Want to play F.E.A.R.?

[T9D]

I'm going to go with others on this.

The doesn't look that great. It looks good but not great. And far from Impressive. In fact walking around in that highrise building totally felt like max pain 2 except with better shadows. The tectures in this game still leaves something to be desired. Nice and looks good but not great.

And by the way it ran very well with everything up at 1280 x 960 on my 6800 GT and 2.4 ghz P4 (with no other players on the map).

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Drayvn
Why is it everyone is saying this game may not get released?

not everyone . . . mostly me

and i am basing it on other games' recent track records - i.e. STALKER or HL2 that were either never released or delayed over a year.

Ahh, i can see it getting delayed but never released. It is pushing it.

I think weve kinda been melted by the Unreal 3 games graphics so everything else that comes out kinda doesnt live up now. Which i can totally understand. FEAR and STALKER and games like that, which are coming out soon still look good, but until a game comes out with the UE3 stuff then it will look GREAT!

 

[hans030390]

wait a tick...those benchmarks are on a really high resolution, AA/AF on pretty high, and all high settings on graphics i assume. It's beta, and i'm sure they'll have some time to fix it up (even if it is just a couple weeks) and patches will help to...

so basically, this isn't saying anything to me...

 

[imported_Noob]

Originally posted by: hans030390
wait a tick...those benchmarks are on a really high resolution, AA/AF on pretty high, and all high settings on graphics i assume. It's beta, and i'm sure they'll have some time to fix it up (even if it is just a couple weeks) and patches will help to...

so basically, this isn't saying anything to me...

Don't expect HL2 performance either.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: tk109
I'm going to go with others on this.

The doesn't look that great. It looks good but not great. And far from Impressive. In fact walking around in that highrise building totally felt like max pain 2 except with better shadows. The tectures in this game still leaves something to be desired. Nice and looks good but not great.

And by the way it ran very well with everything up at 1280 x 960 on my 6800 GT and 2.4 ghz P4 (with no other players on the map).

Yep I agree. Resembled Max Payne 2. Nothing overly impressive.

 

[imported_Ged]

I realise FEAR isn't done yet, but FEAR looks like crap to me. Everything looks like plastic. The only impressive thing about FEAR is some of the effects.

Games that have been out a lot longer look far better and run better.

 

[Regs]

I played the Demo of UT2K4 and the graphics sucked majorly too, but that didn't stop the hundreds of thousands who baught it or played it.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: Regs
I played the Demo of UT2K4 and the graphics sucked majorly too, but that didn't stop the hundreds of thousands who baught it or played it.

UT2004 looks better than FEAR and it doesn't requires monster hardware to run.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Why? 'Cause HL2 was a year late. . . . and the 9600xt - if memory serves me correct - also included 'free' HL2.

A 'beta anything' is not a reason to upgrade.

What if FEAR never gets released? . . . or is released NEXT Summer? . . . you'd feel pretty silly IF 'that' was the reason you got a 7800

9600 Pro's did too, and some 9800 Pro's.

Just because it was late, doesnt mean it was "proved wrong, way wrong" to get a 96/9800 Pro after the benches were released. They were accurate, and people still got the game for "free".

I do agree getting a card based soley on a beta isnt the best idea, but it didnt prove wrong in that case. You had to wait, but it was for sure the faster card.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: Regs
I played the Demo of UT2K4 and the graphics sucked majorly too, but that didn't stop the hundreds of thousands who baught it or played it.

UT2004 looks better than FEAR and it doesn't requires monster hardware to run.

The final product was, yes.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: apoppin

Why? 'Cause HL2 was a year late. . . . and the 9600xt - if memory serves me correct - also included 'free' HL2.

A 'beta anything' is not a reason to upgrade.

What if FEAR never gets released? . . . or is released NEXT Summer? . . . you'd feel pretty silly IF 'that' was the reason you got a 7800

9600 Pro's did too, and some 9800 Pro's.

Just because it was late, doesnt mean it was "proved wrong, way wrong" to get a 96/9800 Pro after the benches were released. They were accurate, and people still got the game for "free".

I do agree getting a card based soley on a beta isnt the best idea, but it didnt prove wrong in that case. You had to wait, but it was for sure the faster card.

Wrong in that the 9800 series were no longer the fastest when HL2 was FINALLY released.

