|
|
| Page 15 of 20 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 13:59 Post subject: |
|
 |
| rullstolskalas wrote: | | Why cant i change textures to high? I have it on medium currently but when i choose high it wont let me. Im not doing it in game either so i dont get it. How do i change textures to high? |
wow way to ask the same question that's been answered 2349720423 times already. If you don't have a video card with 512MB of memory it's disabled. Now read the fucking thread.
| TaterMitts wrote: | What GRAW 2 (and 1 for that matter) taught me:
* Mexicans are stupid, and in Mexico, everything looks like it's made of dried up guacamole.
* The very best secret ops soldiers the US army has to offer can't jump one foot ledges if their life depended on it
* For that matter, they can't find their way to the other side of an empty street if there's a little rubble in their way
* Folding chairs are to be avoided at all cost, since trying to push one to the side will result in you getting permanently stuck
* Enemy positions are always watching over the exact route that you have to take to reach an objective
* Don't think the rebels won't shoot the driver of your evac vehicle in the face in the middle of a cut scene. They know that, after that, they can shoot up your vehicle and your buddies for eternity, with you watching helplessly (until you do a force restart of the game).
This kind of gameplay would've been decent in 1999, but post F.E.A.R. and FarCry, no major publisher should even think about releasing crap like GRAW 2. |
dude...best first post of the year...that shit had me laughing 
Last edited by SpykeZ on Tue, 10th Jul 2007 14:01; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 13:59 Post subject: |
|
|
 I bet you have a video card with less than 512MB of vram...
HIGH TEXTURES = VIDEO CARD WITH 512MB OR MORE VRAM!
[EDIT] SpykeZ beat me to it...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 14:05 Post subject: |
|
|
after reading Spykes posts I decided against wasting both monthly usage(I only get 60gb/month) and hdd space and time. fuck this game, dumb AI is a no no for me. I thought the AI in RS6V was good. why couldnt they do something similar here?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 14:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| pumbertot.1 wrote: | | after reading Spykes posts I decided against wasting both monthly usage(I only get 60gb/month) and hdd space and time. fuck this game, dumb AI is a no no for me. I thought the AI in RS6V was good. why couldnt they do something similar here? |
complete different developers :\ If you haven't check out grins website mabye you should have a look at their SUPER wonderful list of games they have developed before they were handed one of the best franchises ever.
LINK
Granted teh stupid AI, it's weird to find myself going out of my way to actually play this game, something about it is just funner than the first one, but......stupid effin AI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 14:17 Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder what happened... The AI in the first was actually pretty OK.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 15:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| difm wrote: | | TaterMitts wrote: |
* Enemy positions are always watching over the exact route that you have to take to reach an objective
|
Don't you have even a little pea-size brain? Possible aproaches are always guarded by troops. That's good for not being surprised by flanking.
Think about it...
|
Wrong! I have a little pea sized pecker. My brain is still a little bigger, though I'm working on shrinking it by following a strict diet of mdma, thc and alcohol. "Why?", I hear you asking. Well here's why: maybe then I'd actually think that GRAW 2 is a great tactical fps.
Now on the enemy positions issue, let me clarify my comment... My issue is that they're not covering all possible approaches, but just the ones that the developers want you to take. Sure you can sneak by some of the enemies in GRAW, but most of the time you are funneled through a predetermined pathway by means of artificial and unrealistic obstacles (sandbag walls that you can't jump over, random piles of burning debris, abandoned cars etc.), and that pathway just so happens to be covered by enemy soldiers. Obviously, they know that GHOST units can't jump small ledges or climb over stationary cars, and they figured that they don't need to cover those approaches.
GRAW would have been so much more exciting and challenging if it had a more sandbox oriented approach. Let's say a mission requires you to to achieve two objectives in a neighborhood: destroy an artillery piece and wipe out an enemy command post, both located in two different places in a large war torn neighborhood. A realistic (and fun) scenario would be that the artillery piece is located in a small square with a couple of well guarded approaches, since they expect it to be a target. The enemy there is stationary and will not leave position even if provoked, since their objective is to guard the cannon. If attacked, they will radio for backup, which will come from the command post a few blocks away, and not magically appear when you trigger it by crossing some random invisible marker placed by the developers. You'll need to wipe out the artillery defense and destroy it with c4 before backup arrives to bite you in the ass. If you do well, you're out of there and the enemy will be none the wiser.
