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.
1) 1280x720 is "enough" for consoles because the screen is 6-8 feet away.
2) Trends in monitors and resolutions over say 10+ years indicate 1600x1200 is not "laughable"
15" screen, 640x480, Duke3d, Quake 1, etc
17" screen, 1024x768, Quake 2, etc
19" screen, 1280x1024, Half-Life 2, etc
22" screen, 1680x1050, QuakeWars, Bioshock, Unreal Tournament 3, TF2, etc
Dude, it's plain ignorant to say 1600x1200 should be reserved for half-life 2. A game being released right now that can't pull off that resolution at 30fps on moderately highend hardware ( core 2 duo, 8800, 2gigs) is missing the target market.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.