Game

[Borys]

.

[cool breeze]

I actually saw a Gamevideo.com video of Far Cry 2 shown at Leipzig recently, and while watching it I kept thinking about how some aspects of it looked really off; As I watched it, I noticed that when the person went to open a door, a triangle icon appeared.  I am curious how that will turn out.  I am not buying this game at all, but I remember them saying that all three versions will look similar.

[maxy]

Hmm some interesting post appeared at some Spanish forums,someone that is apparently a Ubi dev claims that 360 version will be 30 fps and PS3 25 fps..His gamertag shows that he has been playing Far Cry 2 and people there seem to believe that he is working on Far Cry 2...Zeta69,bottom of the page
http://www.elotrolado.net/hilo_hilo-oficial-far-cry-2_988595_s700

If this is true,

[maxy]

Who the fuck cares. PC version will run at 60 fps.

Only 60 fps?Pfft,that's nothing for a decent PC to handle.

[dark1x]

Who the fuck cares. PC version will run at 60 fps.

Only 60 fps?Pfft,that's nothing for a decent PC to handle.

*sigh*

Not this again.  Look, there is no reason to go beyond 60 fps.  60 fps on a CRT monitor at 60 Hz is as smooth as you can get when it comes to motion.  Most people these days are using flat panels which can't even properly handle such motion so going higher doesn't make a damn bit of difference.  Also, on those panels, going above 60 fps means you've disabled v-sync (unless your panel can support a higher refresh).  People only throw around numbers higher than 60 fps for those dick waving contests.  Also, if you can go beyond 60 fps, it means that you should be able to keep your framerate from EVER dropping below 60 fps should you choose to lock it.

Go ahead, see for yourself.  Load up a game on the PC on a CRT at 60 Hz with v-sync enabled.  It's as good as you can get.  Though, for some people, going above 60 Hz (on a CRT) might be necessary in order to avoid eye strain.  I can tell you that going above 60 Hz does introduce slight blurring into the image, however (though most would never notice it).

Anyways, regarding this paticular game, these console ports are great simply BECAUSE it pretty much means 60 fps easily on the PC.  Crysis, well, nobody is hitting a solid 60 fps at highest detail levels.  It just isn't possible right now.  This game, however, is being optimized for lower end hardware and, as such, should be amazing on the PC (performance wise).  Of course, the game isn't as impressive as Crysis by any means and I'm still skeptical about the gameplay.

Man, with these lengthy replies on here, I almost feel like Lazy8s or something.  :\

Hmm some interesting post appeared at some Spanish forums,someone that is apparently a Ubi dev claims that 360 version will be 30 fps and PS3 25 fps..His gamertag shows that he has been playing Far Cry 2 and people there seem to believe that he is working on Far Cry 2...Zeta69,bottom of the page

That may be so, but there have already been PS3 and XBOX360 videos released and labeled (UbiSoft released a video specific to this).  Both versions were generally 30 fps with some tearing/slowdown in spots (this was months ago).  I'm sure both will be fairly solid 30 fps upon release.  Not bad for the hardware, really.

[dark1x]

I was about to say, you're wasting your time. This isn't anywhere near a "serious" forum.

Yeah, I know.  Really, though, I can bust those posts out in less than a minute easily.  I don't intend to write long posts usually, it just comes out that way. 

[WrikaWrek]

Don't worry Dx10, speak what you must, keep it real.

[dark1x]

I was about to say, you're wasting your time. This isn't anywhere near a "serious" forum.

Yeah, I know.  Really, though, I can bust those posts out in less than a minute easily.  I don't intend to write long posts usually, it just comes out that way. 

Ah well, just don't go and have a nervous breakdown cause Borys is Polsih or anything.

Ha ha, despite what it may seem, I don't ACTUALLY get upset or whatever over these things.    Seriously, I post that kind of stuff for fun.  I enjoy crazy arguments and the like.  I admit that I generally get into these things at work (usually while waiting on something), though (almost never post from home).  So, never take anything I say too seriously.  I mean, I'm not just making up BS or anything, but it's not as serious as it seems.

[JustinP]

it's not hard to tell the difference between 60 and 100 fps.

[dark1x]

it's not hard to tell the difference between 60 and 100 fps.

Oh, I know, I CAN tell the difference and 60 fps looks better (120 Hz + 120 fps on a CRT adds a slight blur that doesn't exist at 60 Hz).  The only downside is the 60 Hz flicker (which I can't STAND while viewing anything totally static such as text, but don't mind while gaming).

I'm curious, though, what type of display are you using to make that judgement?  Hopefully not an LCD.  No flat panel can properly display 60 fps to begin with (they all suffer from motion smearing to some degree).  People go nuts over those 120Hz LCDs, but in reality, the motion handling is still vastly inferior to CRTs.

[JustinP]

i still have a big CRT monitor.  LCD screens bugged me so i never upgraded.  probably used to it now though, since i've had my laptop for several years. 

[maxy]

Hmm i am not going to quote your long post dark1x,but haven't you heard about  4D 120hz gaming...j/k

Also i don't think console gamers in general understand what makes hardcore PC gamers tick,why they spend thousands of euros for upgrading,overclocking,cooling,tweaking etc.It doesn't matter if you don't see the difference between 60 and 600 fps,you will see a small counter that will say 600 and that is all that matters.


I agree that you wont see a difference if game fps is higher than monitor refresh rate,but CRT PC monitors were not restricted to 60Hz,too bad that they are extinct now.