Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Far Cry Demo




  1. #21

    Default

    Oh, sure, I know that. I was just stating that oftentimes, people tend to think that anything under 50 fps isn't smooth - especially at a message board like this one. I'm not saying that the game doesn't run fine or look great (and I don't expect it to run liquid for that matter), but some peoples' definition of smooth is different from others'.

    Also, when you compare the game's performance to that of Half-Life 2, DOOM III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost, and others, and see that the performance on those games is higher (and graphics are better as well), you would expect better performance on this game. Again, it's not that it runs badly, so much as it runs unexpectedly.

    Just sayin, s'all...
    This is where my signature would go had my host not been such a Bandwidth Nazi.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    I think that systems with 1gb of memory handles this demo much better than the ones with less. I had a peak usage of around 700-750Mb running it. :)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearanoX
    Also, when you compare the game's performance to that of Half-Life 2, DOOM III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost, and others
    None of these games have been released, nor have their demos come out so I'm not sure how you can accurately compare the performance? The previews and alphas of these games are way off what the finals will be like (to varying degrees), so let's wait and see shall we?

  4. #24

    Default

    Yes, I know that, but a demo is usually released to sell a product. If a demo has shoddy performance, it gives a bad impression, and thus, possibly less sales.
    While I know that it does not represent the final product, it still leaves a lasting impression on me nonetheless.

    And, apparently this game is in a rather late build, whereas Half-Life 2, DOOM III, etc. are still in BETA form, apparently. Now, I'm not the best person at math, but generally, when a game in a near-complete form is having shoddy performance compared to games that are still possibly a year away from release...well, it just doesn't seem right.

    They still have three months of development, though. Hopefully they'll be able to fix the performance issues and bugs up (and there are a lot of them - just check their forums) by that time. If Ubi has any control over what goes in at Crytek, though, then judging from their history, I'm not expecting much more.
    This is where my signature would go had my host not been such a Bandwidth Nazi.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    I've got no idea what my fps is, I've had no reason to check. As long as the game plays smoothly and looks good I don't care if it's 30 or 300. All I cn tell you is that with everything set to 'high' except for shadows and texture filtering (glad I'm not the only one that noticed it was stuck) set at medium, the game plays very vell. I just wish I could some AA and AF.

    I've only had the demo crash once. That was the very first time I tried to play with everything push to the limits, including AA and AF.

    As for comparing to other games that have yet to be realeased (demos or otherwize) I think we are just wasting our time.
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Not to brag or anything but I'm a beta tester for Farcry and I don't think I can say much about it but that Ubi and Crytek are definitely listening to our cries for suggestions on online. So ubi really wants this game to be great, and so do I!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    That's good to hear Jakecar. I get the feeling they knew about a lot of the demo problems when they released it, but they still released it to give us a taste of how good this game can be.

    And SearanoX you have to understand that if anything this demo has drummed up more business for Far Cry than before. I personally hadn't cared much about the game, but after playing the demo I'm definitely buying it. And the performance, even from the demo, is very good considering the eye candy and giant outdoor setting of the game.

  8. #28

    Default

    Look, I'm not saying that the game does not look good, and considering how good it looks, I'm surprised at how well it runs, but the fact is that other next generation shooters that arguably look better also run much better than Far Cry as well, even though when they were tested (and even still right now) they were in a relatively early state of development, whereas Far Cry does not run as well.

    I know there is huge view distance and the much-hyped "Polybumb" technology (which is actually just normal mapping, something that is seen in many other games), but what about the indoor areas that run worse than the outdoor ones? What about when you are fighting a single enemy outdoors with your view towards a cliff face, and you still get just as low performance? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

    I'm also hearing that nVidia cards are also getting better performance on the game due to the fact that it was originally a tech demo for nVidia's GeFore cards (I think it was 3 or 4) nearly three years ago.
    This is where my signature would go had my host not been such a Bandwidth Nazi.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearanoX
    but the fact is that other next generation shooters that arguably look better also run much better than Far Cry as well, even though when they were tested (and even still right now) they were in a relatively early state of development, whereas Far Cry does not run as well.
    See this is what I can't understand, where are you getting this conclusion from? The Half Life 2 official preview, on a 3Ghz P4, 9800 Pro, using 1024x768 and Medium settings (0xAA, 0xAF) got around 60fps average. If I use the same settings on the same machine, I will get the same performance on this demo, if not better.

    And the screenshots I saw of HL2 and Doom3 give me little confidence that they will have better graphics than Far Cry. Have you see some of the effects used in the underground sections of Far Cry? They are excellent, like the swinging lamp casting realtime shadows over everything, with pixel shaded reflections and bump mapping galore. I can't attach the screenshot I took due to forum probmes :(

  10. #30

    Default

    Yes, I've played through the whole demo. I agree that many of the effects are really very good, but it tends to darastically slow down around those types of effects. I get around 30-40 on it with my system (CPU holds it back somewhat) at Very High settings and about 60 on Medium, same as you. I'm not necessarily complainging about it.

    Strange, though. I've seen benchmarks of Half-Life 2 that have it running around 70-90 fps on a system that's slightly behind mine. DOOM III isn't far behind as well. Half-Life 2 and DOOM III's graphics are better as well - you can see that there are higher resolution textures present, and physics are used on everything, not just small objects, characters, etc..

    Oh, and I know what the light on smoke looks like. Very nice. :)
    This is where my signature would go had my host not been such a Bandwidth Nazi.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •