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
[/quote]
Actually, Oct. 4 is the delayed date. This game was supposed to be out by now.
apoppin
Lifer
you can get the actual FEAR Demo files from FilePlanet. However, it says the multiplayer Beta is CLOSED . . . which i assume means you won't be able to get a key . . . i don't know if it it will run anything w/o a key.
I bought the preorder and it says I can play the beta, but I have no confirmation or anything...anyone have this?
I don't see why anyone is fussing over which card will run FEAR better. Why is anyone even excited, it really doesn't look great at ALL. What does it have that HL2 doesn't besides real-time shadows? I'm not seeing it...
A. Who cares what it has HL2 doesn't? You can't spend your whole life playing HL2?
B. If the game is immersive and fun to play, who cares about anything but that?
AznAnarchy99
Lifer
- Dec 6, 2004
- 14,695
- 117
- 106
I haven't replayed a game in a decade, but I don't have a ton of time. In any case, it's ridiculous to say if a game doesn't offer anything graphically over HL2 it sucks.
Personally I think HL2 sucks with it's soldiers,helicopters, flying robots, rehashed head crabs, and rehashed guys with headcrab hats.
If someone took that engine and actually made something scary with it, I'd be happy.
And big deal on the 8 years, there are plenty of Q3 servers out there too, six years later.
You seem to like to ignore obvious things simply so you have a reason to argue. I thought it was clear that I wasn't saying FEAR will suck, I was saying its graphics have NOTHING over current games, so why SHOULD it be any big stress at all on our video cards? It shouldn't be, thus I don't have a lot of faith or liking towards this engine.
Kind of related to the FEAR discussion.. I am left wondering if Battlefield 2 itself would be such a b***** of a game to run if it had just used the UT04 engine?
Certainly these big titles would be better off using either the Doom3 engine or UT04s?
SWAT4 uses the Unreal Engine (2.0?) and it looks great..
As time goes on, I'm becoming more and more of a fan to stick to the big 2, either UT engine games or id engine based games. Source would be on the list if Steam wasnt such a pain.. but its also a nice engine.
I see the UT04 engine powering games like BF2 well. The lighting in Doom3 cant be beaten, and it makes the game more immersive.
But overall I'm a Unreal engine fanboy, balanced nicely, works on a great variety of hardware, looks great. I doubt Source or Doom3 could do the huge environments that BF2 requires and the sheer number of players.
If they had just used the Unreal2.0 engine I'd prob been more satisfied with this game, but the patch did help.
But QuakeWars does look extremely intriguing, when that comes out I'll prob toss away my copy of BF2. Rid myself of anything not based on a Epic or id engine once and for all.
Certainly these big titles would be better off using either the Doom3 engine or UT04s?
SWAT4 uses the Unreal Engine (2.0?) and it looks great..
As time goes on, I'm becoming more and more of a fan to stick to the big 2, either UT engine games or id engine based games. Source would be on the list if Steam wasnt such a pain.. but its also a nice engine.
I see the UT04 engine powering games like BF2 well. The lighting in Doom3 cant be beaten, and it makes the game more immersive.
But overall I'm a Unreal engine fanboy, balanced nicely, works on a great variety of hardware, looks great. I doubt Source or Doom3 could do the huge environments that BF2 requires and the sheer number of players.
If they had just used the Unreal2.0 engine I'd prob been more satisfied with this game, but the patch did help.
But QuakeWars does look extremely intriguing, when that comes out I'll prob toss away my copy of BF2. Rid myself of anything not based on a Epic or id engine once and for all.
apoppin
Lifer
Well i d/led it and "found" a key. 
It is a HUGE resource hog . . . figure my 9800xt, 1GB PC3500 and a P4@3.3Ghz would be a low-medium rig for this game . . . 800x600 and low/mid details - run at barely acceptable FPS.
However, cranking UP the details and it looks very nice - even if it slideshows on my computer. It looks as good as Doom3 or any of the new games with some pretty good lighting, shadows and effects.
I'd say ALL the details at HIGH res and AA+AF will KILL just about ANY videocard . . . i'd say it also need's a bit more optimizing if it is gonna look ok on a 'medium' rig . . .
