io organic industrialism on 23/3/2006 at 21:21
Quote Posted by LesserFollies
1600x1200, texture size large, all fades at medium, view distance maxed with land, building, and tree distance maxed, interior and exterior shadows at medium, self, grass, and tree canopy shadows on, shadow filtering high, specular distance maxed, HDR on, aa off, water detail high, water reflections and ripples high, window reflections on, and blood decals high. And yeah, it's a bit choppy in spots, and yeah, I may have to turn some of those down. But it's pretty much playable at those settings. Hell, I was so afraid I wasn't going to be able to run the damn thing AT ALL, I'm just fucking thrilled with it. I'm feasting my eyeballs, so to speak.... I don't mean to gush, but sometimes I just stop and stare.
wow , you are a really nice person for taking the time to post all that!..... but... how the hell is that playable?
io organic industrialism on 23/3/2006 at 21:22
right .... that way i can have 3 inch big black lines at the top and the bottom of my screen, completely wasting 1/2 of the viewable area of my nice new 21" monitor. no thanks.
Renzatic on 23/3/2006 at 21:42
When I first started playing games letterboxed, I didn't even notice it after an hour or so. It grows on you fairly quickly.
It's all personal opinion of course, but I think the tradeoff is more than worth it.
io organic industrialism on 23/3/2006 at 22:00
i have NEVER understood the widescreen hype. ever. i think it's just a huge marketing gimmick.
if the screen is designed for it, that's fine. but when i'm seeing huge black lines @ the top & bottom, that is just unacceptable. i can't believe there are movies that don't even come in 4:3 aspect ratio anymore. DVDS are retarded.
i even have a PSP. i wouldn't mind if it was a little taller and less wide :)
Renzatic on 23/3/2006 at 22:08
Oh, you're one of
those people. :mad:
I dunno why, but I've always preferred widescreen over the alternative. To me, playing in 4:3 looks boxed in and restrictive, whereas 16:9 not only gives you a wider field of view, but makes everything look so more more atmospheric and cinematic.
I've tried playing Oblivion in 1024x768, but (
http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/obv_5.jpg) it really doesn't compare to what I'm used to.
LesserFollies on 23/3/2006 at 22:16
Ok, now that I'm getting further into the game and into the bigger areas I'm having a lot of trouble. I've had to turn most of it down. Still looks good, though.
*sheepish on page 4*
io organic industrialism on 23/3/2006 at 22:45
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Oh, you're one of
those people. :mad:
I dunno why, but I've always preferred widescreen over the alternative. To me, playing in 4:3 looks boxed in and restrictive, whereas 16:9 not only gives you a wider field of view, but makes everything look so more more atmospheric and cinematic.
I've tried playing Oblivion in 1024x768, but (
http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/obv_5.jpg) it really doesn't compare to what I'm used to.
but seeing 16:9 on a 4:3 monitor is just disgusting. it reminds me of this sketch on mad TV one time, it was Will Sasso doing his Steven Segal impersonation... and Segal was promoting his new "super duper ultra wide screen theatrical view!" movie, and you could see like, back stage on both sides of the screen , even into the green room where they had refreshments and stuff....... but the whole vertical view only took up about 1 inch on your screen, and the rest was black. lol
NamelessPlayer on 24/3/2006 at 00:05
Okay, everyone here probably knows I have an asstastic system.
But even with most of the bells and whistles disabled, and at an ungodly low resolution, I can get Oblivion running at a pretty good clip with some of the special effects. Even outdoors-lowering the grass density in the .ini probably helped a lot.
If the game already looks this good on my minimum-spec PC without slowing down to slideshow framerates most of the time, I can only imagine what that 2000 US$ setup of my dreams will pump out at silky-smooth framerates...
Aja on 24/3/2006 at 03:03
Athlon XP 2800+
1 gb of ram
9800 Pro
It runs alright on medium settings. On high settings it's playable until you have to fight someone. I would not describe as "smooth" at all, but it's stable - far more so than Deadly Shadows.
But I don't find it to be particularily beautiful so far. It looks half-finished - the textures are very blurry at distance, walls pop up when I'm 20 feet away... the game looks good so long as you keep your head down - look up, and everything seems unfinished! I couldn't get it to look great even when I put all the settings on full... seeing a big green blurry patch of land makes me feel like I'm in some editor and haven't applied the vegetation yet.
I'm also getting some hitches/sound stuttering, but it says I'm only using a little under 700mb of RAM. Would another 512 or 1024 make a difference? Or is it a bottleneck of my gpu's ram (only 128)?
Also, the people look bizarre: half life 2 is still the standard as far as I'm concerned.
godismygoldfish on 24/3/2006 at 03:51
Renz, does the game support 1280x800 resolution?
Personally, I'm glad that the game has native widescreen support at all. Too many games out there can easily do this within the game engine but require hacking the .cfg file.