IF you biught a 9800p/xt - or worse a 9600xt - to play HL2 with the 'fastest card' you WERE disapponted . . . in that respect, the beta benchmarks were wrong - the x800 series blew them away as did the 6800 series.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: Rollo

A. A GITG title can't even be played on ATI hardware. (irony)

Why is this even mentioned, can I bring up EQ 2 on the 6800 series. The stuttering problems they had. TWIWMTBP, logo on that box, yet on 6800 you get hammered FPS while, a lowly 9800 pro could run circles around you on similiar settings. Yeah, thanks Nvidia I appreciated that one. Bough a 6800 GT for just the expressed purpose of playing EQ2, and I get a nice slide show in the city areas.

Seriously, I love my Nvidia and ATI cards, TI4200, 9700 Pro, 6800GT. I'm always looking for the best bang for the buck out there. If the software doesn't live up to the hardware, then the games will run like garbage. I know that outside of EQ2 my 6800GT is smoking on everything else, 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF(19" LCD). Even on BF2 it runs nicely. Though if you can't see outside the box, you have some issues.

D3 beta, HAMMERED my 9700 pro. When retail dropped, I could crank up the settings again. Strange... very strange...

Just have to put down the koolaid for a sec, and see that sometimes the software is holding good hardware down. No doubt the 7800 series is a nasty bit of hardware, but the results for this game look way out of line for the visuals it's pumping out.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Drayvn
Why is it everyone is saying this game may not get released?

not everyone . . . mostly me

and i am basing it on other games' recent track records - i.e. STALKER or HL2 that were either never released or delayed over a year.

OK that's two- compared to how many that were released on time?

 

[Spike]

Man, I am not sure about all the hostility in this thread. I actually took the time to read about half of it and then jump to my own reply.

My interpretation of Rollo's thread is a simple one, he was trying to show the humor in how a game that was sponsored (is that the correct term?) by ATI would not run very well at all on ATI cards.

I also see the humor in a $1200 set of cards running a new game at such slow fps, though we shall see what the final game is like. I don't have leanings either way in the ATI nVidia war, I currently use a 6800GT but have owned a 9600 pro, a 8500, and a GeForce2 GTS.

I think everyone needs to freaking relax and take Rollo with a grain of salt. Yes he is a nvidia fanboy but he actually has some decent things to say, and, unlike lots of others here, actually backs his claims up with facts (most of the time). He has provided alot of valuable benchmarks to the board and has helped my make decisions on what hardware to get because of those.

Back to the topic at hand, FEAR looks like an ok game and I will probably get it and try it on my AXP 3200+ and BFG 6800GT system. I hope it runs decently and if not, then I will have to upgrade sooner.

-spike

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: apoppin


Wrong in that the 9800 series were no longer the fastest when HL2 was FINALLY released.

IF you biught a 9800p/xt - or worse a 9600xt - to play HL2 with the 'fastest card' you WERE disapponted . . . in that respect, the beta benchmarks were wrong - the x800 series blew them away as did the 6800 series.

I didnt say the 9800 Pro was the fastest when HL2 was released. Dont put words in my mouth. I said people who got one after the benches were released.

Which goes back to the point of you trying to say that they were proven wrong, which they were not. Just move on.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Drayvn
Why is it everyone is saying this game may not get released?

not everyone . . . mostly me

and i am basing it on other games' recent track records - i.e. STALKER or HL2 that were either never released or delayed over a year.

OK that's two- compared to how many that were released on time?

actually quite a few games' release dates get pushed back . . . i much prefer a delayed game to a 'rushed' and buggy one.

edit: i only picked these two because they were eagerly anticipated big titles that had beta benchmarks widely distributed

=======================

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: apoppin


Wrong in that the 9800 series were no longer the fastest when HL2 was FINALLY released.

IF you biught a 9800p/xt - or worse a 9600xt - to play HL2 with the 'fastest card' you WERE disapponted . . . in that respect, the beta benchmarks were wrong - the x800 series blew them away as did the 6800 series.

I didnt say the 9800 Pro was the fastest when HL2 was released. Dont put words in my mouth. I said people who got one after the benches were released.

Which goes back to the point of you trying to say that they were proven wrong, which they were not. Just move on.

Let me try again . . . i am not putting any words in your mouth . . . and you seem to be taking exception to my observations.

HL2 BETA benchmarks were widely circulated when the 9800xt was the fastest card - demonstrating that it was also the fastest at HL2. . . . in fact, "free" vouchers for HL2 were included with many of the 9800 series and even some of the 9600xts.

