[QUOTE=Cold Finger;32618602]
Sorry, but 60 FPS? Mind posting your specs?[/QUOTE]
3GB RAM
dual core process 3.1 GHZ
250 GTS
W7
Was running the game flawlessly.
Wait. ID software, the company that basically jump started PC gaming, made a console port? :suicide: Its just Valve and Blizzard now lmao, everyone fucking sold out.
I knew there was something fishy about all those development videos. The developers sounded more like PR people than actual developers :v:
[QUOTE=zombojoe;32618904]Wait. ID software, the company that basically jump started PC gaming, made a console port? :suicide: Its just Valve and Blizzard now lmao, everyone fucking sold out.
I knew there was something fishy about all those development videos. The developers sounded more like PR people than actual developers :v:[/QUOTE]
I think it was pretty obvious it was going to be a console port when one of the main selling points was getting 60 fps on consoles. But that doesn't mean console ports are bad. Wait til they patch it and I'm sure it'll be great.
For me it feels like a proper PC game and that's all I care about. Problems like these can be fixed with a patch. A console port feeling can't be fixed with a patch.
I'm with SweFox* this does not feel like the console port. It does not have any of the common signs and if people say the auto adjust settings is a console thing I must say I prefer it, I have not had a game run this good in a while.
Games run like shit on ATI.
Remember BRINK. OpenGL and ATI being poor.
If you have an ATI ( lol ATI ) you are in a deep shit for the moment.
It seems to be mainly an ATI issue. Oh well. It's been quite a night. I'm off to bed.
Are they going to release a PC demo of this? I want to see how it runs before I buy it.
NVIDIA master race once again.
:zoid:
I can't remember the last time I played a [I]proper PC game[/I] that didn't have a video settings menu.
Why do people accept the removal of good standards like customization, server browsers and server tools? Its not even about the gameplay anymore. Its batshit insane, slowly but surely "PC games" are losing the things that make them PC games. Its like they want us to play console games with a mouse and keyboard.
They actually had the guts to ship the game without a video settings menu, yet they had the manpower to include a DLC menu. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd?
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32619056]Are they going to release a PC demo of this? I want to see how it runs before I buy it.[/QUOTE]10gb demo can't wait
[QUOTE=TurbisV2;32619108]10gb demo can't wait[/QUOTE]
that's a 1½ hour download. No worries.
I would settle for a benchmark.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;32619086]I can't remember the last time I played a [I]proper PC game[/I] that didn't have a video settings menu.
Why do people accept the removal of good standards like customization, server browsers and server tools? Its not even about the gameplay anymore. Its batshit insane, slowly but surely "PC games" are losing the things that make them PC games. Its like they want us to play console games with a mouse and keyboard.
They actually had the guts to ship the game without a video settings menu, yet they had the manpower to include a DLC menu. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd?[/QUOTE]
yeah you should probably stop whining over nothing. i've heard the game was quite worth the wait and the video settings thing was more something that the dear john carmack was experimenting with, not "console" bullshit that doesn't even make any sense in this context.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;32619086][I]proper PC game[/I][/QUOTE]
The most important thing for me in a PC game is how it feels, if it feels like a real PC game then I can live without ingame settings. I bet we will be able to tweak graphical settings in from a patch, if not, not a big deal (for me).
Because the game feels really nice and that's what matters. All the past games, Bulletstorm, Fable 3, Fear 3, Witcher 2 SUCKED with keyboard/mouse and was MUCH better with controller.
Since this game feels like a natural PC game, then thats enough for me.
Why the FUCK is there mouse acceleration, and no option to manually select my graphics in Rage if it's a ~true pc game~. Also the hyper textures are a giant lie, everything looks like shit, especially up close. This piece of shit console port also runs at a mind blowingly smooth rate of 10 fps. Fuck you John Carmack you piece of shit.
[QUOTE=Cadaver;32619252]Why the FUCK is there mouse acceleration, and no option to manually select my graphics in Rage if it's a ~true pc game~. Also the hyper textures are a giant lie, everything looks like shit, especially up close. This piece of shit console port also runs at a mind blowingly smooth rate of 10 fps. Fuck you John Carmack you piece of shit.[/QUOTE]
There seems to be problems with ATI at the moment if you have that. Also what are your specs?
Technical problems are the last things I would expect from John Carmack. Something fishy is going on.
Can't wait to see how it runs on a system that exactly meets the minimum requirements.
[QUOTE=Supacasey;32618467]What happened to the 25gigs worth of high-res textures =/[/QUOTE]
There never were any, did you look at the official screenshots? Megatexture tech was never a good idea, too much work for too little gain.
I was thinking of getting this game, either buy it on Steam, £30 but i don't know who i could play it with on coop and i suck at knowing what i can and can't run since i used to be on a piece of shit computer, or, buy it on PS3 where it's £40, i have a friend i can play it with and i don't have to worry about graphics settings?
So you know i'm running on Windows 7 64-Bit, Graphics card is an NVidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti, 8 GB of RAM and a 6 Core Processor?
"6 core processor" tells us nothing but that it's probably AMD. But yeah, it should run very well, at least after the launch day bugs are cleaned.
Despite the low-res texture (for now) the gameplay is still awesome! I love the weapons, cars, racing and stuff.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;32619463]"6 core processor" tells us nothing but that it's probably AMD. But yeah, it should run very well, at least after the launch day bugs are cleaned.[/QUOTE]
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Processor.
I'm not great at computer technology, sorry.
So far, what do you all think?
Is there REALLY no video settings menu?
[QUOTE=smug.gif;32618227]This is very disappointing. So much for the PC gaming master race.
Hopefully they get a patch out today.[/QUOTE]
Yes because a single bad game release will destroy PC gaming's reputation
Looks like something went really wrong, I suppose this will be fixed in a matter of days no need to 'lose all hope' in John Carmack.
Some reviews are saying good things about it, some others don't.
Which one is right ?! D:
The game is out in 3 more days here, I can't wait to find out (even though my gaming instincts are telling me this is going to be awesome).
Wow, don't ever forget to spam F5. I fucking lost 35mins because I died. FUUUUUUUUCK.
So do you guys think it's worth it?
I [I]might[/I] be able to find enough money to buy this, and have money for SR3. But I'd much rather save the money than spend it on a console port-ish kinda bad game.
Yes the game is absolutely amazing and if you have the money for both then of course you should buy this. If not, buy SR3 first.
I heard it was kinda short though, like 10 hours, what about that?
Most reviews say 8-12 hours, I don't know if that's including side quests.
[editline]4th October 2011[/editline]
Anyway, I'll try to find some money later, it's not out until Friday anyway, for me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
