Discussion in 'Games' started by 1ceTr0n, Dec 19, 2012.
Damn you Ubisoft.....
Far Cry 3: E3 Demonstration vs. Retail PC - YouTub...
the tube video is so bad i hardly can judge anything. but for sure Ubi used the best fastest hardware available, including physix etc. for their demo. The game is pretty. Yet some details or tweaks may have been reduced for the final release... FC3 delivers a lot and is not a good example of a game that "shafts" customers. I felt shafted above all with Deus Ex HR because it is ugly and boring.
they could have at least left it in the PC version. Console versions are getting below 30FPS in game anyway
The game is good yeah, but seeing the Demo, It looks better graphically...
then why remove the more detailed textures? I'm pretty sure there are gamers who would love to and their rigs can play the best graphics/textures settings as possible. optimization issues? could be
Only difference I can clearly see between the vids is there is more debris or fishes in the water, and the water looks a bit better in the left video. I remember the first Far Cry, and with some tweaks it made the water look heavenly. In FC3 the water does not impress. And the mountains in the far distance look horrible. That is all my reasonable critique.
All PC games should have scalability, it would increase a companies sales as well. They can cover the low end to the very high end, satisfying a very wide market. There is no excuse nowadays for a huge company to not do this other than laziness.
Wouldn't it be possible to "unlock" these "Super Ultra High" graphical settings (via some command or hacks?) in Far Cry 3, IF the "assets" that are needed for the "Super Ultra High" graphics are still intact on the game disc? I am really curious about this!
To be honest, it can't be too difficult for developers to offer 2 levels of graphical quality, even on line so called "free" games such as World of tanks do this, when you go into "Graphical properties" apart from all of the obvious AA/AF/Texture/draw distance and the like, each with settings ultra/high/medium/Low you ALSO get a drop down for "overall quality" with the choice of "standard" or "improved", all improved is in effect is a high res pack.
Sorry but on my PC things looks like the left video. The right video seems like PC on Low graphics. I think the guy who made this video is a hater that just wanted to hate on the game publicly.
At that particular area shown in the video I have MUCH more grass than the video on the right side (also it looks much better than that) and the water doesnt look so bad. In fact it seems that the right screen of the video (PC retail) is running in DX9. Hell, the rocks look like big polygons even.
So...I'm confused, does the console version look better or something since he was playing with a controller? The graphics to the right do look like low settings, left looks more like Crysis-ish graphics. You don't intentionally not give someone the better graphics just to screw them, something is off here.
Must admit some thing don't seems right. If only a TPU member could post some key points of the game of were the demo was done ..
Why bother when people still will buy the game?
I suppose it about providing the consumer with what they want, dunno, the one I exampled is a free game and they can do it so it can't be that difficult.
This. On a side note I'm very curious if Crysis 3 will deliver while "melting our PCs".
According to the alpha, no. It is about twice times as cumbersome to my 7950, but I couldn't really notice anything much beyond Crysis 2.
It will melt your PC definitely, but I doubt you will be at all impressed.
To be fair, there were different environments, and I couldn't focus because it was an Multiplayer alpha.
My biggest problem with Far Cry 3 is just two things.
1. Even with the most advanced ambient occlusion (HDAO), there is a subtle flickering of tree foliage that seems lighting related, since it looks to be a shadow effect causing it.
2. The game is horribly unstable even with patch 1.02 that is supposed to include performance fixes. It still dips in FPS at times and the menu often loads at a snail's pace. This game seems to have memory leak symptoms written all over it.
It's also the only game that still crashes my PC hard at times, making me wonder if it can handle any amount of OCing. I'm running stable via OCCT Linpack and I still get the now and then blue screen 124 crash on this game. Last time it was just while taking the first shot at the pack of rabid dogs on the PotH quest where you have to kill 5 of them with the shotgun provided. I might actually have to try setting my RAM to 2T for this game, and I don't even know if my BIOS HAS that option.
When I first started playing FC3 one of the first things I thought was; wow...this doesn't look as good as the videos I've seen. Though I think the game is good and it is fun; I still don't think the visuals are stellar.
My game never causes BSODs, and I play for hours on end. Reduce your overclock or add VCORE. Just because you ran Linpack and passed doesn't guarantee stability in anything else. I get slight framerate dips but I'm pretty impressed with how my 7950 handles it (though 80% fan speed and 90c GPU at 1050/1.037v sucks).
No, the WarZ consumers got shafted.
You only got inconvenienced.
I've read a fair bit about the 124 error and some say (with some testing behind it) you can't automatically assume it means not enough vcore. Hell, a 4GHz OC on a i7 950 shouldn't require more than 1.35v, which is what I'm running it at. A lot of people run their 950 4GHz OCs at less than 1.3v.
I have however upped the QPI to a little over 1.3v from 1.25 though, as that testing on the vcore after 124 errors did indicate QPI can also be the problem. I've also loosened the RAM timings down to 9-9-9-24 from the rated 7-8-7-20. I'm running it at the rated 1600 speed, but it's working at 1T command rate according to CPU-Z, so a bump to 4GHz may require less stringent timings.
I don't think it's my 7970. I'm only running it at 1100 and I never see any video artifacts and it maxes at 65c in FC3.
If this game has a problem with memory leaks as I suspect, then it would more likely have to do with memory related voltage, timing and command rate settings.
I just hate having to fine tine an OC due to one damn game. I don't have this problem with any other games, and I'm playing a lot of the current high resource ones like Sleeping Dogs, AC3, Hitman Abs, MoH Warfighter, etc.
I'm not bothered with this it still looks good. Only thing I'm bothered with is the motion sickness that game causes.
This might have something to do with your FOV, I would mess around with that if possible. Also monitor positioning might cause that.
I feel a bit hard done by now seeing that, I had seen the e3 video before but it didn't quite click that my pc version wasnt looking as good...
Does it look as good or better than FC 2 ?..
Game developers have to walk a tightrope.
Put in too much detail and scalability and people bitch about the game not being "optimized" because they can't max it out on their "high-end" computers. Put in too little and people bitch because it isn't graphically as nice as what they expect or what was show in a demo.
I say STFU and play the game. Farcry3 is a very fun game, the gameplay is good, the story is a little repetitive but still good. If you stop to compare what it looks like now to what it looked like in development you aren't playing the game right.
Separate names with a comma.