F.E.A.R Gameplay Video.

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Yeah you can *run* it, but not very well. At least not even close to my standards. I dont enjoy slide shows, or turning down the options so it looks like mud.

I understand its not finished code, which is why I have said several times, I hope they optimize it. However, its just as slow in the beta, and demo, with updated code. So my hopes are not that high.

I have a much better CPU, and a GTX, and its not playable with options set anywhere close to high, at my native res of 1920x1200. Even at 1600x1200 its dog slow.

The valve survey has a ton of CS players, who can play the game on a 5 year old PC. If you searched for any posts on what res gamers are running on various forums, you will find that 1280x1024 is the most common.

This isnt a LCD vs. CRT issue, dont turn it into one. I dont understand how someone can game on a P4, but I dont go around saying it all the time.

My framerate gets cut to 1/3 when recording(a combination of no HT and ATA100), and and still I don't get "slideshow-mode" when gaming, so please spare me the rant :roll:
And don't try and blame FEAR for you choice in a high res LCD.
Do you expect to run any off the new gameengines that will come out with your current hardware in those resolutions with all the eyecandy on?

Besides, people with a rig like yours is a minority..fact of life.
Just look at how many people that game with a GF4 440MX.
But since you are not a minority, why don't you stop complaing and run SLI instead?
That way your hardware is more suited to your monitor, and you don't have to blames games for you own shortcomnings in choice of hardware

Terra - Fact is that if you had a CRT or SLI, you wouldn't would be better off...like it or not...

Wow you are way off my friend.

I expect to run most games @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy on, and am capable of doing so on most..

Buying SLI for this game with be the most ridiculous purchase EVER. F.E.A.R. is a poorly written game that runs like ass.


When a FX-55 7800GTX can only run 1024 / or 1280 @ 55fps, there is a problem. Especially when the game just doesn't look that good.

PERIOD.

If it looked significantly better, there may be some something to argue, but it doesn't look much better than previous games.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: bjc112
Wow you are way off my friend.

I expect to run most games @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy on, and am capable of doing so on most..

Buying SLI for this game with be the most ridiculous purchase EVER. F.E.A.R. is a poorly written game that runs like ass.


When a FX-55 7800GTX can only run 1024 / or 1280 @ 55fps, there is a problem. Especially when the game just doesn't look that good.

PERIOD.

If it looked significantly better, there may be some something to argue, but it doesn't look much better than previous games.

I didn't know that F.E.A.R had been released yet?
You, my friend, are bitching about a BETA-demo of the game :roll:

As a previous poster(deadseasquirrel) have said before:
"Jeez guys, relax. It's just a demo. See, this is why some many devs don't put out game demos until AFTER retail. And then everyone b!tches and moans because they can't try it out first. Now, when they release a demo several months early, everyone b!tches and moans because it isn't perfect yet."

Terra - Reading is benifical in debates

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Ackmed


Any facts to back that up, or just your opinion? I got a slide show with everything set to high in certain parts of the game. You're using quality instead of high quality. I didnt try that, tests have shown a large dop in frames when moving to HQ. Perhaps thats the difference. You dont state that if you had dynamic lighting on or off, I doubt it was on. New game engines? This is new hardware too. No I dont expect it to run any game at the highest settings, but when one game is so far behind others in terms of performance, while (to me) not looking much better, something isnt right.

Im not blaming games, and my choice is not a shortcoming no matter what you like to think. Talk about my hardware.. Dont try to tell me my hardware isnt a good idea for games, when you're running a P4 and rambus... This LCD scales very well, and I can play in a lower res just fine.

Fact? You dont make any sense. As I said, I can lower my res if I wanted to, just like a CRT can. I wouldnt be better off with SLI? Uh.. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I dont dislike the game, in fact I like it a lot. As I have every other Monolith game. Shogo, NOLF, etc were all great. To me it just doesnt perform to the level that the graphics are. I cant think of one other game that a GTX cant play at 1600x1200 and get much better frames than in Fear. That being said, code was not finalized yet and Ill wait till the game comes out before I pass judgement. That that it really matters what I think, or you.

Once again, since some cant seem to grasp this. Different people have different tolerances for frames.

edit, with a much better system that you are using, FS got 29frames at settings that seem to be the same as yours. 29 frames? No thanks. 61% of the time under 25 frames? No thanks. A lot of them under 20 frames. Im glad you're happy with those frames. I however, would not be. It would be even slower on your system. Difference of opinion for playable... certainly not "has no bounds in reality" like you claimed.

Perhaps you should read my 1st post again?
Everything was at MAXIMUM.
Onlything off was sotfshadows.
But look at the first video.
Does it appear to be missing anything? :roll:

And in regards to you "expectations" on game engine made after your hardware was produced, that is just plain silly.
Nothing gets "obsolete" as fast a PC hardware, and you should know this.
So stop whining over a BETA-demo

As in regards to my P4A 2.4Ghz RDRAM PC, it has served me well.
I have gone from a Ti4600 to a 9800Pro to a 6800GT on this rig, and I am quite glad with the preformance I can get from this +2½ year old PC.
You on the otherhand sit with a newer, more expensive rig, and stil I am happy and you are sad.(still over a BETA-demo)

Terra- Now tell me: Who is the dumb one here *L*

 

[kylebisme]

The problem isn't that the game can't run well, the problem is that some people pride themselves on the ability of their computers to run any game out there with all the settings cranked. So when a developer puts a game out with options that can bring even the fastest computers to their knees, those people don't adjust their settings to find playable framerate but rather they just crank everything up let the low fPS eat at their insecurity complexes.

 

[Tanclearas]

These are just my opinions, but....

I have to agree that the visual quality of the game is not what I would consider a full generation beyond either HL2 or Doom3. The game does not look bad as a whole, but it doesn't look significantly better either. I do agree that some of the areas look extremely simple. The first open area that you enter (get out of car, duck through fence) is hardly impressive. It does not come close to the visual quality of the outdoor areas in HL2, yet the framerate is significantly lower. Even the area you chose to highlight in your video didn't look any better than most areas in HL2 and Doom3.

The particle effects are neat, but once again are not significantly better than what has been seen in games from last year. The warping effect from the explosions, while somewhat neat, hardly justifies the low frame rate.

The slow motion effect is well done, but haven't we seen more than enough of the "bullet time" effect in the last few years? I know I have.

I did enjoy some of the game elements a great deal. They definitely set a good tone, and the story shows more promise than either HL2 or Doom3 delivered. I just think they could have accomplished this with one of the existing game engines.

It is almost a shame we're seeing so many game engines. I would rather see companies spending their time developing compelling games from three good game engines than a bunch of rehashed titles using the new engines as technology demos disguised as games. It's possible that F.E.A.R. could have been on the shelves now and looked pretty much as good as it does.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Tanclearas
These are just my opinions, but....

I have to agree that the visual quality of the game is not what I would consider a full generation beyond either HL2 or Doom3. The game does not look bad as a whole, but it doesn't look significantly better either. I do agree that some of the areas look extremely simple. The first open area that you enter (get out of car, duck through fence) is hardly impressive. It does not come close to the visual quality of the outdoor areas in HL2, yet the framerate is significantly lower. Even the area you chose to highlight in your video didn't look any better than most areas in HL2 and Doom3.

The particle effects are neat, but once again are not significantly better than what has been seen in games from last year. The warping effect from the explosions, while somewhat neat, hardly justifies the low frame rate.

The slow motion effect is well done, but haven't we seen more than enough of the "bullet time" effect in the last few years? I know I have.

I did enjoy some of the game elements a great deal. They definitely set a good tone, and the story shows more promise than either HL2 or Doom3 delivered. I just think they could have accomplished this with one of the existing game engines.

It is almost a shame we're seeing so many game engines. I would rather see companies spending their time developing compelling games from three good game engines than a bunch of rehashed titles using the new engines as technology demos disguised as games. It's possible that F.E.A.R. could have been on the shelves now and looked pretty much as good as it does.

Again, you are dereving this from a BETA-demo of the game

Terra...

 

[Tanclearas]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK
Again, you are dereving this from a BETA-demo of the game

Terra...

1) You brought it up. This is a discussion of a beta, and you started the discussion.

2) It is possible, but unlikely, that final performance characteristics will change drastically. The performance from the Doom3 Alpha leak to the released version did indeed see some improvements in performance, but we would need to see an even greater degree of improvement in F.E.A.R. from its beta version to its released version to get the game to play smoothly at 1280x1024 with most (not even all) of the high quality settings on a high-end computer.

3) Most of my comments were with respect to the visual quality of the game. I highly doubt we will see any change in that regard. Once again, my opinion is that the visual quality of the game is barely above what we have already seen in Doom3 and HL2. In fact, there are definite areas within the demo that don't even look as good as those games.

 

[Budarow]

I downloaded and played your game video and I'm not too impressed with FEAR's visuals. It looks pretty good, but I think the environment in Doom 3 looks better. Although the "blood and gore" in Doom 3 looks kinda goofy (e.g., the flesh "jumps" off of the skeletons) whereas it looks more life like in FEAR.

 

[Ackmed]

Tanclearas hit the nail on the head.

Originally posted by: TerracideDK
Perhaps you should read my 1st post again?
Everything was at MAXIMUM.
Onlything off was sotfshadows.
But look at the first video.
Does it appear to be missing anything? :roll:

And in regards to you "expectations" on game engine made after your hardware was produced, that is just plain silly.
Nothing gets "obsolete" as fast a PC hardware, and you should know this.
So stop whining over a BETA-demo

As in regards to my P4A 2.4Ghz RDRAM PC, it has served me well.
I have gone from a Ti4600 to a 9800Pro to a 6800GT on this rig, and I am quite glad with the preformance I can get from this +2½ year old PC.
You on the otherhand sit with a newer, more expensive rig, and stil I am happy and you are sad.(still over a BETA-demo)

Terra- Now tell me: Who is the dumb one here *L*

I dont recall dynamic lighting with a maximun settings options, but I dont have it installed anymore. If you say it has one, then ok.

I am not whining, its called a discussion. Your opinions are not facts, as mine are not. You try to pass it off that just because it plays well enough for you, that it does for everyone. Which is far from the truth. "Descent" is very subjecive, frames in the 20's is not near good enough for me, and I would imagine not for most people. I know PC hardware doesnt stay high end long, however, a FX-57(my CPU is running faster than one)+GTX is NOT obsolete. Its currently the fastest out. Who said I was sad? I just dont enjoy playing a FPS game with frames in the low 20's. It seems you do. Good for you, I hope you enjoy it.

Im glad you like your hardware. However, dont try to tell me I didnt make a good choice when you have a P4 and rambus.

Resorting to personal attacks by insinuating that I am dumb, shows you are not worth even posting here. Stop the attacks, or dont get any more replys. If you cant discuss something with a little maturity, then you will be ignored. I never called you dumb, in any way.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The problem isn't that the game can't run well, the problem is that some people pride themselves on the ability of their computers to run any game out there with all the settings cranked. So when a developer puts a game out with options that can bring even the fastest computers to their knees, those people don't adjust their settings to find playable framerate but rather they just crank everything up let the low fPS eat at their insecurity complexes.

Once again, opinions from forum goers, are not facts. "with options that can bring even the fastest computers to their knees" FYI, any new game can bring any PC down to its knees, which the right settings in the drivers, or games. So you're telling me that when Halo for the PC came out, it was worth the horrible frames graphically? No. It was a very buggy and slow game on any PC. Its my opinion, that the graphics in Fear do not jusify the low frames. If it looked much better than other games it wouldnt even be a debate to me. Once again for the people who cant grasp this, thats my opinion. If you think it is, great.

I dont have any "insecurity complexes" about not being able to crank everything up, in every game. As I said, there are many, many games out that I cant do that in. HL2 is about a year old, and I can bring frames down in the 20's if I wanted to.

 

[TerracideDK]

Ackmed:

You made a comment about my P4 and RAMBUS.
When I got my P4, the only other option was PC2100 DDR.
No way I was going down that road, so I opted for the RDRAM instead.
PC800 wich gave med 3.2GB/S insted of the 2.1GB/s DDR RAM would have given me.
It took more between 6-12 months before any PC3200 DDR RAM was out, and in that time I didn't have to use slower ram than my bus could deliver.
It was balanced, just like the rest of my system is.

I won't upgrade until next-gen dual-core is out and you should know if you are a gamer that GPU>CPU.
Unless you don't read any of the articles anandtech posts:
How does CPU Speed Impact Graphics Performance?

So unless you claim that DDR 2100 is faster than RDRAM PC800 I fail to see your logic?

As for the options here is how the settings screens look like:
Advanced Video Card Options

&

Advanced Video Card Options 2

And you don't need to pull the "saint" routine to me.
I have been reading these forum for 2 years now and know how you are here, and who you are at Hardforum, so cut the charade...

Terra - I have seen you act far worse than I just did

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Tanclearas
2) It is possible, but unlikely, that final performance characteristics will change drastically.

According to Gamespot (from my post above), it is not only possible, it just plain *is*. Now, you can take their comments with as many grains of salt as you need, seeing as how they are a gaming website that is fed by advertising (as well as subs). But, either way, they have played a later version that anyone else evidently. I think we should take their opinion into account when guessing whether final product performance will be better or equal to beta. IMO.

 

[Busithoth]

wow does this game polarize.
I thought it looked okay, played a little funny, but I'm sure I would've gotten used to it, had I played it longer.

if you like it, good for you. play it.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: bjc112
Wow you are way off my friend.

I expect to run most games @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy on, and am capable of doing so on most..

Buying SLI for this game with be the most ridiculous purchase EVER. F.E.A.R. is a poorly written game that runs like ass.


When a FX-55 7800GTX can only run 1024 / or 1280 @ 55fps, there is a problem. Especially when the game just doesn't look that good.

PERIOD.

If it looked significantly better, there may be some something to argue, but it doesn't look much better than previous games.

I didn't know that F.E.A.R had been released yet?
You, my friend, are bitching about a BETA-demo of the game :roll:

As a previous poster(deadseasquirrel) have said before:
"Jeez guys, relax. It's just a demo. See, this is why some many devs don't put out game demos until AFTER retail. And then everyone b!tches and moans because they can't try it out first. Now, when they release a demo several months early, everyone b!tches and moans because it isn't perfect yet."

Terra - Reading is benifical in debates

LOL.

Do you really think the code will be optimized to run twice as fast ( about as much as it should for current HW/ or close to) in 1 months time? Get REAL. Release date 10/18

I am pretty confident that the FPS will be similar in the final release.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yay, another sci-fi shooter that doesn't believe in science and technology. I'll wager I can run my LED headlamp striaght through playing the game and beating it with plenty of time to spare (hours upon hours depending upon the brightness used) on the 3 AAAs it takes...yet we're still stuck with this recharging crap. I'd bet a real flashlight that died out that fast before requiring recharging could fvcking be used as a weapon to blind and then slowly burn your enemies...death via sunburn...

 

[monster64]

There are always patches. I dare you to show me a decent game that has not had a single patch released that somehow improved perfomance or something else in the game. Its <1 month now. When the demo came out it was round 2+. And besides, they could have been working on optimizations and only finished on the week after the demo was released. For all you know they could be done with optimizing everything. The game is supposed to be dual core + SLI optimized. That obviosly means they planned ahead because don't tell me they expect to get all those optimizations done in the course of a month. Just more proof of how the game could be fully optimzed by the time of its release.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: bjc112
LOL.

