Originally posted by: apoppin
hypocrite x3Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Uh huh...keep telling yourself everything you need to hear to feel better. Like I said at the end of the day it doesn't even matter. You want to know why I target you? Because you started calling people morons more or less when they were talking about the HD2900xt.
This is way off topic anyhow
keep telling yourself
you target me because it makes you feel good about yourself to belittle others
- i respond "in kind" because i am human
i didn't "start" calling anyone anything ... i respond
... in "kind"
and again ... don't forget - you dragged this off topic with your unprovoked attack on me
no ... *you* need to go away ... YOUR posts are so annoying and disruptive to the forumall you talk about is AA and to be quite honest...you need to go away or find something new to talk about. your posts are so annoying.
Originally posted by: apoppin
So GoW isn't that good of a game?
not worth going back for just an hour?
:Q
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: apoppin
So GoW isn't that good of a game?
not worth going back for just an hour?
:Q
It's alot of work in that hour. It's not the easiest game I ever played, but then I'm not playing it on casual (easy).
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: apoppin
So GoW isn't that good of a game?
not worth going back for just an hour?
:Q
It's alot of work in that hour. It's not the easiest game I ever played, but then I'm not playing it on casual (easy).
i have gone back and replayed many hours for a really good game ...
... more than once when it was so good i forgot to save ... for hours
and to answer your last question ....
as far as i am concerned yeah ... we're 'done'
---the forum members can judge for themselves your bad behavior and poor etiquette toward fellow members here
you don't like my posting style and strong emotion ... i can accept that
stop attacking it and i'll stop responding
is that fair?
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: apoppin
So GoW isn't that good of a game?
not worth going back for just an hour?
:Q
It's alot of work in that hour. It's not the easiest game I ever played, but then I'm not playing it on casual (easy).
i have gone back and replayed many hours for a really good game ...
... more than once when it was so good i forgot to save ... for hours
and to answer your last question ....
as far as i am concerned yeah ... we're 'done'
---the forum members can judge for themselves your bad behavior and poor etiquette toward fellow members here
you don't like my posting style and strong emotion ... i can accept that
stop attacking it and i'll stop responding
is that fair?
fair would be me winning the lottery for a change instead of the old guy who won't live long enough to enjoy it
I have replayed many games. There are just a small few that are frustrating when you get stuck. At least for me. Ninja Gaiden for Xbox was that way, GoW is that way for me, Oblivion almost got that way until I learned to follow the green arrow. I'll always go back to finish it eventually though.
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
So much of this discussion on graphics is so petty. Gears of War a jaggy mess? Oblivion for PC the best looking game ever (or close to that effect)? There's no middle ground with some people; it's ATI vs Nvidia all over again with the influx of HD consoles.
IMO Gears of War looks great [just beat it on Casual - now I'm going to be playing it through on Hardcore].
Starcraft 2 has me more pumped for a PC release than anything since Far Cry. I was stoked for Crysis last year, but after it missed the christmas release (badly), I'm much less excited for that game.
Frankly people jumping up and down for Oblivion and Lost Planet on PC reminds me of Mac users wetting themselves for the scraps of the PC table.
Originally posted by: Matt2
Originally posted by: Matthias99
Originally posted by: Matt2
I can select 1080p over component.
I am also playing at 1920x1080 via VGA cable on my 24" LCD. Since all LCD computer monitors are progressive scan, I guess that means it's 1080p.
Even if the game is only 1080i, the monitor or my 1080p TV is deinterlacing the signal making it 1080p.
As people (including me) explained in one of the other threads (IIRC the stupidly long one apoppin made and kept bumping/retitling), 720p being upscaled or 1080i being deinterlaced is not the same as truly rendering at 1080p. Either the framerate or the resolution really isn't there. AFAIK Xbox360 games can't really render 1080p@60FPS. This isn't terribly surprising, as it's pretty much got a generation-old GPU (something similar to an X1800).
I'm not saying that modern console games look 'bad', but a high-end PC can push a lot more pixels and/or frames/sec. (at much higher hardware cost, of course).
Ok, I understand that 1080i being deinterlaced is only running at 30fps, but what's the big deal?
I dont see the difference between 1080p@60 vs 1080p@30 as long as the game runs smoothly.
BTW, there are Xbox360 games that are native 1080P. GRAW2 comes to mind.
Unreal Engine 3, which will debut on the PC with Unreal Tournament 2007.
On the graphics front, Sweeney said that the game will run well on anything from Nvidia or ATI produced since 2006, which means X1k and GeForce 7 hardware.
On anything before that, technical limitations will bump you down to lower image quality and lower performance.
If you're lucky enough to be running a DX10 card, expect to see some fancy-pants DX10-stylee multi-sample edge smoothing going on, which promises to look spectacular. The range of 512MB+ cards also means that there are going to be some insanely detailed textures being pushed around.
One of the big questions on the mind of gamers has to be PhysX support, since this is really the first big release to integrate the card's features. There's mixed news: whilst the game magazine describes UE3's physics engine as being 'PhysX' based, Sweeney goes on to say that in multi-core systems, the processor will quite happily take the load of calculating physics.
"There is a primary thread for the gameplay and a second one for rendering. On systems with more than two cores we run additional threads to speed up various calculation tasks, including physics and data decompression. So the overall performance benefits greatly from a quad-core processor."
That's good news for Intel, who will almost certainly be thrusting this onto the unsuspecting public.
And as for a 64-bit version of the game? After all, UT2004 was one of the first games to work with Windows XP x64. "Unfortunately, full software and driver compatibility isn't there," said the man, so it's on the list to do at some point in the future.
Originally posted by: apoppin
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39930
Unreal Engine 3, which will debut on the PC with Unreal Tournament 2007.
On the graphics front, Sweeney said that the game will run well on anything from Nvidia or ATI produced since 2006, which means X1k and GeForce 7 hardware.
On anything before that, technical limitations will bump you down to lower image quality and lower performance.
If you're lucky enough to be running a DX10 card, expect to see some fancy-pants DX10-stylee multi-sample edge smoothing going on, which promises to look spectacular. The range of 512MB+ cards also means that there are going to be some insanely detailed textures being pushed around.
One of the big questions on the mind of gamers has to be PhysX support, since this is really the first big release to integrate the card's features. There's mixed news: whilst the game magazine describes UE3's physics engine as being 'PhysX' based, Sweeney goes on to say that in multi-core systems, the processor will quite happily take the load of calculating physics.
"There is a primary thread for the gameplay and a second one for rendering. On systems with more than two cores we run additional threads to speed up various calculation tasks, including physics and data decompression. So the overall performance benefits greatly from a quad-core processor."
That's good news for Intel, who will almost certainly be thrusting this onto the unsuspecting public.
And as for a 64-bit version of the game? After all, UT2004 was one of the first games to work with Windows XP x64. "Unfortunately, full software and driver compatibility isn't there," said the man, so it's on the list to do at some point in the future.
that's where is our Number 1 top PC Graphic whore game ... here by X-mas
... There is our game that beats gears of war graphic
The vast majority of people on forums maybe but in the real world I'd say the evidence points to most people not giving a rats ass.Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Because the vast majority of people are superficial morons.
Originally posted by: Mr Smith
The vast majority of people on forums maybe but in the real world I'd say the evidence points to most people not giving a rats ass.Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Because the vast majority of people are superficial morons.
Last gen winner was PS2 totally overshadowing the more powerful xbox, gc and much more powerful pc in terms of sales and it was easily the weakest console with the worst graphics.
DS is destroying the PSP in terms of sales and it's significantly weaker - some of the games look generations apart.
And the Wii is kicking ass and taking names making 360 and PS3 sales look sad - it's graphics are dire.
Casuals decide what's hot and what's not, not angry forum goers that?s why PCs will never be a dominant gaming platform.
Oh and to get back on topic Crysis is so far ahead of any other game I've seen graphically it's not even comparable, it will make GOW look like crap guaranteed.
Originally posted by: apoppin
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39930
Unreal Engine 3, which will debut on the PC with Unreal Tournament 2007.
On the graphics front, Sweeney said that the game will run well on anything from Nvidia or ATI produced since 2006, which means X1k and GeForce 7 hardware.
On anything before that, technical limitations will bump you down to lower image quality and lower performance.
If you're lucky enough to be running a DX10 card, expect to see some fancy-pants DX10-stylee multi-sample edge smoothing going on, which promises to look spectacular. The range of 512MB+ cards also means that there are going to be some insanely detailed textures being pushed around.
One of the big questions on the mind of gamers has to be PhysX support, since this is really the first big release to integrate the card's features. There's mixed news: whilst the game magazine describes UE3's physics engine as being 'PhysX' based, Sweeney goes on to say that in multi-core systems, the processor will quite happily take the load of calculating physics.
"There is a primary thread for the gameplay and a second one for rendering. On systems with more than two cores we run additional threads to speed up various calculation tasks, including physics and data decompression. So the overall performance benefits greatly from a quad-core processor."
That's good news for Intel, who will almost certainly be thrusting this onto the unsuspecting public.
And as for a 64-bit version of the game? After all, UT2004 was one of the first games to work with Windows XP x64. "Unfortunately, full software and driver compatibility isn't there," said the man, so it's on the list to do at some point in the future.
that's where is our Number 1 top PC Graphic whore game ... here by X-mas
... There is our game that beats gears of war graphic