The command post itself is a more dynamic affair. Maybe an abandoned church building or railway station, also with its approaches covered of course. The officers at the post will send out patrols out into the neighborhood at intervals, who will also try to radio for backup if attacked. If you attack the command post itself and then move back, they will send a group of soldiers to pursue you.
The rest of the neighborhood will be open for you to explore in any direction you wish, with only the patrols, a roadblock here and there and maybe some snipers to worry about. You can choose to take on the artillery piece first, then destroy the backup, and eventually move to the command post. Or you could start out by picking off patrols, moving from place to place. Maybe provoke them enough so that they call for backup that you can in turn ambush. Lots of options, and it's been technically possible for a while (FarCry did a pretty nice job of this, and that's three years old).
Instead GRAW chooses to force you through a couple of alleys/streets with a couple of stationary soldiers that magically spawn when you get close enough. First you have to go through the command post, then you will pass a square with a magically appearing tank and only then can you proceed to the artillery piece. No other sequence is possible since basic marines training never taught you how to push a couple of burning trash cans to the side or kick down a wooden fence kept together with chicken shit and duct tape.
I hate GRIN even more now for having me type all this crap above while I'm supposed to be doing something useful with my time.
| TaterMitts wrote: |
* Don't think the rebels won't shoot the driver of your evac vehicle in the face in the middle of a cut scene. They know that, after that, they can shoot up your vehicle and your buddies for eternity, with you watching helplessly (until you do a force restart of the game).
|
I've witnessed it only once - the mission where BH gets shot down. My driver got killed and Mitchell was shot too. Still, the mission ended and I could advance.[/quote]
Mitchell getting shot and still being able to play on is just as weird as not being able to play on because your driver accidentally ate some lead he wasn't supposed to be vulnerable to. It wouldn't let me go on after that, and since it happened to both you and me already, I figure it's at least a little weird that they didn't catch that one in play testing. If they ever did such a thing of course.
With all that said, I'm probably going to play some GRAW 2 now, since I have the urge to blow some shit up and it's the only game that I have on my pc at the moment.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 15:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Finally played the first mission. Yeah, AI's dumb, but it was fun anyway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 19:40 Post subject: |
|
|
lol ya that happened to me in one of the early missions where a heli is dropping off guys. I told the fucker to take it down and instead of shooting it down in plane site...he walks half a mile to go hide in a broken down house...I was like where the fuck is he goin1?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 21:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| TaterMitts wrote: |
Deleted half a milion lines* |
Ever thought of taking writing lessons?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 22:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Areius wrote: | | TaterMitts wrote: |
Deleted half a milion lines* |
Ever thought of taking writing lessons? |
Ever thought of picking up an actual book in your search for quality prose? It's way more satisfying than reading online forums and won't show your inner asshole as much.
Oh and you forgot a letter in 'million'. Here it is:
L
Yes I got jokes. Bring on the snark.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 10th Jul 2007 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
Dear lord, TaterMitts, your posts are like fucking essays! FFS, get a life, man! It's just a game, no need to take it that seriously.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 00:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh leave him alone Leo, he can write like he wants to, kinda like you write like a fanboi
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 01:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | | Dear lord, TaterMitts, your posts are like fucking essays! FFS, get a life, man! It's just a game, no need to take it that seriously. |
Who's taking what seriously here? I'd say talking about my life is way more serious than talking about GRAW 2.
On a more on-topic note: I uninstalled the game, no need to waste more time on it. It's challenging for all the wrong reasons. Glad I'm not paying for it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 02:10 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 02:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Glottis wrote: |
What an awesome video. PC looks around 10x better and runs good even on mid range PCs. That's how it is when it's not a fuckin port. Go PC and fuck consoles.  |
Haha, I take it you don't have a 360 then? Try playing the 360 version, it's far superior to the PC version. If anything the graphics are better, although they're alot closer then they were for GRAW 1. |
Looks better on the xbox? Either you are blind or a muppet console fanboy if you can't/don't want o to admit that PC version looks far superior. PC version textures look twice as detailed, not to mention anisotropic filtering that makes them look ultra crisp even long distances away, compared to xbox where they look washed out few meters from you. Oh and PC looks so much crisper overall.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 02:50 Post subject: |
|
|
argh....not again  Why can't people leave the PC vs. Console crap in the thread dedicated to it.
