for a while now, and every once in a while it opens up to the public.
I've got a 3000+ (754) at 2.4ghz, 9800/X800 pro, 1GB pc3200
It runs fine on my 9800 pro in 8x6 low/medium which is a $100 card. I don't agree with needing a godlike system to play it, I agree with needing a godlike system to play it at 12x10+ with max settings and AA/AF. On my X800 Pro I can run it 10x7 medium.
no it won't be because ther coders are inept . . . the POINT is an UNreleased BETA is not a "reason" to buy or not buy a certain video card - i.e. "If you want to play FEAR . . . "
AND, betas are UNoptimized . . . you can be sure that it will run better in final release or shortly thereafter with a patch [by nVitia and ati IF it is an important release].
Are you talking about the F.E.A.R. Multiplayer Beta - it is closed [period]? AFAIK there is no SP demo.
apoppin
Lifer
Well, i am d/l'ing it now . . . just to 'look' at the gfx.
[only 22 hours to go]
Is there ANY SP action - even with 'bots? . . . i am stuck on dialup and would hate to actually join a game in progress. :Q
Originally posted by: 302efi
LOL...As usual you missed the point
Ponder this: How does it feel when your running a game at 1600x1200 4x/8x Vs. someone with an old 5500 playing at 800x600 and getting your ass fragged ?
To a real gamer, eye candy doesnt mean sh!t. Maybe in a single player mode, the high res is good. Ask any CS:S, FarCry, BF2 or whatever, when your in the middle of fragging the sh!t out someone it don't mean a damn thing.
...but as a side note, it seems that your more of a hardware enthusiast then being a hardcore gamer, so maybe high res and eye candy looks good to an old person
302efi I don't respond to posts much but its uncalled for to bash on anyone because of the way they play their games or what you perceive someone's age to be. High settings, low settings, online, single player- whatever, to each their own. If you're interested in the latest games and the latest hardware, this is an excellent website to visit. And this is coming from someone who's placed in multiple worldwide online tourneys. Now where's my cookie
Originally posted by: apoppin
Well, i am d/l'ing it now . . . just to 'look' at the gfx.
[only 22 hours to go]
Is there ANY SP action - even with 'bots? . . . i am stuck on dialup and would hate to actually join a game in progress. :Q
No bot action, typical servers are 6-8-10 max players. Full retail version I think the max will be 16. The graphics aren't really groundbreaking, the thing I like about this game most is there's a ton of smoke/debris flyin around at all times. I think it's that combined with the heavy use of shadows and dynamic lighting that makes it so hard on graphics cards. The slow-mo is a nice feature too. I prefer FEAR to BF2, I'm waiting for CoD2 as well. Those'll be the only games I'll pay retail for the first week they're out.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
Originally posted by: apoppin
Well, i am d/l'ing it now . . . just to 'look' at the gfx.
[only 22 hours to go]
Is there ANY SP action - even with 'bots? . . . i am stuck on dialup and would hate to actually join a game in progress. :Q
No bot action, typical servers are 6-8-10 max players. Full retail version I think the max will be 16. The graphics aren't really groundbreaking, the thing I like about this game most is there's a ton of smoke/debris flyin around at all times. I think it's that combined with the heavy use of shadows and dynamic lighting that makes it so hard on graphics cards. The slow-mo is a nice feature too. I prefer FEAR to BF2, I'm waiting for CoD2 as well. Those'll be the only games I'll pay retail for the first week they're out.
thanks . . . . maybe i won't d/l it.
. . . . the LAST thing i want to do is log into a server and piss everyone else off [or just get killed] . . . dialup is no fun for multiplayer. :roll:
and i also noticed, besides the 432MB Demo there is also a 151 MB Patch . . . :Q
anyway, i have a 9800xt and was curious . . . looks like my last AGP upgrade will be a 6800u. . . . it should be 'fine' for this game and Unreal3 games at "my" resolution of 10x7 or 11x8 [as limited by my 19" crt - 11x8 @ 85hz].