Do you really think the code will be optimized to run twice as fast ( about as much as it should for current HW/ or close to) in 1 months time? Get REAL. Release date 10/18

I am pretty confident that the FPS will be similar in the final release.

QFT

Q3 demo ran same as Q3. BF2 demo ran same as BF2. Why will this be any different?

Originally posted by: monster64
There are always patches. I dare you to show me a decent game that has not had a single patch released that somehow improved perfomance or something else in the game. Its <1 month now. When the demo came out it was round 2+. And besides, they could have been working on optimizations and only finished on the week after the demo was released. For all you know they could be done with optimizing everything. The game is supposed to be dual core + SLI optimized. That obviosly means they planned ahead because don't tell me they expect to get all those optimizations done in the course of a month. Just more proof of how the game could be fully optimzed by the time of its release.

Yes, there will always be patches. To fix deep-down/inherent performance issues? No. Recode the engine? No... Gameplay bugs? Probably. Optimize for SLI? What do you mean? Analyze the game and make sure all your frames contain half of the workload in each part of the screen? I really don't think so. NVIDIA will create a profile for it and call it a day.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: monster64
There are always patches. I dare you to show me a decent game that has not had a single patch released that somehow improved perfomance or something else in the game.

HL 2

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: monster64
There are always patches. I dare you to show me a decent game that has not had a single patch released that somehow improved perfomance or something else in the game.

HL 2

Forgot abou-bout-bout the sound stu-stu-stu-stu-stuttering problems that got fixed via a patch in HL2?

Terra - I remember it like-like-like-like it was yesterday

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: bjc112
Wow you are way off my friend.

I expect to run most games @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy on, and am capable of doing so on most..

Buying SLI for this game with be the most ridiculous purchase EVER. F.E.A.R. is a poorly written game that runs like ass.


When a FX-55 7800GTX can only run 1024 / or 1280 @ 55fps, there is a problem. Especially when the game just doesn't look that good.

PERIOD.

If it looked significantly better, there may be some something to argue, but it doesn't look much better than previous games.

I didn't know that F.E.A.R had been released yet?
You, my friend, are bitching about a BETA-demo of the game :roll:

As a previous poster(deadseasquirrel) have said before:
"Jeez guys, relax. It's just a demo. See, this is why some many devs don't put out game demos until AFTER retail. And then everyone b!tches and moans because they can't try it out first. Now, when they release a demo several months early, everyone b!tches and moans because it isn't perfect yet."

Terra - Reading is benifical in debates

LOL.

Do you really think the code will be optimized to run twice as fast ( about as much as it should for current HW/ or close to) in 1 months time? Get REAL. Release date 10/18

I am pretty confident that the FPS will be similar in the final release.

Where did that 2x preformance come from?

Terra - Not from me

 

[compgeek89]

When I get my 7800 GTX ill post footage

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The problem isn't that the game can't run well, the problem is that some people pride themselves on the ability of their computers to run any game out there with all the settings cranked. So when a developer puts a game out with options that can bring even the fastest computers to their knees, those people don't adjust their settings to find playable framerate but rather they just crank everything up let the low fPS eat at their insecurity complexes.

That is a really retarded statement. There is nothing in FEAR that should cause a 7800GTX/FX-55 system to run 54fps at 1024x768 with no anti-alisasing. Even the gamespot article nodded to problems with optimization of the code. I would bet money that Unreal 3, whose graphics will blow FEAR away by any standards will run better and faster at the same settings than FEAR.

 

[Mellman]

this game was cool - played the demo, rail gun is hella fun - but the only thing that bugged me was the shadows - they look way too fake!

 

[dug777]

bah,there's no way it looks THAT good to justify the crappy fps on say x850XT or 7800GTX...

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK
Ackmed:

You made a comment about my P4 and RAMBUS.
When I got my P4, the only other option was PC2100 DDR.
No way I was going down that road, so I opted for the RDRAM instead.
PC800 wich gave med 3.2GB/S insted of the 2.1GB/s DDR RAM would have given me.
It took more between 6-12 months before any PC3200 DDR RAM was out, and in that time I didn't have to use slower ram than my bus could deliver.
It was balanced, just like the rest of my system is.

I won't upgrade until next-gen dual-core is out and you should know if you are a gamer that GPU>CPU.
Unless you don't read any of the articles anandtech posts:
How does CPU Speed Impact Graphics Performance?

So unless you claim that DDR 2100 is faster than RDRAM PC800 I fail to see your logic?

As for the options here is how the settings screens look like:
Advanced Video Card Options

&

Advanced Video Card Options 2

And you don't need to pull the "saint" routine to me.
I have been reading these forum for 2 years now and know how you are here, and who you are at Hardforum, so cut the charade...

Terra - I have seen you act far worse than I just did

Nope, you said your PC was 2.5 years old. There was MUCH faster DDR ram out, than PC2100.

When have I called anyone dumb? Please, go find a link. My point stands, dont call names, if you want a response. You have a bad habit of such tactics when someone doesnt agree with your opinions.

Can we all agree that Fear (in its current form) runs slower than any other FPS game out there? Then the only thing to discuss really is, is the slow performance worth the graphics? To me its not, to you it seems to be. You are not right, and I am not right. Its called a difference of opinions. Not out of reality as you tried to claim.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: TerracideDK
Ackmed:

You made a comment about my P4 and RAMBUS.
When I got my P4, the only other option was PC2100 DDR.
No way I was going down that road, so I opted for the RDRAM instead.
PC800 wich gave med 3.2GB/S insted of the 2.1GB/s DDR RAM would have given me.
It took more between 6-12 months before any PC3200 DDR RAM was out, and in that time I didn't have to use slower ram than my bus could deliver.
It was balanced, just like the rest of my system is.

I won't upgrade until next-gen dual-core is out and you should know if you are a gamer that GPU>CPU.
Unless you don't read any of the articles anandtech posts:
How does CPU Speed Impact Graphics Performance?

So unless you claim that DDR 2100 is faster than RDRAM PC800 I fail to see your logic?

As for the options here is how the settings screens look like:
Advanced Video Card Options

&

Advanced Video Card Options 2

And you don't need to pull the "saint" routine to me.
I have been reading these forum for 2 years now and know how you are here, and who you are at Hardforum, so cut the charade...

Terra - I have seen you act far worse than I just did

Nope, you said your PC was 2.5 years old. There was MUCH faster DDR ram out, than PC2100.

When have I called anyone dumb? Please, go find a link. My point stands, dont call names, if you want a response. You have a bad habit of such tactics when someone doesnt agree with your opinions.

Can we all agree that Fear (in its current form) runs slower than any other FPS game out there? Then the only thing to discuss really is, is the slow performance worth the graphics? To me its not, to you it seems to be. You are not right, and I am not right. Its called a difference of opinions. Not out of reality as you tried to claim.

I remembered wrong about my PC, have had it for sol long that I can't remember it on the top of my head.
I got my P4A in the begining of 2002, and it wasn't untill jun-jul-aug that year that PC2700 was introduced.
And in Oct 2002, RDRAM still held up agaisnt DDR...
Link to an old debate on a danish forum Oct. 2002

And my dear Ackemed, there are many ways of calling people stupid.
Directly or indirectly.
I do it the direct way, as I am not afraid to speak my mind.
Others try and "mask" it, so it can only be read between the lines(read: no balls)

Anf for the part about FERA being slowr than the rest of the OLDEr game-engines:
Can we agree that Unreal3 will run sloer than Doom3?
You logic simply baffles me all the time.
Find 1 game, demo or realsed that has the same particle, smoke, lighting and physics effects at the same time ad FEAR does?

Terra - Are you going to cry when Unreal3 gets released to?