F.E.A.R Gameplay Video.

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

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

So that was directly calling me dumb? Nope. You indirectly called me dumb, something you said you dont do. Heh. Calling anyone dumb doesnt mean you have balls, just no class, or respect. The sooner you learn that you dont know everything, and that your opinions are not facts, the better off you will be. If you cant discuss something without personal attacks, then you will be ignored. Its also against the rules, but no forum enforces their own rules very well.

PC2700 was out a few months before that, but whatever. The point was that you calling a 7800GTX and 2405FPW bad choice in gaming hardware is not something many people would agree with you on. They are both at the top of their class hardware wise, for now.

There are several other games that have demos out as well, and will be released this Fall. None of which run as slow as Fear. So they are not older, unless you're talking about games that are already out. Which brings me back to my point, something you cant seem to understand for some reason. Fear doesnt have the graphics to me, to warrant the low frames. To you it seems to. There is nothing else to discuss other than that. If you carry on with more personal attacks, dont expect a response. Will I buy Fear? Sure, its a fun game, and Im a fan of Monolith games in general.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

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

So that was directly calling me dumb? Nope. You indirectly called me dumb, something you said you dont do. Heh. Calling anyone dumb doesnt mean you have balls, just no class, or respect. The sooner you learn that you dont know everything, and that your opinions are not facts, the better off you will be. If you cant discuss something without personal attacks, then you will be ignored. Its also against the rules, but no forum enforces their own rules very well.

PC2700 was out a few months before that, but whatever. The point was that you calling a 7800GTX and 2405FPW bad choice in gaming hardware is not something many people would agree with you on. They are both at the top of their class hardware wise, for now.

There are several other games that have demos out as well, and will be released this Fall. None of which run as slow as Fear. So they are not older, unless you're talking about games that are already out. Which brings me back to my point, something you cant seem to understand for some reason. Fear doesnt have the graphics to me, to warrant the low frames. To you it seems to. There is nothing else to discuss other than that. If you carry on with more personal attacks, dont expect a response. Will I buy Fear? Sure, its a fun game, and Im a fan of Monolith games in general.

I would call LCD for gaming dumb, sorry.
I would take a Trinitron CRT over any LCD anytime.
Games on a LCD looks "fuzzy-squared" to me.
No matter what type or brand, believe me I have tested.

And I didn't catch that name of a game/demo that has the same amount of smoke, particles lightning and physics-effects sct. as FEAR?

Terra...

 

[Tanclearas]

Originally posted by: 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.

From your Gamespot post:

GS: The demo seems to demand quite a bit of computing power at the highest settings. That said, the frame rate has improved quite a bit from the early looks at the game that we've had, which, truth be told, seemed to have had a few issues. Are there still code optimizations that you can make so that the game will run even more smoothly? And what are you looking at in terms of minimum requirements?

CH: We're constantly making optimizations to improve performance. With F.E.A.R, we wanted to provide a next-generation gaming experience with an engine that pushed the capabilities of the DirectX 9 family of cards to the limit. That being said, we also wanted to include a DirectX 8 renderer to make sure that people who don't have a bleeding-edge system can play the game and still get good performance.

Read your own post carefully (like Terra says, "Reading is benificial (sic) in debates"). Gamespot was talking about how much the demo had improved over previous versions they had tested. They make absolutely no comment about improvements since the demo.

Game patches mostly address bugs (like the stuttering sound in HL2), and sometimes address performance issues experienced with specific hardware. F.E.A.R. performs poorly on all hardware. Once again, it is highly unlikely we will see significant performance improvements from the demo to the shipping version, or even in follow-up patched versions. I have played a lot of games over the years, and I can't think of a single game that had performance significantly improved after a beta or after release. I'm sure there are a few examples, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the exception and not the rule.

FYI Terra, Anand reviewed the SiS 645 chipset for the Pentium 4 in October 2001.

The SiS 645 officially supports DDR333 SDRAM; giving the Pentium 4 another 25% of what it likes the most: memory bandwidth.

Tests with DDR333 (PC2700) are included. Reading is indeed beneficial.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

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

So that was directly calling me dumb? Nope. You indirectly called me dumb, something you said you dont do. Heh. Calling anyone dumb doesnt mean you have balls, just no class, or respect. The sooner you learn that you dont know everything, and that your opinions are not facts, the better off you will be. If you cant discuss something without personal attacks, then you will be ignored. Its also against the rules, but no forum enforces their own rules very well.

PC2700 was out a few months before that, but whatever. The point was that you calling a 7800GTX and 2405FPW bad choice in gaming hardware is not something many people would agree with you on. They are both at the top of their class hardware wise, for now.

There are several other games that have demos out as well, and will be released this Fall. None of which run as slow as Fear. So they are not older, unless you're talking about games that are already out. Which brings me back to my point, something you cant seem to understand for some reason. Fear doesnt have the graphics to me, to warrant the low frames. To you it seems to. There is nothing else to discuss other than that. If you carry on with more personal attacks, dont expect a response. Will I buy Fear? Sure, its a fun game, and Im a fan of Monolith games in general.

I would call LCD for gaming dumb, sorry.
I would take a Trinitron CRT over any LCD anytime.
Games on a LCD looks "fuzzy-squared" to me.
No matter what type or brand, believe me I have tested.

And I didn't catch that name of a game/demo that has the same amount of smoke, particles lightning and physics-effects sct. as FEAR?

Terra...

Heh- welcome Terra, from H

 

[Ackmed]

^ Two pees in a pod I see. Imagine that.

Once again, Tanclearas hits the nail on the head.

You call LCDs dumb for gaming? Oh well, thats your opninion. The fact is, CRTs are being phased out. Both have advantages, and disadvantages. If you cant see that, then you are once again taking the "my way or the highway" stance in a discussion. Take a look at the latest displays Anandtech has reviewed; http://www.anandtech.com/displays/ How many are CRTs... ? How many LCDs got good grades in gaming? As you can see, your opinions are not fact, but good job trying to divert attention?

What no comment on your "indirectly" calling me dumb? Something you said you didnt do, but did a few posts earlier? Heh.

I just find it funny that someone with a P4 and Rambus is trying to sell me that I made a bad hardware choice. Hows about posting your complete specs, so I can try and belittle your hardware choices, like you did mine? On second thought, I wont stoop to that level.

This thread has run its course for me. Your opinion is the game looks good enough to warrant the low frames. Its my opinion that it does not. You are not right, I am not right. We both have different opinions. Either understand and admit that, or there is no point in posting any further.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Tanclearas

FYI Terra, Anand reviewed the SiS 645 chipset for the Pentium 4 in October 2001.

The SiS 645 officially supports DDR333 SDRAM; giving the Pentium 4 another 25% of what it likes the most: memory bandwidth.

Tests with DDR333 (PC2700) are included. Reading is indeed beneficial.

DDR PC2700 has a transferrate of 2.7GB/s.
RDRAM PC800 has a transferrate of 3.2GB/S, so what is your point?

Terra - That I could have gotten slower RAM than I have? :roll:

 

[Ackmed]

Can you use DDR ram in your next build today? Yes, unless you go with a new P4. Which would be another bad choice if your main purpose of a PC is gaming.

Can you use Rambus in your next PC build? Nope. Was Rambus cheaper than DDR? Nope.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
^ Two pees in a pod I see. Imagine that.

Once again, Tanclearas hits the nail on the head.

You call LCDs dumb for gaming? Oh well, thats your opninion. The fact is, CRTs are being phased out. Both have advantages, and disadvantages. If you cant see that, then you are once again taking the "my way or the highway" stance in a discussion. Take a look at the latest displays Anandtech has reviewed; http://www.anandtech.com/displays/ How many are CRTs... ? How many LCDs got good grades in gaming? As you can see, your opinions are not fact, but good job trying to divert attention?

What no comment on your "indirectly" calling me dumb? Something you said you didnt do, but did a few posts earlier? Heh.

I just find it funny that someone with a P4 and Rambus is trying to sell me that I made a bad hardware choice. Hows about posting your complete specs, so I can try and belittle your hardware choices, like you did mine? On second thought, I wont stoop to that level.

