PDA

View Full Version : From the looks of this game...



Zackriven
31st Aug 2011, 07:39
Performance really sucks. These textures are equally as bad as Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance PC textures. I haven't seen anything special around this game, yet my Pentium 4 3.20, 2gb and a 7950 GT AGP can't even handle this?

It's insulting to find that a system that is highly superior to an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 which calculates far better than them, can't even handle a game like this. Is there an alliance between game companies and Pentium/Nvidia/ATi for developing ridiculous requirements requesting superior hardware?

ufo8mycat
31st Aug 2011, 07:55
If you want amazing graphics go play Crysis. :P

This game is all about gameplay (like all games), who cares if the game doesn't have Crysis like graphics? It's atmosphere and art style is far superior anyway.

Gameplay > Gfx

As for performance, it's all about optimisation. Someone could make a Pacman game that runs poorly on your system. The problem with having powerful hardware is that it allows developers to slack off a lot more and be more sloppy with their optimisations, because they know it'll run well enough anyway, due to lots of headroom the high-end HW provides. If that makes sense.

With this game, other people aren't having issues with performance AFAIK? so possibly a configuration/dirver issue?

I honestly think it's the system specs though. (Just noticed them)

Romeo
31st Aug 2011, 07:58
Bear in mind you have 2Gb of RAM and 3.2GHz processing speed that has to run EVERYTHING on your computer - Windows, drivers, background programs, etc... The Xbox 360 may only have 512Mb and 3.2GHz tri-core are 100% dedicated towards the game. My PC overshadows my Xbox as well, but I know that it still wont handle as much of a graphical load as my 360. If it's that big of a concern, just keep pumping more power in to the damn thing. Maybe start with RAM, as it's nice and cheap.

NKD
31st Aug 2011, 08:25
Your system is old and slow. Your video card alone is 5 years old. The CPU even older. That's your problem.

Zackriven
31st Aug 2011, 08:52
Bear in mind you have 2Gb of RAM and 3.2GHz processing speed that has to run EVERYTHING on your computer - Windows, drivers, background programs, etc... The Xbox 360 may only have 512Mb and 3.2GHz tri-core are 100% dedicated towards the game. My PC overshadows my Xbox as well, but I know that it still wont handle as much of a graphical load as my 360. If it's that big of a concern, just keep pumping more power in to the damn thing. Maybe start with RAM, as it's nice and cheap.

I've msconfig'ed Xp, so generally speaking 2gb should be enough (knowing that the PF is around 121). I don't have nothing running in the background, only the necessary processes. I understand what you mean, but it still doesn't make much sense to me Romeo. Anyways, I'll stay away from Human for now.


Your system is old and slow. Your video card alone is 5 years old. The CPU even older. That's your problem.

Same as Xbox 360 and PS3. No excuse.

Romeo
31st Aug 2011, 09:01
I've msconfig'ed Xp, so generally speaking 2gb should be enough (knowing that the PF is around 121). I don't have nothing running in the background, only the necessary processes. I understand what you mean, but it still doesn't make much sense to me Romeo. Anyways, I'll stay away from Human for now.



Same as Xbox 360 and PS3. No excuse.
I don't understand what you mean by excuse though. I finally gave-in and updated my rig before DX came out, and on high, it looks leaps and bounds better. But I know that my rig would've struggled to match my 360's looks before, despite being more powerful all around.

Doom972
31st Aug 2011, 09:47
You have an old video card and, if I'm not mistaken, a single core CPU. You should get a new computer. The graphics probably look poor to you because you are using the lowest settings, or your card can't render the game properly, or both.

ocstew
31st Aug 2011, 09:58
P4? Same as 360? Don't make me laugh. It's obviously your CPU, not anything else, so don't blame the game. Check out Tom's Hardware, they show that HR is heavily CPU dependant

INSTG8R
31st Aug 2011, 10:05
Your PC was meant for Deus Ex IW...Far too dated to expect most modern games to run on I'm afraid.

