F.E.A.R Gameplay Video.

[xtknight]

This is what it all boils down to. FEAR may use the most amount of shaders and the highest-quality textures which is one way to explain the performance deficit versus decrepit code. But, there are lots of people, including myself, who think other games that use less shaders/etc actually look better. The smoke and lighting in FEAR look stunning, but the textures, bullet holes, and models are subpar IMO. It makes for a very odd combo.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: 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?

Actually I believe most people are getting crappy framerates even when the particles aren't flying.

HL2 has far better textures and waaaaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more physics effects and runs literally 3x faster than FEAR.

 

[bonhimself]

nice vid, i liked it when u threw that nade and the guard yelled "@#$%!".

i triedc the FEAR demo, i got 5 fps in the beginning intro and quit because it was so bad for me. then later i tried to run it again and it wouldnt even start. i have no idea what happened.

specs:
P4 2.8ghz
512mb PC2700
PNY geforce fx 5200

 

[Tanclearas]

Yup. Particle and smoke effects look good. Just not significantly better than I have seen before. The definitely don't justify the huge performance difference from Doom3 or HL2.

Gamespot said it "had hardly any frame rate problems (though we did play the game on a top-of-the-line PC setup)." Hmm... hardly any? On a top-of-the-line PC. They don't give any indication what settings were used either. That really doesn't tell anyone anything useful. The performance improvements the developer is talking about is with respect to older (DX8) hardware, so it looks like top-of-the-line DX9 systems with have to settle with "hardly any" frame rate problems.

Anyway, just to sum up my stance...

1) Story looks very promising. Hopefully they don't screw it up.

2) Graphics look good, but not significantly better than Doom3 or HL2. In fact, some areas actually look worse.

3) The added special effects look good.

4) I don't think the game looks good enough to justify playing worse on top-of-the-line hardware today than HL2 and Doom3 did on the top-of-the-line hardware available when they were released. To see that kind of performance, there would indeed have to be roughly a 2x improvement in performance from the demo.

 

[addinator]

personally, ihaven't experienced crappy framerates since i've played the demo. i've had very nice framerates, actually, (it plays flawlessly) and i'm playing on a pentium (albeit a very heavily overclocked one)i mainly attribute this to my rig being SLI. and with that i'm running SLI anti-aliasing. i'm running it at a 1600x1200 resolution as well.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK
Find 1 game, demo or realsed that has the same particle, smoke, lighting and physics effects at the same time ad FEAR does?

Duke Nukem Forever.

No, but seriously. Why should we believe your claims over reputable hardware sites?

 

[bonhimself]

Originally posted by: addinator
personally, ihaven't experienced crappy framerates since i've played the demo. i've had very nice framerates, actually, (it plays flawlessly) and i'm playing on a pentium (albeit a very heavily overclocked one)i mainly attribute this to my rig being SLI. and with that i'm running SLI anti-aliasing. i'm running it at a 1600x1200 resolution as well.

holy sh!t nice oc. 4.5 ghz! dont see too many of those..
and of course u play it well...its 4.5 ghz and 2 ultras

 

[kylebisme]

See, addinator is one of those people the maximum settings are there for, if you have less of a system than that then you can turn things down and live with what you have or upgrade.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
See, addinator is one of those people the maximum settings are there for, if you have less of a system than that then you can turn things down and live with what you have or upgrade.

holy fvck 4.5GHz is nice

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
See, addinator is one of those people the maximum settings are there for, if you have less of a system than that then you can turn things down and live with what you have or upgrade.

What is it with you? Acting like all games are somehow designed with equal efficiency and its simply a matter of hardware?

Note, anyone with a system similar to mine, A64 ~FX-55 speeds, 2gigs ram, 7800GTX can play the game at max settings with 'playable' framerates at 1600x1200. I'm not sure whether that is 30 or what, but I'll take Xbit's benchmarks of 54fps at 1024x768 with no anti-aliasing as accurate. Again, and stated numerous times before; that is flat pathetic.


I will even state that Half Life 2 with all settings turned to highest, 4xAA, 16AF, transparency super-sampling at 1680x1050 gets around 140fps for me and, overall ***HAS BETTER GRAPHICS AND WAY BETTER AND MORE COMPLEX PHYSICS***.

This is especially true with the high-def character models patch from Valve. (Highly recommended.)

The only thing FEAR might have left graphically after the model patch that is better are the particle effects, and in some cases better looking character models which isn't much considering the 300% drop in performance.

I encourage anyone with the right setup to compare:

HL2 1680x1050 (make sure digital vibrance is on and applied globally) w/ all settings High, 4AA,16AF, character models patch applied

to

FEAR, all options high, highest AA/AF.

HL2 is the winner IMO. Look at HL2's textures on its walls. Never a solid circa 1998 blue monochrome like 1/2 the walls in FEAR.

Oh, and again, it runs roughly 3-400% faster than FEAR.

Anyone snowman your argument is such a joke because its implied premise is that FEAR isnt a poorly designed and coded game, its just that people have inadaquate hardware, which is bullsh|T.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

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.

"Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, or a willful lack of desire to improve the efficiency, merit, effectiveness or usefulness of one's actions. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware/uninformed. Ex: In debate class Bill lost the debate because he was ignorant in that subject. (not knowing)."

Come again

P4A 2.4GHz
Asus P4T-E Mobo
4x256 RDRAM(PC800)
Sparkle 6800GT AGP
Audigy 2 Value
Western Digital 250GB 8 MB

Those all all that matter in preformance.
The rest I can't see the reason for but here is some, just to please your weird logic.
Sony Trinitron monitor.
Creative 5300 5.1 speakers
Logitehc cordless keyboard
Logitech MX1000 muse
And perhaps you would like to know my webcam too?
Not that I can see what those items mattered anyway?

Terra - You make less and less sense Ackmed/fallguy

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: 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.

Would it have been good to use DDR2100/2700 in a new build today?
.oO(Don't think so...)
Besides my new build will an entiinrely new PC...again I fail to see your logic?

Terra...

 

[exar333]

hmm, I would have to agree that if this game does run at 1/3 the framerate (roughly) that HL2 gets and 1/2 the framerate of D3, it would have to be pretty damn "eye-popping" in terms of graphics to warrent this....

does the game look good? yes, I have the demo as well, looks very nice

is it THAT much better in terms of graphics than D3 or HL2? no, I would put it "on par" with graphics, below HL2 in physics, and above both in particle and light effects (although the shadows are a little strange, they look cool)

im not just not that impressed with it that it should warrent the slow framerates it gets at relatively low resolutions with high-end hardware

 

[pacho108]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
See, addinator is one of those people the maximum settings are there for, if you have less of a system than that then you can turn things down and live with what you have or upgrade.

What is it with you? Acting like all games are somehow designed with equal efficiency and its simply a matter of hardware?

Note, anyone with a system similar to mine, A64 ~FX-55 speeds, 2gigs ram, 7800GTX can play the game at max settings with 'playable' framerates at 1600x1200. I'm not sure whether that is 30 or what, but I'll take Xbit's benchmarks of 54fps at 1024x768 with no anti-aliasing as accurate. Again, and stated numerous times before; that is flat pathetic.


I will even state that Half Life 2 with all settings turned to highest, 4xAA, 16AF, transparency super-sampling at 1680x1050 gets around 140fps for me and, overall ***HAS BETTER GRAPHICS AND WAY BETTER AND MORE COMPLEX PHYSICS***.

This is especially true with the high-def character models patch from Valve. (Highly recommended.)

The only thing FEAR might have left graphically after the model patch that is better are the particle effects, and in some cases better looking character models which isn't much considering the 300% drop in performance.

I encourage anyone with the right setup to compare:

HL2 1680x1050 (make sure digital vibrance is on and applied globally) w/ all settings High, 4AA,16AF, character models patch applied

to

FEAR, all options high, highest AA/AF.

HL2 is the winner IMO. Look at HL2's textures on its walls. Never a solid circa 1998 blue monochrome like 1/2 the walls in FEAR.

Oh, and again, it runs roughly 3-400% faster than FEAR.

Anyone snowman your argument is such a joke because its implied premise is that FEAR isnt a poorly designed and coded game, its just that people have inadaquate hardware, which is bullsh|T.

amen to that

 

[kylebisme]

Amen to stupidly, eh? I'm not even going to bother responding to most of that ignorence, but I do want to point out how blatantly it is demonstrated with this:

Originally posted by: pacho108
This is especially true with the high-def character models patch from Valve. (Highly recommended.)

Valve didn't make a high-def character model patch, it was made by FakeFactory.

 

[pacho108]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Amen to stupidly, eh? I'm not even going to bother responding to most of that ignorence, but I do want to point out how blatantly it is demonstrated with this:

Originally posted by: pacho108
This is especially true with the high-def character models patch from Valve. (Highly recommended.)

Valve didn't make a high-def character model patch, it was made by FakeFactory.

i didnt say that alright?

i do agree that gaming performance depends on hardware but the guy has a strong point comparing fear to other games

 

[kylebisme]

On the surface I suppose. I mean, I agree that HL2 was better looking, but I know that is becuase Valve has some wonderful artists working for them and not becuase their engine has anywhere near the same feature set as FEAR. Comparing the two and saying HL2 looks better so FEAR shouldn't run slower is competely overlooking the technology behind the games.

 

[Polish3d]

The high definition pack is my bad. There is one for HL1 from valve and a 3rd party patch for HL2.

-----


Snowman, you haven't really made a direct statement that I've seen about what you think, mainly you seem to just peripherally criticize the idea that FEAR runs poorly because its designed poorly.

Why don't you clearly state what you think:


1. Can games with the similar effects/graphics vary at all in the quality of their code, affecting how well they run on machines?


2. If yes, than why do you believe that FEAR does not deserve this criticism for its performance?

 

[xTYBALTx]

Meh. I don't think FEAR looks all that good. And the gameplay is utter crap.

:thumbsdown:

 

[Busithoth]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
On the surface I suppose. I mean, I agree that HL2 was better looking, but I know that is becuase Valve has some wonderful artists working for them and not becuase their engine has anywhere near the same feature set as FEAR. Comparing the two and saying HL2 looks better so FEAR shouldn't run slower is competely overlooking the technology behind the games.

I guess that's what it comes down to, then.
Technology trumping fun in a video game.

Bigger isn't always better.

And I disagree that Source doesn't have 'anywhere near' the feature set of FEAR.

I will say that the maps on HL2eathmatch could use some debris, possibly.

But HL2 scales down to being playable on onboard video solutions.

 

[Polish3d]

I still think the same effects could be achieved w/ way better performance.

 

[Nirach]

My rig's running at half power on the RAM front, only 512mb.

http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ha2ha.jpg

For the minimum whack on the ol' RAM front, and a less than top end card, that ain't half bad.. Play is realyl quite smooth, too. Heavy firefights to throw up some jumps, but that's to be expected.