AznAnarchy99
Lifer
- Dec 6, 2004
- 14,695
- 117
- 106
congratulations. Your e-penis has grown! you can run your game at super high resolutions at xxFPS!
really who cares... i dont need to run my game at 1600x1200 with 6xAA and 16xAF. Im fine at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Rollo your pretty much bragging that you have extra money to have more fps in a computer game and your arguing about it online. I personally dont care. More power to you if you can afford it. But your argument of LAST GEN ATi cards that cant run 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF against your NEXT GEN card is just idiotic. And even your 1 card is barely over the "minimum" of 30fps. My personal minimum is 80 fps..and an 7800 SLI rig cant even hit those numbers...
really who cares... i dont need to run my game at 1600x1200 with 6xAA and 16xAF. Im fine at 1024x768 or 1280x1024. Rollo your pretty much bragging that you have extra money to have more fps in a computer game and your arguing about it online. I personally dont care. More power to you if you can afford it. But your argument of LAST GEN ATi cards that cant run 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF against your NEXT GEN card is just idiotic. And even your 1 card is barely over the "minimum" of 30fps. My personal minimum is 80 fps..and an 7800 SLI rig cant even hit those numbers...
Well, a 7800 SLI rig will do better than you have by far right now.. and ATI cant offer you anything even close either.
I wouldnt be disrespecting 7800GTX SLI, QUITE yet.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Rollo, your car is a POS. Unless you have a Maybach, a personal driver and you are drinking champaigne in the back seat, you aren't doing American highway traveling justice.
The point is, almost anyone on this forum can easily get 7800GTX SLI. But just like the Maybach, unless you make so much money that you dont care, the difference to most is clearly not as obvious as it is to you (or the difference is not worth the added benefit -- if it was people would buy it and instead live in 1 room house). If 7800GTX SLI was essential for gaming enjoyment, or 7800GTX for that matter, all gamers would own those cards. Think about it, if a $100 card couldnt play a game "X" at all, why would a person waste $100 and have a slide show. He'd purchase a $200 card that can offer "A" number of framerates. If a $200 card wouldn't offer those framerates, then that person would buy a $300 card that would. This cycle would continue until:
1) A person is satisfied with the performance well enough that it is not worth it for him/her to spend any more money for "extra" performance;
2) the price of the product is so high, that it is not worth the hobby of gaming for that matter.
Since the majority of users clearly do not own these high-end cards, it is either that they are not gamers at all (as they cannot afford the hobby), or they own cards fast enough to satisfy their gaming needs. Even if 7800GTX SLI is the best setup today, that doesn't mean that majority of gamers wouldn't be satisfied with something of a lesser performance value. Just because you think 1024x768 noAA/AF is "unplayable" by modern standards, it does not mean that it is for most people. I respect your love for the hobby; but you cannot force your opinion at others saying that anything less than "Y" setup is basically junk (just because it is for you).
You don't see people dissing your house, your wife, your car or your job right?
It is the way you word things. If you said: "Wow it seems the game is very stressful on current hardware. Even 7800GTX is struggling with this game. The results basically render current cards unusable at what was recently considered the status quo resolution ie. 1280x1024 4AA/16AF on high-end cards. I am glad to finally see software start to push hardware to the limits.....or I am simply dissapointed with the fact that a good game is poorly coded, preventing the majority of users from enjoying a gaming experience that they are used to on a $500 videocard."
Instead you bash everyone here, and specifically target ATI cards. Yet looking at the benchmarks 6800 series cards suck JUST as much as X800 series of cards and you mention nothing about them. I am confident that if ATI released a videocard 10x better than anything Nvidia offers, you would still complain and find something wrong with it. And just because you own ATI hardware, it doesn't mean that you are not biased towards the company and their products. The fact that you mentioned long time ago you'd rather buy American-based company's videocards over Canadian-based ones already shows that you have a slant towards their products as you have a preference towards your purchase even prior to any other analysis of the actual product.
The point is, almost anyone on this forum can easily get 7800GTX SLI. But just like the Maybach, unless you make so much money that you dont care, the difference to most is clearly not as obvious as it is to you (or the difference is not worth the added benefit -- if it was people would buy it and instead live in 1 room house). If 7800GTX SLI was essential for gaming enjoyment, or 7800GTX for that matter, all gamers would own those cards. Think about it, if a $100 card couldnt play a game "X" at all, why would a person waste $100 and have a slide show. He'd purchase a $200 card that can offer "A" number of framerates. If a $200 card wouldn't offer those framerates, then that person would buy a $300 card that would. This cycle would continue until:
1) A person is satisfied with the performance well enough that it is not worth it for him/her to spend any more money for "extra" performance;
2) the price of the product is so high, that it is not worth the hobby of gaming for that matter.
Since the majority of users clearly do not own these high-end cards, it is either that they are not gamers at all (as they cannot afford the hobby), or they own cards fast enough to satisfy their gaming needs. Even if 7800GTX SLI is the best setup today, that doesn't mean that majority of gamers wouldn't be satisfied with something of a lesser performance value. Just because you think 1024x768 noAA/AF is "unplayable" by modern standards, it does not mean that it is for most people. I respect your love for the hobby; but you cannot force your opinion at others saying that anything less than "Y" setup is basically junk (just because it is for you).
You don't see people dissing your house, your wife, your car or your job right?
It is the way you word things. If you said: "Wow it seems the game is very stressful on current hardware. Even 7800GTX is struggling with this game. The results basically render current cards unusable at what was recently considered the status quo resolution ie. 1280x1024 4AA/16AF on high-end cards. I am glad to finally see software start to push hardware to the limits.....or I am simply dissapointed with the fact that a good game is poorly coded, preventing the majority of users from enjoying a gaming experience that they are used to on a $500 videocard."
Instead you bash everyone here, and specifically target ATI cards. Yet looking at the benchmarks 6800 series cards suck JUST as much as X800 series of cards and you mention nothing about them. I am confident that if ATI released a videocard 10x better than anything Nvidia offers, you would still complain and find something wrong with it. And just because you own ATI hardware, it doesn't mean that you are not biased towards the company and their products. The fact that you mentioned long time ago you'd rather buy American-based company's videocards over Canadian-based ones already shows that you have a slant towards their products as you have a preference towards your purchase even prior to any other analysis of the actual product.
Originally posted by: Nickrand
302efi I don't respond to posts much but its uncalled for to bash on anyone because of the way they play their games or what you perceive someone's age to be. High settings, low settings, online, single player- whatever, to each their own. If you're interested in the latest games and the latest hardware, this is an excellent website to visit. And this is coming from someone who's placed in multiple worldwide online tourneys. Now where's my cookie
Here you go
The same way Rollo's bashing NON-7800 owners ???...or ATI owners ???
The same way Rollo bashes people who play at lower res and less eye candy ????
And note: Widescreen applies to both of these comments as well.
So next time anyone wants to downplay widescreen, just bookmark this post about having faster video cards.. its all the the same.
Bigger, better, faster.
Right now, widescreen is the king of the hill, at least over 4:3 displays. And Nvidia is dominating ATI like nobodys business.
ATI= :thumbsdown:
Hey guys, this game is probably single-player focused like Doom 3, so guess what, in a year you'll have better equipment cheaper, and the game will probably be 20-30$. It'll be brand new to you, and Unreal 3/ UT2k7 won't be out yet to shame its graphics!
Originally posted by: apoppin
thanks . . . . maybe i won't d/l it.
. . . . the LAST thing i want to do is log into a server and piss everyone else off [or just get killed] . . . dialup is no fun for multiplayer. :roll:
and i also noticed, besides the 432MB Demo there is also a 151 MB Patch . . . :Q
anyway, i have a 9800xt and was curious . . . looks like my last AGP upgrade will be a 6800u. . . . it should be 'fine' for this game and Unreal3 games at "my" resolution of 10x7 or 11x8 [as limited by my 19" crt - 11x8 @ 85hz].
The patch is already integrated into the 432MB d/l. I think the patch was released in like April, and the current d/l is a newer one. It's worth a play IMO, just don't bother d/l it unless you were able to get a hold of a key.
Rock Hydra
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2004
- 6,466
- 1
- 0
Okay two questions:
1) What the hell is up with the girl in the demo run, that's not what the game is about is it?
2) What's so impressive about this game's graphics?
1) What the hell is up with the girl in the demo run, that's not what the game is about is it?
2) What's so impressive about this game's graphics?
1) It's one of the characters in the game, unnatural powers etc is the story and you are member in a special op team.
2) Get DX9 card and run it at full detail in high res.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter