This means a lot to the hundred-or-so of us Maine residents who understand that the internet isn't just the blue "e" on their Windows (ME, of course) desktops.
Because otherwise you'd have at least a slight idea what you were talking about.
FarCry is a completely different type of engine: it's not mean to have incredibly realistic shadows or lighting, nor is it an engine meant for close-quarters, detailed rendering. The entire purpose of the CryEngine is to produce massive open areas using long-distance detail scaling and a sh*tload of sprites for various ephemera. Everything in FarCry looked like an over-done cartoon - a very pretty cartoon, mind you, but a cartoon nonetheless. I don't think ANYONE would buy DoomIII if it looked like it was produced by Disney.
Stalker... not even out yet, you've seen nothing but screenshots and maybe two trailers, and you're already saying it looks better than DoomIII? Ha. I won't even bother with this one.
And let's talk about hardware. I run a system with a 2.4Ghz Athlon XP, 512MB RAM, and a Ti4200. FarCry? Had to drop the detail levels so low to get frame rates above 20fps that it was like playing in a desert, not a deserted island.
Stalker? Of course I haven't played it yet, and neither have you. ("On quite good system, that runs other mentioned games with very nice visuals.") Wait until the game is actually released before pretending you know how it runs.
Doom3, however, I could play on high detail, with only the shadows and Anti-aliasing turned off, at 1024x768. And the only time I found myself lagging a bit was when there were massive lightshows going on.
And non-existent MP? That's funny, I must've been dreaming last night when I played on my LAN with two friends for about four hours. Weird. I'll have to stop eating before I go to bed, it gives me the most VIVID dreams.
Slashdot Mirror
Go us! Rock the fuck on, my state!
This means a lot to the hundred-or-so of us Maine residents who understand that the internet isn't just the blue "e" on their Windows (ME, of course) desktops.
I hate it when people can't tell the difference between their they'res, their there's, and their theirs.
So their.
Because otherwise you'd have at least a slight idea what you were talking about.
FarCry is a completely different type of engine: it's not mean to have incredibly realistic shadows or lighting, nor is it an engine meant for close-quarters, detailed rendering. The entire purpose of the CryEngine is to produce massive open areas using long-distance detail scaling and a sh*tload of sprites for various ephemera. Everything in FarCry looked like an over-done cartoon - a very pretty cartoon, mind you, but a cartoon nonetheless. I don't think ANYONE would buy DoomIII if it looked like it was produced by Disney.
Stalker... not even out yet, you've seen nothing but screenshots and maybe two trailers, and you're already saying it looks better than DoomIII? Ha. I won't even bother with this one.
And let's talk about hardware. I run a system with a 2.4Ghz Athlon XP, 512MB RAM, and a Ti4200. FarCry? Had to drop the detail levels so low to get frame rates above 20fps that it was like playing in a desert, not a deserted island.
Stalker? Of course I haven't played it yet, and neither have you. ("On quite good system, that runs other mentioned games with very nice visuals.") Wait until the game is actually released before pretending you know how it runs.
Doom3, however, I could play on high detail, with only the shadows and Anti-aliasing turned off, at 1024x768. And the only time I found myself lagging a bit was when there were massive lightshows going on.
And non-existent MP? That's funny, I must've been dreaming last night when I played on my LAN with two friends for about four hours. Weird. I'll have to stop eating before I go to bed, it gives me the most VIVID dreams.
Go post somewhere else, troll.