LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
there has been much debate about this, and are they "too much?"
At first i was like "fuck the haters" because we spend all this money on our PCs and finally a game comes a long that actually justifies that expense. A hardcore, fuck the newbs, system-killing game.
All praise Crytek. Raise the bar and all that shit.
But then again, I was able to play EP2, Portal, Bioshock and Cod4 at 1920x1200 with everything maxed at 60fps, and I liked it.
Crysis? I have to play at 1600x1200 with a mixture of medium and high settings, and it runs at about 30fps. It's playable, but barely.
So on the one hand I praise the move to the next gen and how it will really push technology. But on the other hand I wish it was a bit less demanding and ran better on very high end systems like my own.
So I'm conflicted.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 147 replies.
stop trying to run games in res's where the hardware really can't keep up. can you run half life 2 in 1600x1200 - hell yes. it's a dx8 game. can you run the bleeding edge of graphics demand at high detail and 60 fps, or even 30 fps most of the time - noooooooooooo - not if the game is really, really next gen.
next-gen starts at 30 fps on high end hardware. put down the 60 fps dreams and ultra, uber super duper high res's because your monitors can do it.
it's just insane. you guys expect too much. drop the res and your expectations. they are wildly out of control. Crysis != fucking half life 2, in terms of graphics demands.
somewhere along the line (oh say, the last 3 years when pc devs stopped acvancing gfx tech because epic went to consoles and id shipped doom 3 in 2004, and NOBODY else pushes graphics because publishers won't let them, or they are on consoles)....sometime in there....hardware got faster and faster and faster and allowed games to run in 1600x1200 and very high framerates...
the problem comes in when you draw say, 50x more things, and rendering passes in a game, and you still exepct to run 60fps at 1600x1200....ain't happening.
It takes 3 cpu cores and a fast video card to run most 360 games at 30 fps. you guys expect to run in higher res's with lesser, or even equal hardware, on the pc, and complain about framerate?
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.