F.E.A.R Gameplay Video.

[TerracideDK]

Machine specs:
P4A 2.4GHz
Asus P4T-E Mobo
1024RDRAM(PC800)
Sparkle 6800GT AGP
Audigy 2 Value
Forceware 77.77
CP: Quality, AA & AF App. Controlled.

Ingame settings:
1280x960
Machine settings HIGH and all to Maximum
GFX settings HIGH and all to Maximum
AAx4
AFx8
Softshadows: off

Video recorded at 640X480 @ 30FPS/44Khz
Converted from raw AVI(1.29GB) to WMV(25MB)
I did this for 2 reasons.

1. I was tired off all the BAD encoded really low res videos of the F.E.A.R demo on the web.

2. To let the folks with a "aging" CPU know what a GPU upgrade might mean in terms of gaming preformance/game IQ.

There are 2 or 3 stutters in the video(I guess running FRAPS in vid-recording mode on a old P4A 2.4 and ATA100 HD, has it's drawbacks *L*), but the stutters do not appear when I game normally.

FEAR Video (Filetype: wmv, 24.96MB) 3m 38sec

F.E.A.R Demo video-bundle (57MB wmv-file) 6m 39sec

Terra - Remember this is a P4A 2.4GHz with a 6800GT AGP...a old setup by today

Edit: Linkfix

 

[johnnqq]

i got linked to microsoft.com....

 

[IceMole]

same

 

[otispunkmeyer]

mine are here...FEAR1 and FEAR2

second clip is a little dodgy since i tried to record at 50fps using fraps, and i dont think DR DIVX liked 50fps

 

[Ackmed]

We know it *can* run decent. Its just that it doesnt run nearly as well as other games, that look as good or better. And it sure doesnt run well in high resolutions, which is where most gamers are going towards. 1280x1024+ is common, and this game simply cant do it, with the demo and beta thats out. When they recommend you run a 7800GTX at 1024x768... something is wrong.

 

[Rage187]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
We know it *can* run decent. Its just that it doesnt run nearly as well as other games, that look as good or better. And it sure doesnt run well in high resolutions, which is where most gamers are going towards. 1280x1024+ is common, and this game simply cant do it, with the demo and beta thats out. When they recommend you run a 7800GTX at 1024x768... something is wrong.

amen

I wish people would stop trying to convince everyone that this game is such leaps and bounds above HL2/D3 that it just can not run on todays hardware at a decent resolution. I have no issues running HL2/D3 at 1920x1200 on a 6800gt, what makes this game so special that I can not do the same, cause it sure as hell isn't the eye candy.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
We know it *can* run decent. Its just that it doesnt run nearly as well as other games, that look as good or better. And it sure doesnt run well in high resolutions, which is where most gamers are going towards. 1280x1024+ is common, and this game simply cant do it, with the demo and beta thats out. When they recommend you run a 7800GTX at 1024x768... something is wrong.

Funny that I can run it on a old P4A 2.4Ghz and a 6800GT AGP at 1280x960 then
Besides the Demo isn't the finished engine, only a preview of the game
I bet people with a new CPU and a 7800 can run it far better than me
But if you look at surveys like the ones Valve makes, you will find that +1280x1024 res is not the norm
Unless you have proof otherwise?

Terra - Besides i never understood people that game with LCD's...I game on an Sony Trinitron

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Ackmed
We know it *can* run decent. Its just that it doesnt run nearly as well as other games, that look as good or better. And it sure doesnt run well in high resolutions, which is where most gamers are going towards. 1280x1024+ is common, and this game simply cant do it, with the demo and beta thats out. When they recommend you run a 7800GTX at 1024x768... something is wrong.

amen

I wish people would stop trying to convince everyone that this game is such leaps and bounds above HL2/D3 that it just can not run on todays hardware at a decent resolution. I have no issues running HL2/D3 at 1920x1200 on a 6800gt, what makes this game so special that I can not do the same, cause it sure as hell isn't the eye candy.

FEAR looks much better and have far better particle effects ect. than HL2 have
I would like you to find a place where HL2 have the same effects in firefigths as FEAR?
You know, the smoke, the particles, the lighting or the schokwaves?

You expect newer engines(and this one being a BETA-version of the game engine) to run better than old engines? :S

Do you expect Unreal 3 to run just as smooth as HL2 or Doom3 on your rig?

Terra...

 

[Rage187]

you got a twitch?

 

[monster64]

I could run great at 1024x768 w/ AAx2 AFx4 all setting med/max. Rig in sig.

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Rage187
you got a twitch?

Yup, when ever I see stuff posted that has no bounds in reality
First people bashed FEAR over that it looked "ugly" in screenshots.
My videos shows that it is not the case.
Then people complained over that you couldn't get descent framerates.
I could game AND record it on a old P4A 2.4Ghz with an ATA100 HD.
And that is a BETA-version of the game.
A BETA version of the game on a NEW game-engine...

I would love to see some high res vids made on a dual-core CPU on a 7800 with SATA/SCSI HD.

Terra - But I guess facts dosn't mean much when bashing stuff/games/hardware

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Ackmed
We know it *can* run decent. Its just that it doesnt run nearly as well as other games, that look as good or better. And it sure doesnt run well in high resolutions, which is where most gamers are going towards. 1280x1024+ is common, and this game simply cant do it, with the demo and beta thats out. When they recommend you run a 7800GTX at 1024x768... something is wrong.

amen

I wish people would stop trying to convince everyone that this game is such leaps and bounds above HL2/D3 that it just can not run on todays hardware at a decent resolution. I have no issues running HL2/D3 at 1920x1200 on a 6800gt, what makes this game so special that I can not do the same, cause it sure as hell isn't the eye candy.

Absolutely.

Guy here has Fx-55 and SLI 7800gtx and only gets 55fps at 1280x1024 :frown:

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: Rage187
you got a twitch?

Yup, when ever I see stuff posted that has no bounds in reality
First people bashed FEAR over that it looked "ugly" in screenshots.
My videos shows that it is not the case.
Then people complained over that you couldn't get descent framerates.
I could game AND record it on a old P4A 2.4Ghz with an ATA100 HD.
And that is a BETA-version of the game.
A BETA version of the game on a NEW game-engine...

I would love to see some high res vids made on a dual-core CPU on a 7800 with SATA/SCSI HD.

Terra - But I guess facts dosn't mean much when bashing stuff/games/hardware

Please. Demo benchmarks showed that on an FX-55 w/ 1 7800GTX and *NO* anti-aliasing at ONLY 1024x768:

54 fps..

That's obscene, the demo better be a hell of a lot worse than the actual game.


And it doesn't look that great either.

Its incomplete.

Some cool effects and areas of good graphics combined with pathetic one-color walls that look like HL1 but runs like it ought to be Half life 4

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Please. Demo benchmarks showed that on an FX-55 w/ 1 7800GTX and *NO* anti-aliasing at ONLY 1024x768:

54 fps..

That's obscene, the demo better be a hell of a lot worse than the actual game.


And it doesn't look that great either.

Its incomplete.

Some cool effects and areas of good graphics combined with pathetic one-color walls that look like HL1 but runs like it ought to be Half life 4

I guess my video must be a wild freak of nature then :roll:
Something that simply can't be :shocked:

Terra - I guees I must have dreamed it all up

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

lol? 12x9 4x/8x?

I had FEAR running 10x7 medium/high no AA on a 2.4ghz A64/X800XT and it was still only a comfortable framerate for me. You must have a high tolerance to choppy/slow gameplay.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: Ackmed
We know it *can* run decent. Its just that it doesnt run nearly as well as other games, that look as good or better. And it sure doesnt run well in high resolutions, which is where most gamers are going towards. 1280x1024+ is common, and this game simply cant do it, with the demo and beta thats out. When they recommend you run a 7800GTX at 1024x768... something is wrong.

amen

I wish people would stop trying to convince everyone that this game is such leaps and bounds above HL2/D3 that it just can not run on todays hardware at a decent resolution. I have no issues running HL2/D3 at 1920x1200 on a 6800gt, what makes this game so special that I can not do the same, cause it sure as hell isn't the eye candy.

Personally I am waiting for the game to be released. I really enjoyed that slow motion thing. (ok I am simple) :music:

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

What makes this game so much more intensive than HL2/D3 is the sheer amount of smoke/debris/dynamic lighting and shadows going on constantly. They wanted a "really visceral" Matrix sort of feel to the game (think lobby scene), and it rapes current hardware.

You don't need a jesus piece rig, you're just gonna have to play at a lower resolution with less filtering etc. than you're used to playing with if you don't have one. I've played it on a 9800 pro in 8x6 and an X800 XT in 10x7, enjoyed it either way. There's not nearly as much going on at any time in HL2/D3 as there is in FEAR.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: monster64
I could run great at 1024x768 w/ AAx2 AFx4 all setting med/max. Rig in sig.

same here, 10x7 everything max, no soft shadows though, 2xAA and 4xAF runs smooth enough for me

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: Rage187
you got a twitch?

Yup, when ever I see stuff posted that has no bounds in reality
First people bashed FEAR over that it looked "ugly" in screenshots.
My videos shows that it is not the case.
Then people complained over that you couldn't get descent framerates.
I could game AND record it on a old P4A 2.4Ghz with an ATA100 HD.
And that is a BETA-version of the game.
A BETA version of the game on a NEW game-engine...

I would love to see some high res vids made on a dual-core CPU on a 7800 with SATA/SCSI HD.

Terra - But I guess facts dosn't mean much when bashing stuff/games/hardware

Please. Demo benchmarks showed that on an FX-55 w/ 1 7800GTX and *NO* anti-aliasing at ONLY 1024x768:

54 fps..

That's obscene, the demo better be a hell of a lot worse than the actual game.


And it doesn't look that great either.

Its incomplete.

Some cool effects and areas of good graphics combined with pathetic one-color walls that look like HL1 but runs like it ought to be Half life 4

they must of had soft shadows on? they produce a sizeable performance drop dont they?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
What makes this game so much more intensive than HL2/D3 is the sheer amount of smoke/debris/dynamic lighting and shadows going on constantly. They wanted a "really visceral" Matrix sort of feel to the game (think lobby scene), and it rapes current hardware.

You don't need a jesus piece rig, you're just gonna have to play at a lower resolution with less filtering etc. than you're used to playing with if you don't have one. I've played it on a 9800 pro in 8x6 and an X800 XT in 10x7, enjoyed it either way. There's not nearly as much going on at any time in HL2/D3 as there is in FEAR.

agreed....i love that bullet time thing, and how they manage to make it look like fighting through a viscous liquid.

in most places HL2 looks better in general, but this has some very very nice features that put HL2 down.

i love the rail gun....in slow mo, jus watchin the guards body get fried!

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: TerracideDK

Originally posted by: Ackmed
We know it *can* run decent. Its just that it doesnt run nearly as well as other games, that look as good or better. And it sure doesnt run well in high resolutions, which is where most gamers are going towards. 1280x1024+ is common, and this game simply cant do it, with the demo and beta thats out. When they recommend you run a 7800GTX at 1024x768... something is wrong.

Funny that I can run it on a old P4A 2.4Ghz and a 6800GT AGP at 1280x960 then
Besides the Demo isn't the finished engine, only a preview of the game
I bet people with a new CPU and a 7800 can run it far better than me
But if you look at surveys like the ones Valve makes, you will find that +1280x1024 res is not the norm
Unless you have proof otherwise?

Terra - Besides i never understood people that game with LCD's...I game on an Sony Trinitron

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.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

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.

Besides, according to Gamespot, the issues have been improved upon quite a bit already:

Unlike the previous times we've seen it, this time the game had been clearly optimized and had hardly any frame rate problems (though we did play the game on a top-of-the-line PC setup). We're told by producer Rob Loftus that "if you have a computer that can play Half-Life 2, you can play F.E.A.R.," because even though the game has some support for older-generation DirectX 8.0 video cards, it is intended for use with DirectX 9.0 hardware.

And here:

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.

 

[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...

 

[TerracideDK]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
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.

Besides, according to Gamespot, the issues have been improved upon quite a bit already:

Unlike the previous times we've seen it, this time the game had been clearly optimized and had hardly any frame rate problems (though we did play the game on a top-of-the-line PC setup). We're told by producer Rob Loftus that "if you have a computer that can play Half-Life 2, you can play F.E.A.R.," because even though the game has some support for older-generation DirectX 8.0 video cards, it is intended for use with DirectX 9.0 hardware.

And here:

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.

QFT.

Terra...

 

[Ackmed]

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...

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.