Anywho it looks like I'll have to get a console, the AI and wall hugging is what's missing in the PC version which is BS Fuckin stupid GRIN
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 03:41 Post subject: |
|
|
Why dont you all wait for the first patch and turn up the difficulty before you judge it to much. The AI could be better, and I still think this is a beta. So i'll wait until final before I judge it to much. Even though I have finished the game twice now...hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 04:07 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 04:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Yup I'm done. Don't count on GRIN to give you a patch for better AI, it's not going to happen, GRAW 1 was a piece of shit and they obviously didn't learn from their mistakes. I'm fed up with the stupid AI thinking I gave them some hidden order to walk out in front of me in the open and giving our position away. Yet another pc franchise thrown in the shitter. I'm starting to think UBI gave it to them on purpose so people would run to the console version
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 04:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| dominae wrote: | | AnimalMother wrote: | | Glottis wrote: |
What an awesome video. PC looks around 10x better and runs good even on mid range PCs. That's how it is when it's not a fuckin port. Go PC and fuck consoles. |
Haha, I take it you don't have a 360 then? Try playing the 360 version, that video is bullshit. If anything the graphics are better on the console, although they're alot closer then they were for GRAW 1. |
XBOX 360 specs was finished in April 2005... are you trying to say that the graphics hardware in PC hasn't since then superceded the XBOX360? The Xenos is based on the R500 chip, which is pretty much equivalent to the X1600-series of ATi-cards, a lot has happened since then bubba. |
No, I agree. Top of the range PC hardware has surpassed that of the 360 in terms of the potential graphics it can output. It's just that in practice no developers have taken advantage of it, and the majority of games that are out on both the 360 and the PC either look the same on both platforms, or are better on the console.
Also you have to take into account that consoles can always output superior graphical performance to a PC of identical specification. Firstly there is no operating system to run, and secondly the developer only has to optimize the game for one hardware configuration.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 05:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: |
Also you have to take into account that consoles can always output superior graphical performance to a PC of identical specification. Firstly there is no operating system to run, and secondly the developer only has to optimize the game for one hardware configuration. |
Firstly, the CPU of a console is a trifle compared to a regular PC, a modern day PC these days normally uses dual (or now quad) cores, and cooling solutions that are a lot larger, plus the standard memory exceeds anywhere near that of a console. 2Gigs of RAM is almost minimum these days. There actually is an OS in a 360, but it is not like any Windows we know, but without it there would be no way to get the integrated hardware to work. A console is like a brand PC, preconfigured for the specific hardware, with an OS that uses only a minimum set of features. But with the horsepower of a good modern PC, the OS isn't really a critical factor in gaming performance, and particularly not in relation to the performance of a console.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 06:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Discussing taste isn't anything we will agree on any time soon. My two cents is that I liked the game. I also liked the first one. And don't say they did nothing with the AI with patches in GRAW1. v1.35 has much better AI then when it hit retail. And GRAW being an Ubi title, that many patches for a game and that support is a good thing. Even if they should have had it at v1.35 upon releasedate. But who has a bugfree game on release anyway?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 07:21 Post subject: |
|
|
havong played both the game it has to be said looks better on the 360 overall the lighting is great textures look great it runs at a solid framerate. The Xenos is nothing like the X1600 for starters it has unified architecture, it has an advanced version of shader model 3 and i dunno if youve ever used a x1600 but i'll tell you even with a high end PC (talking intel duo xtrme 2gb of ram) you cant even run R6 vegas close to the same level of detail as the 360 version and hav a stable frame rate at 800 x 600
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 08:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| dvsone wrote: | | The Xenos is nothing like the X1600 for starters it has unified architecture, it has an advanced version of shader model 3 and i dunno if youve ever used a x1600 but i'll tell you even with a high end PC (talking intel duo xtrme 2gb of ram) you cant even run R6 vegas close to the same level of detail as the 360 version and hav a stable frame rate at 800 x 600 |
That my friend was the biggest load of bull-hockey I ever heard from a Microsoft-leaflet. Unified architecture, do you even know what that means? The XBOX360 uses hardware that is similar to standard hardware. There is no "uber-advanced version" of the Xenos that majorly outclasses the GFX-cards of it's time (2 years ago now).
The Xenos is based on the R500 which is the same thing as what exists on the X1X00-series of ATI-cards. Granted, a lot of the features are more rememiscent of the X1800 than anything else, but the memory, etc. are the same stuff as the X1600.
Comparing a console game ported to a PC with the original platform is a bit misleading and precarious tbh.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 11th Jul 2007 09:49 Post subject: |
|
|
The Xenos architecture could be considered a R600 prototype . . . it's a bit simplistic to just compare the on paper specifications between two generations of hardware in completely separate operating conditions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 15 of 20 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
