I was wondering. If you had a 19" monitor that could do 1600x1200, would you rather run Far Cry at 1024x768 with High or Very High details on, or run at 1600x1200 with Medium detail level active?
Printable View
I was wondering. If you had a 19" monitor that could do 1600x1200, would you rather run Far Cry at 1024x768 with High or Very High details on, or run at 1600x1200 with Medium detail level active?
I run pretty much all my games at 1024x768, so I vote A.
What I think is most important is the enviroment detail. SHould be set as high as you can because it literally affects the game content ie birds and fish, dragon flys and even trees. In other words if you have it on low or medium you wont have schools of fish or dragon flys etc.
THe nex thing i like is the "corpse stay" if you have a good computer set it to 999 secs or at least 300 secounds. I think the default is 30 secs. then the bodies dissapear. I like them to stay as long as possible.
edit: I didnt even know this was a poll. pffft... considering the added content when the enviroment setting is high or very high, I think this is a trick question or at least a secoundary question.
Been hardcore 1600x1200 and nothing else for quite some time. The display I just ordered only handles 1366x768 so I'll have to downsize on the resolution. The display will be upsizing to 32" with much better color and 8ms response :DQuote:
Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
I was wondering. If you had a 19" monitor that could do 1600x1200, would you rather run Far Cry at 1024x768 with High or Very High details on, or run at 1600x1200 with Medium detail level active?
Eric
There are dragonflys in the game at high detail? Thats awesome!
I chose 1024x768 for the above reasons of missing out on the added details and objects at the high detail levels.
Some games, like UT2004, I want 1600x1200 over anything else. Far Cry, however, begs to have lots of detail on. I think I'd rather run that game at 1280x960 or 1024x768 with some details on and maybe some AA also instead of 1600x1200 with everything set to medium and no AA at all.
Perhaps it does depend on each game and the genre you are playing at. Hrm...
I have a feeling even if I upgraded from my 9800 Pro 128 meg to a 6800 GT on my 2.8ghz P4, I would not be able to run Far Cry at 1600x1200 with high or very high detail and stay above 30 fps. Not sure, but it's a guestimate. :)
Yeah, it really sucks the juice out of the CPU. Best and freshest looking shooter of 2004 IMO.
I play Fc at 1024x768, max ingame setting, 4xAA/8xAF and it looks stunning as it is. FRs' pretty good at 'bout 60-100+ fps, just try it with HDR enabled, you can't do AA, and FRs take one hella dive.:eek: A 6800GT should be able to do 16x12, but I ain't sure what the FR would be like...possibly >30fps perhaps.:confused:
When I tried the demo I was getting 70ish at 1600x1200 and 4xAA. Possibly dipping into the 40's or 50's during certain scenes.Quote:
Originally posted by mikeysg
I play Fc at 1024x768, max ingame setting, 4xAA/8xAF and it looks stunning as it is. FRs' pretty good at 'bout 60-100+ fps, just try it with HDR enabled, you can't do AA, and FRs take one hella dive.:eek: A 6800GT should be able to do 16x12, but I ain't sure what the FR would be like...possibly >30fps perhaps.:confused:
Eric
The shadow details can be turned down and don't seem to effect the overall effect, but all the other stuff should be set to as high as possible to really get all the environmental effects of this game. I would gladly sacrifice resolution to 1024x768 to get all the environment the game has to offer.
So, I vote for the first option.
Since I run all games at 1280x960 (or x1024), I won't be answering the poll.