This thread has run its course for me. Your opinion is the game looks good enough to warrant the low frames. Its my opinion that it does not. You are not right, I am not right. We both have different opinions. Either understand and admit that, or there is no point in posting any further.

My vision sense is 130%
I can virtually see the little squares on the LCD.
Besides the image is faster and bright/vivid on an CRT.
But I guees it like with Hi-FI, people buy what "looks" good in decortation ,and then sacrifice the "finer points"

As for my PC, tra and read the first post again, is all there Einstein
The essential parts anyway.

Let me end of with a qoute from you, and see if you can remember where you posted it:

"Lots of ignorance showing in here..."

Terra -

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Tanclearas
Read your own post carefully (like Terra says, "Reading is benificial (sic) in debates"). Gamespot was talking about how much the demo had improved over previous versions they had tested. They make absolutely no comment about improvements since the demo.

Wrong. Look here. Halfway down. Under HANDS-ON. See "Exclusive Single-Player Hands-On - The First Four Levels with Spoilers".

That is NOT the demo.

Their demo review-- 7/28
Their single-player hands-on quoted above in by post-- 8/12
The Q&A quoted above in my post-- 8/31

Originally posted by: Tanclearas
Reading is indeed beneficial.

Yes, indeed it is.

We have Gamespot, who appears to be the ONLY one, who has played anything later than the demo, say it runs much better. We have the designer saying they're constantly making optimizations and feel they have been successful.

Anyone who argues with this, without any first-hand experience using the same playing build, is simply arguing for arguing sakes. Which is fine. You could end up being right. The final code could still run like @ss. But I'm willing to give all of these folks, who have 100% more hands-on experience with this project than anyone here, the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: Ackmed
^ Two pees in a pod I see. Imagine that.

Once again, Tanclearas hits the nail on the head.

You call LCDs dumb for gaming? Oh well, thats your opninion. The fact is, CRTs are being phased out. Both have advantages, and disadvantages. If you cant see that, then you are once again taking the "my way or the highway" stance in a discussion. Take a look at the latest displays Anandtech has reviewed; http://www.anandtech.com/displays/ How many are CRTs... ? How many LCDs got good grades in gaming? As you can see, your opinions are not fact, but good job trying to divert attention?

What no comment on your "indirectly" calling me dumb? Something you said you didnt do, but did a few posts earlier? Heh.

I just find it funny that someone with a P4 and Rambus is trying to sell me that I made a bad hardware choice. Hows about posting your complete specs, so I can try and belittle your hardware choices, like you did mine? On second thought, I wont stoop to that level.

This thread has run its course for me. Your opinion is the game looks good enough to warrant the low frames. Its my opinion that it does not. You are not right, I am not right. We both have different opinions. Either understand and admit that, or there is no point in posting any further.

My vision sense is 130%
I can virtually see the little squares on the LCD.
Besides the image is faster and bright/vivid on an CRT.
But I guees it like with Hi-FI, people buy what "looks" good in decortation ,and then sacrifice the "finer points"

As for my PC, tra and read the first post again, is all there Einstein
The essential parts anyway.

Let me end of with a qoute from you, and see if you can remember where you posted it:

"Lots of ignorance showing in here..."

Terra -

I know where I posted it, and it was true. Calling someone ignorant, is not a personal attack. Its the same as saying they are misinformed.

You didnt list all of your PC, not even close. There are several parts missing that could be picked apart. A monitor isnt essential? Mouse? Speakers? Yeah, they are. But good job trying to belittle me again. Class act you are.

The simple fact that you cant even admit that its your opinion about the game, and that you are not right, and we are not wrong, shows you are not worth replying to anymore. You dont know everything, no matter what you think.

 

[mb]

I think the game ran just fine on my laptop.. I used the default settings and it ran smooth and looked good.

More importantly, it was fun and I can't wait for the full version!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Frackal

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.

Complaining about framrate when there is lots of options to turn down and get better framerate is retarded.

Originally posted by: FrackalThere is nothing in FEAR that should cause a 7800GTX/FX-55 system to run 54fps at 1024x768 with no anti-alisasing.

And there is nothing in FEAR that makes it run at that framerate, there are lots options to turn down and get better framerate.

Originally posted by: Frackal Even the gamespot article nodded to problems with optimization of the code.

But that is baseless comment unless the guys at Gamespot got to look at the code. Even then what do they know about coding videogames anyway? They are in no position to judge they quality of the code, they are just complainig that they don't get good framerate with everything turned up las well.

Originally posted by: FrackalI 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.

I understand how the grass tends to look greener on the other side of the fence; but Unreal 3 will have all sorts of different settings and it's gameplay will be quite different as well.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Terra...

Heh- welcome Terra, from H
[/quote]

Damn...I am busted *L*

Terra - Thx

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
And there is nothing in FEAR that makes it run at that framerate, there are lots options to turn down and get better framerate.

Which is exactly what you are trying to avoid by getting a top of the line system? :roll:

 

[Polish3d]

Hey snowman, turning all the options down in fear makes it look like total sh|T.

 

[kylebisme]

Bur then turning all the options down is hardly necessary on anything aproching a modren gaming PC, as is demonstrated in the video linked in the orginal post of this thread.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Bur then turning all the options down is hardly necessary on anything aproching a modren gaming PC, as is demonstrated in the video linked in the orginal post of this thread.

How is that? Unless I missed it, he didnt show what frames he got. I linked to a review that showed his card getting an average of 29fps with the same settings (I think?), with a much faster CPU and system. He stated that his frames dropped 1/3 by making the movie, so its likely his frames were in the teens? How can you say that turning down the options isnt necessary? If FS gets 29fps with a FX-55, he surely gets even lower.

I was unaware that so many people are a-ok with such low frames.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Bur then turning all the options down is hardly necessary on anything aproching a modren gaming PC, as is demonstrated in the video linked in the orginal post of this thread.

OFT.
I wouldn't call my old rig for a hardcore gaming rig

Terra...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Bur then turning all the options down is hardly necessary on anything approching a modern gaming PC, as is demonstrated in the video linked in the original post of this thread.

How is that? Unless I missed it, he didnt show what frames he got.

He showed exactly how many frames he was getting at any given moment up to the 30fps the video was recorded at, all you have to do is watch the video to see it.

Originally posted by: AckmedI linked to a review that showed his card getting an average of 29fps with the same settings (I think?), with a much faster CPU and system.

Yet the review you linked to was in regards to that old ass beta, not the demo.

Originally posted by: AckmedHe stated that his frames dropped 1/3 by making the movie, so its likely his frames were in the teens?

If you watch the video you will see his framerate tends to stay in the 20s, so without recording it probably tends to be in the 30s and 40s; and yeah that is at a low resolution but it is also with most everything cranked on ageing computer.

Originally posted by: AckmedHow can you say that turning down the options isnt necessary?

I didn't, I said turning down all the options isn't necessary. How can you not understand the "all" in that when I have been telling you to turn a few things down if you want decent framerate since you first started bitching about this over ad B3D?

Originally posted by: AckmedIf FS gets 29fps with a FX-55, he surely gets even lower.

Again, what framerate FiringSquad got on the old ass beta benchmark is completely irrelevant to how the demo performs.

Originally posted by: AckmedI was unaware that so many people are a-ok with such low frames.

Welcome to reality. A lot of people won't complain a bit even when games get crappy framerate regardless of how low they turn the graphics options. Fortunately, FEAR isn't one of those games and lowering settings will give more framerate to those of us who want it.

 

[Waylay00]

Sweet.

 

[Polish3d]

A properly designed game, with FEAR's level of graphics should perform far, far better than it does. Maybe the actual game will be better, but as others have said it would have to be around 2x as fast to be decent which is probably unlikely

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Frackal
A properly designed game, with FEAR's level of graphics should perform far, far better than it does. Maybe the actual game will be better, but as others have said it would have to be around 2x as fast to be decent which is probably unlikely

Name one game that has as many particles, shaders, smoke, lightning and physics-effects at the same time as FEAR?

Terra- I feel I have said this before?

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Welcome to reality. A lot of people won't complain a bit even when games get crappy framerate regardless of how low they turn the graphics options. Fortunately, FEAR isn't one of those games and lowering settings will give more framerate to those of us who want it.

Too much work portioning it out.

I did watch the vid, I didnt see any frames. Was the frames in fraps? I didnt see any.

Do you know for fact if the beta, and demo is different code? And if so, if the demo runs faster?

Again I didnt see any frames, unless I am just blind. Using MP to watch it.

Its not b*tching about poor framerate. Its voicing a concern about performance issues. Do you think BF2 warrants more than 1gig of ram? If not, then you're being a hypcrite. Fear also benefits from more than 1gig of ram. I know I can turn down settings to get more frames, you can do that in any game out there. Its not new news. There are many, many people who are not happy with the performance of Fear. And who dont think its performance (in the demo) is on par with the graphics. You too seem to not be able to grasp that people have different opinions on this. To me the graphics do not warrant the terrible frames. We'll see shortly if the retail game runs better. Maybe it was just that level that was hard on frames, but I doubt it. As I was in the first closed beta, and it ran slow too. I dont have numbers, but it sure didnt feel any faster in the demo. But I wasnt really trying to remember either.

Again, can you confirm that the beta is of newer code, and runs faster?

I know lots of people still have fun with low frames. Of course you can lower settings to get more frames. There isnt one game out there that isnt this way, so that comment is pretty useless.

 

[bdoople]

I think your vid looks pretty good. Thanks for making it!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Too much work portioning it out.

I did watch the vid, I didnt see any frames. Was the frames in fraps? I didnt see any..

The video is frame by frame what he saw on his screen up to the cap of 30fps. No, there is no frame counter on the screen but all the same the framerate is shown by the video.

Originally posted by: AckmedDo you know for fact if the beta, and demo is different code? And if so, if the demo runs faster?

No, and I never claimed otherwise. However, I do know that the section of gameplay in the demo and the benchmark in the beta are two different parts of the game.

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Again I didnt see any frames, unless I am just blind. Using MP to watch it.

Obviously not blind, but I don't see how you can complain about performace if you can't even tell what the framerate was in the video.

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Its not b*tching about poor framerate. Its voicing a concern about performance issues.

A concern that can be easly resolved by lowering perfromance settings.

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Do you think BF2 warrants more than 1gig of ram? If not, then you're being a hypcrite.

Hypocrite becuase of something you dreamed up? I played the BF2 demo fine on my machine 1gb of ram at medium quality settings, and yeah I think it is great that it can take advantage of the extra ram on my rig that has 2gb.

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Fear also benefits from more than 1gig of ram.

Yet you don't even have to turn but a few things to medium and it gets by with under 600mb.

Originally posted by: Ackmed
I know I can turn down settings to get more frames, you can do that in any game out there. Its not new news.

Some games do come out lacking optimsation and with nasty bugs that huts performance to the point that it won't run well no matter what you do with the settings or what hardware you run it on. Is that realy news to you are are you just being obtuse here?

Originally posted by: Ackmed
There are many, many people who are not happy with the performance of Fear.

and those people obviously have not come to terms with the fact that that some of the optioins in the game are for people with faster computers and/or people who are less sensitive to low framerate.

Originally posted by: Ackmed
And who dont think its performance (in the demo) is on par with the graphics. You too seem to not be able to grasp that people have different opinions on this. To me the graphics do not warrant the terrible frames. We'll see shortly if the retail game runs better. Maybe it was just that level that was hard on frames, but I doubt it. As I was in the first closed beta, and it ran slow too. I dont have numbers, but it sure didnt feel any faster in the demo. But I wasnt really trying to remember either.

Then turn it down to the point were the performance is lacking and complain about the graphics at those settings; that would be a legitmate opinion. The opinions I am takeing issue with are the unfounded claims that the code is unoptimized or just whining about the fact that it won't run well with all the options up when some of those options are obviously there for faster hardware or people who are less sensitive to low framerate.