Slartybartfast on 15/12/2003 at 12:42
There seems to be quite a split in opinion on the full game of dx2. ive played the demo and thought the engine was pretty decent at full detail with anti aliasing etc. on a radeon 9800.
and there are all these threads about dx1 vs dx2 graphics. huh? dx1 better because you can play it at higher resolutions? are you guys playing both games on the same video card? dx1 ran slowly on my computer when it came out, and ive since been through at least 3 video cards. so, at the time of release, i can play dx2 in higher resolution than i could when dx1 came out. and it CERTAINLY looks a lot better.
so i was just wondering... most of the people who really like the game, have you got decent video cards? and the people who think its the worst game engine ever and want IS to burn in hell etc. are you having framerate problems?
just wondering... am i more likely to love the game if it runs perfectly on my system?
heywood on 15/12/2003 at 15:51
Prior to the patch, I had to choose between 800x600 with stuttering in some areas or 640x480 smooth. Call me spoiled, but I just can't stomach playing a game at 640x480 anymore. I stopped playing about 1/3-1/2 way through. After the patch, with dynamic shadows disabled, I can now play at 1024x768, which is just enough to get me back playing again. Performance is definitely a major issue with me. I'm used to running games smoothly at 1600x1200 on my system. Even newer games like Tron 2.0 and NOLF 2 were no problem.
Aside from the performance issues, I think it's a good game. Not a worthy successor to DX1 by any stretch of the imagination, and definitely below the high standards set by previous LGS/ISA games. But nonetheless it's still a good game.
Slartybartfast on 16/12/2003 at 03:45
yeah, tron 2.0 runs like a dream doesnt it. look nice too
thegrommit on 26/12/2003 at 21:39
Quote:
Originally posted by Slartybartfast dx1 ran slowly on my computer when it came out, and ive since been through at least 3 video cards. so, at the time of release, i can play dx2 in higher resolution than i could when dx1 came out. and it CERTAINLY looks a lot better.
Gamers have selective memories.
FaTbOy! on 29/5/2004 at 07:51
Ive been playing the game on an AMD 2000+ with 512MB of 333mhz DDR and a 128MB DDR ATI 8500. Suffice to say gameplay with the lowest settings brought back memories of my first run through quake on a 486DX with 16MB of EDO and ISA video card with a whopping 2MB of vram. Well OK... not _that_ bad but it has been several years since a game ran this poorly on my system. Even Thief 3 runs better at higher settings... go figure.
That being said the game has very good visuals, the bump-mapping adds a supprising level of realism to some of the surfaces. (the stone ones in the churches come to mind) While its no Far Cry, (visually speaking) DX:IW runs much better on my older system.
I DO miss having a scope on me pistol though. :(
Skull Gun on 5/6/2004 at 22:59
I don't think Deus Ex looks better than IW but it does look darker, the areas are 10 times bigger as well. I've just downloaded Deus Ex Zodiac, the first thing I noticed was the huge areas, even though the graphics are better in IW I think Dues Ex is more realistic with it's huge areas, it just feels better.
Eberon on 6/6/2004 at 16:30
I think that Ion dropped the ball in the graphics department. The game exhibits fairly poor performance compared to other, better looking games (Unreal Tournament 2004, anyone?) and much of the artwork is pretty low quality as we can see by comparison of the many texture improvement projects out there.
That being said, I am sure that the team didn't mean to intentionally release a game with problems -- ultimately, the entire timetable is the publisher's decision, and probably what caused some problems to slip through the cracks.
What is important to me isn't the graphics, though. I have seen some beautiful games that aren't playable to evidence this simple relationship between playability and graphics. I have seen some games which have such terrible graphics that they aren't convincing and/or are confusing. As far as I am concerned, Ion hit the good middle ground.
The problem is performance, and to sum it up, the two important pieces of any game (to me at least) are:
* Performance
* Gameplay
The gameplay was decent (except for the smaller areas and more detaching load times), and the performance was okay. My opinion of Invisible War, then, is that it is okay.
Hardware aside, guys, you have to consider all things relative. It doesn't matter if someone who has a GeForce 3 or similar old-generation card thinks that a game has poor performance -- they PLAY games all the time on that card and can easily judge visuals vs. performance for their own hardware. In my regard, with a GF 4 4600, I can say that I have played better looking games that performed better.
