Movies&Music

Slink · Post by **Slink** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 03:51 am

Different certain computers perform better at higher resolutions in Blood, and I haven't figured which ones. Faster ones?

RedFanatic · Post by **RedFanatic** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 08:19 pm

Well mines a almost top of the range BF2 playing hog and it runs Blood
no worries on 1280 1024.

but what about 800x600 Gila? surely even if it's not a times of 320x200
the game dudes would have had that res in mind.

Krypto · Post by **Krypto** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:07 pm

Well on a side note, On Friday my old PC got taken away, My Sister's Friend built me us a new one for free. After a boring 2 days of waiting it arrived on Sunday. With this nice Ultrasharp monitor, Wireless Keyboard and Mouse which works wonders, harddrive erased but i backed it up so not to worry

Then it happened.. I couldn't play any game because it was stuttering horribly, Transfusion, Serious Sam etc. I took a look at the graphics card, A Radeon 9200 by Microsoft with Intel Extreme Graphics

then just now he comes back with this nice IT bloke called Jim.

We tried to get new drivers but the official ATI website was getting hammered or somethin

then when we got the drivers from an unofficial site it couldn't find any graphics card. So he put in my Old Geforce 4 MX440 64 MB Card, and it doesn't even turn on

So he sticks in another 512 ram bringing it up to a total of 768

but we couldn't fix the card/problems. So now either before Friday or on the weekend he'll come back with a nice NVidea Card 256 mb.

Gila · Post by **Gila** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:44 pm

ati has nothing to do with it, it's just one of many "light" or built-in cards that suck ass (built in and 'budget' nvidias suck donkey balls too), besides... you call that an upgrade?

my main pc is celeron d 2.8, 1gb ram, geforce 6600gt, 120+200 hdd, 17" monitor and all that today is considered if not last couple of years but it's definataly totally yesterday.

computers seem to suck more and more for gaming - you need whole load of cash for comfort gameplay but even then you have to put up with updating drivers which weight alot and downloading couple of 100mb patches.

what i like about consoles is you just insert cartridge/cd and play. no headache. but then again, it's not how beefcake the system is, there are better games for "weaker" pcs/consoles but what's going on right now on pc is just hell.

"eyecandy for the win" is the motto in boring games that require some ridiculous amount of videcard power, lots of ram and hdd space buuuut they can be completed in like 7-10 hours!

just remember how much did it took you to beat blood, for example...

Drakan · Post by **Drakan** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 04:52 am

That and the games cost a s*** of money to begin with. let's see... Take something like Half-Life 2 nowadays that costs $80 AUD brand new. The hell with that I'm not paying top dollar for total sh!t.

Oh but hey, mods galore! But then other games like that don't have that sort of mod support.

It's so sad...

Krypto · Post by **Krypto** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 04:21 pm

Well i play classic games, i've only got 3 really modern ones: Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Painkiller. That require a hefty machine (if you wanna run it on max), What i play: The Build Games, Serious Sam, Quake, RTWC, Half-Life etc. Proberly was an onboard graphics card, when they took it out it was much smaller than the Gainward Nvidea one and it didn't even have a fan on it.

Slink · Post by **Slink** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:05 am

FYI, the GeForce FX series blows compared to bottom-of-the-line GeForce6 cards. I own and am using a GeForce FX 5200- balls.
-Slink