THAT's "why" it is delayed
:roll:
It is a HUGE resource hog . . . figure my 9800xt, 1GB PC3500 and a P4@3.3Ghz would be a low-medium rig for this game . . . 800x600 and low/mid details - run at barely acceptable FPS.
However, cranking UP the details and it looks very nice - even if it slideshows on my computer. It looks as good as Doom3 or any of the new games with some pretty good lighting, shadows and effects.
I'd say ALL the details at HIGH res and AA+AF will KILL just about ANY videocard . . . i'd say it also need's a bit more optimizing if it is gonna look ok on a 'medium' rig . . .
THAT's "why" it is delayed
:roll:
A-freaking-men. You know, for me, gameplay is only half of the story. If I have to fuss with my PC to get a game to run it's going to piss me off. Also for me the controls in Quake are so superior to any other game I've tried. The mouse settings in particular...you can set mouseaccel and sensitivity and just about everything with ease. D3 wouldn't handle BF2's environments very well but UT2.0 might be ~OK. The Source engine would be the best adapted save for the Steaming pile of **** it has to use.
LOL...
Hey, wait until the Unreal 3 Engine is released (supposed to be 2K7), the programming for UE 3 Engine is promised to make break throughs with superior programming.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: apoppin
Well i d/led it and "found" a key.
It is a HUGE resource hog . . . figure my 9800xt, 1GB PC3500 and a P4@3.3Ghz would be a low-medium rig for this game . . . 800x600 and low/mid details - run at barely acceptable FPS.
However, cranking UP the details and it looks very nice - even if it slideshows on my computer. It looks as good as Doom3 or any of the new games with some pretty good lighting, shadows and effects.
I'd say ALL the details at HIGH res and AA+AF will KILL just about ANY videocard . . . i'd say it also need's a bit more optimizing if it is gonna look ok on a 'medium' rig . . .
THAT's "why" it is delayed
:roll:
i just ran it again . . . forgot i left AA + AF 'forced' in CP to play older games.
it actually runs OK for my system - 10x7 with everything on but medium details, mostly. . . . not too bad . . . . if they optimize it further, i'd be happy with my system playing it.
I don't know if anyone read the readme or not but....
In order to get the best game play experience, it is not recommended to
run F.E.A.R. at high resolutions. You should avoid resolutions above
1024x768 on any current generation card. Instead, you can use the
full-screen anti-aliasing (FSAA) option under Graphics in the advanced
options menu. This helps improve the visual quality of the final scene
without dramatically increasing the amount of work that must be performed.
Most players will also notice a significant increase in frame rate by
disabling the Vsync option in the display options screen. If this doesn?t
make enough of a difference, your next step should be to lower your
screen resolution to 800x600 or 640x480.
In order to get the best game play experience, it is not recommended to
run F.E.A.R. at high resolutions. You should avoid resolutions above
1024x768 on any current generation card. Instead, you can use the
full-screen anti-aliasing (FSAA) option under Graphics in the advanced
options menu. This helps improve the visual quality of the final scene
without dramatically increasing the amount of work that must be performed.
Most players will also notice a significant increase in frame rate by
disabling the Vsync option in the display options screen. If this doesn?t
make enough of a difference, your next step should be to lower your
screen resolution to 800x600 or 640x480.
Powermoloch
Lifer
- Jul 5, 2005
- 10,084
- 4
- 76
Demo runs like a b!tch on my system. For the "auto detect feature", I wonder what consitutes a system to be in the HIGH category, medium and low.
Me too. I have a 3.4 p4 and a 6800 GT. Sure it didn't run amazingly high frames but it was smooth enough to enjoy and not notice any problems. But it does need some optomizing still thats for sure.
And I agree with that other guy. The top 2 or 3 engines are where it's at. These other engines are just a hassle compared to them.
I hate games that just tax video cards for no good reason other than say that it renders them all useless. Look @ HL2. Looks amazing in almost any setting.
Although I do have to say those games that tax videocards are good for benchmarking uses though.
Although I do have to say those games that tax videocards are good for benchmarking uses though.
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