Now, IF someone actually bought a 9800xt with the expectation that they would have the 'fastest card to play HL2' they were in for a BIG disappointment - HL2 was delayed a year, and the 9800xt was eclipsed by several cards when it was finally released.

Using beta benchmarks for an UNreleased game as a determination to buy a certain card is just 'wrong'. Just like the 9800xt crowd and HL2.

that's all.

and you should now let it go

:roll:

 

[Drayvn]

Hey if they do release this game soon, the graphics are on par with Doom 3, probably not the shadows and lighting tho but everything else lookds pretty good.

If the actions, survival horror and gameplay is up to scratch, well hey im buying it. Its not all about graphics, tho some of it is.

 

[DidlySquat]

Why you people use archaic acronyms such as GITG and TWIMTBP ?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
Why you people use archaic acronyms such as GITG and TWIMTBP ?

Perhaps because they are the most current acronyms?
:roll:

 

[BFG10K]

Why you people use archaic acronyms such as GITG and TWIMTBP ?

If you want to write them out in full go right ahead.

 

[The Pentium Guy]

Wtf do they stand for?

 

[Drayvn]

GITG. ATi - Get In The Game

TWIMTBP. nVidia - The Way Its Meant To Be Played

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Jesus Christ. I didn't think that engine would be that heavy - it certainly doesn't LOOK good enough to be that heavy - it's not much of an improvement over Doom 3, but it apparently runs like kludge.

It ISN'T any improvement over Doom3. Infact it is behind Doom3 from a technical stance. Jeez.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: Spike
My interpretation of Rollo's thread is a simple one, he was trying to show the humor in how a game that was sponsored (is that the correct term?) by ATI would not run very well at all on ATI cards.

On CURRENT ATi cards, that is. We haven't seen R5xx yet. Then again, its eems that ATi tried to pull with HL2 what nVidia did with Doom3, and it didn't quite turn out that way.

Back to the topic at hand, FEAR looks like an ok game and I will probably get it and try it on my AXP 3200+ and BFG 6800GT system. I hope it runs decently and if not, then I will have to upgrade sooner.
-spike

QED. You'll have to upgrade sooner. Why do you think games are sponsored by video-card manufacturers? If card manufacturers had their way, they would make games that would ONLY run on an nVidia card, others that will ONLY run on ATi just so you have to build two rigs!! Or get legislation passed saying that game publishers must include a clause in the license agreement stating that you must run this on the newest graphics card. Bastiges.

This is truly my one gripe with PC gaming. At least on consoles, developers are forced to work with the same hardware for five years, and get to actually focus on making good games.

 

[apoppin]

How much ATI really paid for its Half Life 2 deal - EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS!!!

AND It looks like r520 will have ZERO trouble running FEAR

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Drayvn
Why is it everyone is saying this game may not get released?

not everyone . . . mostly me

and i am basing it on other games' recent track records - i.e. STALKER or HL2 that were either never released or delayed over a year.

OK that's two- compared to how many that were released on time?

actually quite a few games' release dates get pushed back . . . i much prefer a delayed game to a 'rushed' and buggy one.

edit: i only picked these two because they were eagerly anticipated big titles that had beta benchmarks widely distributed

=======================

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: apoppin


Wrong in that the 9800 series were no longer the fastest when HL2 was FINALLY released.

IF you biught a 9800p/xt - or worse a 9600xt - to play HL2 with the 'fastest card' you WERE disapponted . . . in that respect, the beta benchmarks were wrong - the x800 series blew them away as did the 6800 series.

I didnt say the 9800 Pro was the fastest when HL2 was released. Dont put words in my mouth. I said people who got one after the benches were released.

Which goes back to the point of you trying to say that they were proven wrong, which they were not. Just move on.

Let me try again . . . i am not putting any words in your mouth . . . and you seem to be taking exception to my observations.

HL2 BETA benchmarks were widely circulated when the 9800xt was the fastest card - demonstrating that it was also the fastest at HL2. . . . in fact, "free" vouchers for HL2 were included with many of the 9800 series and even some of the 9600xts.

Now, IF someone actually bought a 9800xt with the expectation that they would have the 'fastest card to play HL2' they were in for a BIG disappointment - HL2 was delayed a year, and the 9800xt was eclipsed by several cards when it was finally released.

Using beta benchmarks for an UNreleased game as a determination to buy a certain card is just 'wrong'. Just like the 9800xt crowd and HL2.

that's all.

and you should now let it go

:roll: