F.E.A.R. SP Demo

the soft shadows are pwn

played it. thought it was great. jumped twice. doom 3 had me more on edge, but then again, this demo was all of 10 minutes.

A bit dissapointed in system performance. i have a amd64 3500 with a 7800GTX and at 1600 everything maxed the game ran like shit.

Quote from Section_Ei8ht

A bit dissapointed in system performance. i have a amd64 3500 with a 7800GTX and at 1600 everything maxed the game ran like shit.

Fuck, I have AMD64 3000 and 7800GTX and at medium with all that dynamic shit the game was a slideshow at some points, and because I'm atm pretty low on mem (only measely 512) I got very familiar with that loading screen.

The same with BF2 tho, with dynamic shadows and dynamic light, the game ain't going nowhere.

And that is what I hate about modern games, they make these ultra cool games that look so pretty, but they don't actually run smooth in any machine, the dynamic shit and physics before the new Ageia PhysX chip is coming to stores make the games so heavy that you need a fucking renderfarm to render a single frame in less than 15 minutes. And the memory these games eat, shit man, one of my friend has AMD FX-55 and GF 7800GTX with 2.5gig ram (his beast is the one I do most of my 3d modeling) and BF2 runs smooth but stutters sometimes with big explosions, and eats around 1.3gig ram. Way to go making games for the future assholes.

Kosmo, Its so the game looks good in the future, you just expect too much from your system. Is running everything at full a way to justify your purchases?

Wasn't trying to sound like a dick there, I just can't be bothered rewriting it.

Just be glad you can run these games with them looking something like the screenshots plastered on gamespot.

Quote from JynxDaddy

Kosmo, Its so the game looks good in the future, you just expect too much from your system. Is running everything at full a way to justify your purchases?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to play most recent games like HL2 and Riddick at maxed out 1600x1200 res and still hitting like over 80 fps. But what I tried to say with my usually angry and loud way, that this seems to be the current trend, making games for the future, and don't get me wrong, it's cool and all that someday we are able to play them like I play Gloom on Quake 2 right now. But the developers are just complete retards, usually if games make tons of money, they make the money right now, not in the future as they sell them as budget games. So why are they shooting themselfs in the leg? Making games today is very costly as it is, why hinder the income aswell?

Besides, in the last few years, the requirements have only been rising, so are they just keep rising untill no one is able to play the current games with current bleeding edge system? Yeah, that is really great idea, let's do it and bankrupt our game developers.

One thing you gotta keep in mind with these kinda high demanding games is that just because the option is there, then it doesnt mean its meant to be played with yet. But yeah it can be kinda annoying when you got the über rig

Anyway, your problem Kosmo is simply just ram. 512mb is too little, even 1gb is too little imo.

well what industry besides military pushes technology so hardly? Thats right Video games. Developing for tommorow pushes technology kings like AMD and Intel to create newer and newer chip sets making the previous ones cheaper. Its a great cycle. You're naieve if you think developers are shooting themselves in the leg.

Quote from Kosmo

Besides, in the last few years, the requirements have only been rising, so are they just keep rising untill no one is able to play the current games with current bleeding edge system? Yeah, that is really great idea, let's do it and bankrupt our game developers.

You mean, in the last 30 years the requirements have been rising.

This is why PC game developers make their games scalable. This is why we have Low, Medium, and High detail settings. If you don't like the way the graphics look on Low then that's your problem.

The last thing I want to see is computer technology come to a standstill. If the game industry just stopped inventing and implementing new tech after Doom1, we'd all still be using 486's with no problem. We, as developers, give companies like Nvidia, ATI, Intel, and AMD a reason to exsist. Then they give us a new piece of hardware to abuse. It's a neverending cycle of ever-evolving goodness that paves the way for all sorts of crazy technological breakthroughs.

If you feel irritated because to stay on top, you have to go out and drop $500 on a new video card every six months, then that's your problem. You could always learn to play a game on Low and upgrade only every couple of years.

I run BF2 with all the settings full (only 1024x768 res though) and it runs without a hitch. Sometimes it takes a wee while to get into things due to issues with sound loading (first time you hear some sounds it stutters like crazy), but after you've heard them all once there aren't any problems. I have a 6800gt, Athlon 2800xp, and 1gb RAM.

FEAR is a bit of a different story and does stutter like crazy in places (eg. walking into the room with the maimed guy in the seat near the end...horrendous!). General performance was good though, even in the heat of the action with particle effects all over the place. I run it on high settings; I tried maximum first but it wasn't as smooth as I'd like.

EDIT: Tom, I think his main problem is that he just DID drop $500 on a new graphics card, yet STILL can't get "on top".

Funny, F.E.A.R runs alright on my not-so-cutting-edge Athlon XP 3000 (something's wrong with it, it's clocking in at 1.1ghz), 1gig of ram and R9800.

Even when I max stuff out at 1024x800 it still remains playable enough to do combat, albeit not exactly smoothly.

Onto the game itself: firefights felt oddly uninvolving, despite the crap flying all around the place, it never felt seriously satisfying. Weapons are a bit generic, as Mazy observed. Environments are dull, only the paranormal tension kept the interest up.

The scary bits are alright, but it doesn't scale the heights of Silent Hill (pun fully intended). The ladder bit made me jump though. For some reason I never felt at risk during these super-natural bits. Definately not a terrifying experience - perhaps it's because the combat acts as a pressure valve.

Maybe the game opens up later, most opening levels seem to be a bit dire (maybe Monolith should have done a Valve and released something in the style of Uplink?).

hmm thats weird reno, i can run fear really smoothly at maximum 1024x768. sometimes it stutters at unimportant places but never during combat or anything. on the other hand, when i ran the bf2 demo at maximum 1024x768 it ran good but every once in a while i would get these huge lag spikes, it was a bitch because sometimes it happened during combat.

just played the demo tonight. I really like the bullet time effects with the guns! I was expecting it to be as scarey as doom3 in some parts . The types are ok, my favorite was the rail gun. It doesn't seem to have the "i want to play more" feeling that Half-life 2 did, but it may be better when the full version is out

Quote from Fullauto

Maybe the game opens up later, most opening levels seem to be a bit dire (maybe Monolith should have done a Valve and released something in the style of Uplink?).

The demo level is made up.

The game's opening levels are quite a bit different, according to previews.