WhiteWi
31st Aug 2011, 12:58
lol pentium 4? wtf Boy your **** is in stone age! go spend a 1000 and build yours nice pc!

Nebular
31st Aug 2011, 13:24
Your process is 8 years old (released in late 2003) and only has a single core, you only have 2GB of RAM (and probably fairly slow by today's standards if it's working with that old of a processor), and your video card is 5 years old (released late 2006), has only 512 MB of RAM, and is relatively slow by today's standards. Your machine is the big limiting factor, not the game. It's designed to take full advantage of modern hardware and looks far better on the PC than it does on a console. PC games can't improve if the hardware never advances.

Your PC is comparable to the Xbox 360, not "highly superior". The 360 has a tri-core Xenon clocked at 3.2GHz which already beats yours, and a comparable video card. The only thing you really have over it is more RAM. It's also a specialised device to perform the one task of gaming very well and not much else and is a known, fixed set of hardware as opposed to the PC market which is a dog's breakfast of anything that will fit inside of a PC case which can be a nightmare to develop for.

WarBaby2
31st Aug 2011, 13:30
Is there an alliance between game companies and Pentium/Nvidia/ATi for developing ridiculous requirements requesting superior hardware?

Actually, yes, there is and it gotten worse with each new GPU/console generation. Try playing a LINUX port of any random, current gen-game on your rig and you'll see how much power you COULD have at your disposal if it wasn't for sloppy programmers and greedy publishers...

... wow, intended a sarcastic quote and turned out writing the truth! ;-)

Hardin
31st Aug 2011, 14:15
Sorry dude your computer is too old, the game runs fine on modern computers. If you tried any game that was recently released it will laugh at your computer.

When consoles run games they dedicate 100% of their resources to it. With computers the operating systems just cannot do that so it is much less efficient. Even if computers could dedicate everything to the game then yours would still be slower than the 360. You have a Pentium 4.

AlexOfSpades
31st Aug 2011, 19:26
Pentium 4's still exist?

Whoa.

I have a Core 2 Duo and its already laughable, get a decent i7

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
31st Aug 2011, 19:31
If you want amazing graphics go play Crysis. :P

This game is all about gameplay (like all games), who cares if the game doesn't have Crysis like graphics? It's atmosphere and art style is far superior anyway.

Gameplay > Gfx

As for performance, it's all about optimisation. Someone could make a Pacman game that runs poorly on your system. The problem with having powerful hardware is that it allows developers to slack off a lot more and be more sloppy with their optimisations, because they know it'll run well enough anyway, due to lots of headroom the high-end HW provides. If that makes sense.

With this game, other people aren't having issues with performance AFAIK? so possibly a configuration/dirver issue?

I honestly think it's the system specs though. (Just noticed them)

You're wrong.

Gameplay goes hand in hand with graphics.

redial
31st Aug 2011, 19:35
Your system is old and slow. Your video card alone is 5 years old. The CPU even older. That's your problem.

this. im surprised you can run modern web browsers

Jason Parker
31st Aug 2011, 19:55
... Try playing a LINUX port of any random, current gen-game ...

The only games I know of that offer REAL Ports to linux is UDK, IDTech and Source based stuff and as far as I'm informed no current-gen game based upon any of those engines offers a linux port even though the engine would be capable of it. Anything else would be wrapped via wine and that as far as I know translates the Direct3D Stuff to OpenGL stripping out anything OpenGL cannot do (hence explaining why the performance sometimes is seemingly better). What I can confirm is that linux allows for a configuration of the OS itself that is a lot more dedicated to gaming, thus freeing more resources for the game, but for that to manage a lot of knowledge or dedication into gaining said knwoledge is needed before taking advantage of it.

As on the topic: I doubt that even on Linux the game would run a lot better on the OPs rig simply because it's just a single core. Todays games are optimized for multicore systems (if needed or not is another question but they are) and thus naturaly run worse if forced to execute on a single core.

Also as far as I get him he doesn't even own the game yet. So he probably based his judgement about the looks on magazine screenshots and youtube videos. Most likely even vids and screens from the console versions that usualy offer lower resolution textures compared to PC Versions. As far as I can judge from first hand experience the game simply can keep up with the graphical quality of Mass Effect 2, Crysis 2, MW 2 and the other shooters from it's generation (mind the date of production start). Upcoming next gen games like Crysis 3, Id's Rage are unfair comparisons as they are Techdemos for those studios' new engines.

I also have to state that until a year ago I was playing on a pretty similar rig and thus can tell that he's most likely using only an AGP Version of his graphics card. I bet some younger one's here don't even know what AGP is. I could barely play Mass Effect 1 and Borderlands. Borderlands Multiplayer was unplayable because my slow video card did take to long loading the level and thus the game of the hosting player always thought I'd lost connection and canceled the connection on his side. However wether you like it or not: Your rig's too outdated to keep todays games running at a decent speed.

Jason Parker
31st Aug 2011, 20:05
Gameplay goes hand in hand with graphics.

Matter of taste. Minecraft's a good example of it. The Idea behind the game and the freedom to the player's creativity (aka gameplay) is so great for over 2 million people up to now, that they give a **** about the graphics and paid 15 bucks in order to play a beta. This should serve as an example to any developer if you have a great Idea for a game but find no publisher start making the game despite of it and get the money directly from your future customers.

That said I allways will prefer games with a good and enjoyable gameplay with graphics from last or second to last generation to next gen graphics with dumbed down gameplay and non-existant bad stories aka 90% of todays shooters. This is why the last pure shooter I've baught was Half Life 2. Since then nothing new. Allways just better looks but on the other side shorter gameplay nearing the 90 minute mark for standart movies (slight exaggeration but you sure know where I'm coming from). And to tell you the truth: In my opinion Half Life 2 still looks better than most next-gen shooters because whoever they are the texture designers at valve are freakin' geniuses.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
31st Aug 2011, 20:15
Matter of taste. Minecraft's a good example of it. The Idea behind the game and the freedom to the player's creativity (aka gameplay) is so great for over 2 million people up to now, that they give a **** about the graphics and paid 15 bucks in order to play a beta.

Minecraft has stylish graphics. I like the look of them and they have the right feel for that environment. That's not an example of bad graphics. Something like Conflict: Denied Ops is however.

Jason Parker
31st Aug 2011, 20:28
Minecraft has stylish graphics. I like the look of them and they have the right feel for that environment. That's not an example of bad graphics. Something like Conflict: Denied Ops is however.

Ok then I got you wrong and we do agree that good graphics not necessarily means good looking (as in technicaly state of the art) but rather good fitting (as in fitting the games setting and the purpose of the graphics given the game's gameplay and idea, which DX:HR does pretty damn good).

jd10013
31st Aug 2011, 21:30
you have an AGP video card and your complaining about performance?

Agent Denton
31st Aug 2011, 21:36
From the looks of this thread it looks like you should stop hating.

Knight_Kin
31st Aug 2011, 23:04
Performance really sucks. These textures are equally as bad as Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance PC textures. I haven't seen anything special around this game, yet my Pentium 4 3.20, 2gb and a 7950 GT AGP can't even handle this?

It's insulting to find that a system that is highly superior to an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 which calculates far better than them, can't even handle a game like this. Is there an alliance between game companies and Pentium/Nvidia/ATi for developing ridiculous requirements requesting superior hardware?

This is clearly not a serious post.

'Tis a silly thread.

Looking at your computer, I can't help by laugh because you seem to be confused by assuming you have a machine that isn't 8 year old technology under the hood. That's worse than xbox360 or playstation3. That netburst architecture is indeed inferior to the consoles. Look at what they have under the hood and try again. "Having more ram" also isn't going to cut it either.

If you disagree, you're wrong.