COD2 graphics

"F r e e" <free DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MMRaf.109630$US.6092@news.ono.com...
> The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures, etc.
> It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce 5900XT 128 M,
> 1,5 giga RAM)
> I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its really
> nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>
> Funny that automatic setup is so bad....

Does ANY game ever recommend proper settings? They're always too
conservative as far as I've ever seen.

"F r e e" <free.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> once tried to test me with:

> The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures,
> etc. It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce
> 5900XT 128 M, 1,5 giga RAM)
> I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its
> really nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>
> Funny that automatic setup is so bad....

Not unusual at all.

First thing I do when I go into a game is change the graphics settings. I
don't even bother playing it on the default.

I set mine for 1024x768 with 4xAA and turned most of the graphics options
on. It looks pretty good but it's somewhat choppy. I didn't bother trying
it with nothing else running to see if it were some other process. Maybe I
got a Sony Root Kit eating up some cycles. ;p


--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.

"Knight37" <knight37m.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9704CA16CF665knight37m@130.133.1.4...
> "F r e e" <free.DeleteThis@nospam.com> once tried to test me with:
>
>> The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures,
>> etc. It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce
>> 5900XT 128 M, 1,5 giga RAM)
>> I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its
>> really nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>>
>> Funny that automatic setup is so bad....
>
> Not unusual at all.
>
> First thing I do when I go into a game is change the graphics settings. I
> don't even bother playing it on the default.
>
> I set mine for 1024x768 with 4xAA and turned most of the graphics options
> on. It looks pretty good but it's somewhat choppy.

Same here. It's a bit choppy for me; too much so to be enjoyable. (AMD
3800+. ATI X800XT-PE). I'm going to have to cut back on some settings but
haven't diddled with it much yet.
The demo was choppy too, so I was hoping the full game would be better but
it seems the same. (The Brothers and Arms Earned in Blood demo was choppy
but the retail runs silk smooth for me.)

Nonymous wrote:
> Same here. It's a bit choppy for me; too much so to be enjoyable.
> (AMD 3800+. ATI X800XT-PE). I'm going to have to cut back on some
> settings but haven't diddled with it much yet.
> The demo was choppy too, so I was hoping the full game would be
> better but it seems the same. (The Brothers and Arms Earned in Blood
> demo was choppy but the retail runs silk smooth for me.)

Should I even bother with this game on my old P4 1.7Ghz, 64MB Ti4200, 512MB?
I had no trouble with Far Cry at medium settings, but this might be pushing
it.

Nonymous wrote:
> "F r e e" <free.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MMRaf.109630$US.6092@news.ono.com...
>
>>The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures, etc.
>>It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce 5900XT 128 M,
>>1,5 giga RAM)
>>I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its really
>>nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>>
>>Funny that automatic setup is so bad....
>
>
> Does ANY game ever recommend proper settings? They're always too
> conservative as far as I've ever seen.
>
>

Serious Sam 2 actually does a really good job choosing graphics settings
for you, I didn't feel the need to tweak anything really. It even
chooses a decent resolution for you (1024x768 for a 9800pro, for example).

/kars

"F r e e" <free RemoveThis @nospam.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures, etc. It
>looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce 5900XT 128 M, 1,5
>giga RAM)
>I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its really
>nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>
>Funny that automatic setup is so bad....

Isn't the problem though that the auto-setup is choosing settings that
will work flawlessly on _every_ level of the game?
Considering that most games start out slow and build up over time you
could always run better settings in the early levels then drop down
later when it started bogging.

What they really need to do if they want proper auto-settings is have it
set before each level, for _that_ level.

Bit more overhead, but far less setting hopelessly weak graphic levels
because of a graphic heavy level 3/4s of the way through the game.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

Nonymous wrote:
> "F r e e" <free DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MMRaf.109630$US.6092@news.ono.com...
>
>>The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures, etc.
>>It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce 5900XT 128 M,
>>1,5 giga RAM)
>>I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its really
>>nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>>
>>Funny that automatic setup is so bad....
>
>
> Does ANY game ever recommend proper settings? They're always too
> conservative as far as I've ever seen.

Serious Sam 2. It's actually runs little windowed video tests. It
doesn't just poll the hardware like most other games do.

"Nonymous" <noham.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zpydnR7qTsX4x_HeRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
>
> "Knight37" <knight37m.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9704CA16CF665knight37m@130.133.1.4...
>> "F r e e" <free.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> once tried to test me with:
>>
>>> The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures,
>>> etc. It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce
>>> 5900XT 128 M, 1,5 giga RAM)
>>> I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its
>>> really nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>>>
>>> Funny that automatic setup is so bad....
>>
>> Not unusual at all.
>>
>> First thing I do when I go into a game is change the graphics settings. I
>> don't even bother playing it on the default.
>>
>> I set mine for 1024x768 with 4xAA and turned most of the graphics options
>> on. It looks pretty good but it's somewhat choppy.
>
> Same here. It's a bit choppy for me; too much so to be enjoyable. (AMD
> 3800+. ATI X800XT-PE). I'm going to have to cut back on some settings but
> haven't diddled with it much yet.
> The demo was choppy too, so I was hoping the full game would be better but
> it seems the same. (The Brothers and Arms Earned in Blood demo was choppy
> but the retail runs silk smooth for me.)
>

AMD 3500+ with ATI X800 XT PE as well, and ran great until near the end, but
still plenty playable.

Iam playing on my barton 2500 and a 6600 gt. And its not choppy on
high details ??



On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 04:14:54 -0500, "The Chronic" <a.DeleteThis@b.c> wrote:

>Nonymous wrote:
>> Same here. It's a bit choppy for me; too much so to be enjoyable.
>> (AMD 3800+. ATI X800XT-PE). I'm going to have to cut back on some
>> settings but haven't diddled with it much yet.
>> The demo was choppy too, so I was hoping the full game would be
>> better but it seems the same. (The Brothers and Arms Earned in Blood
>> demo was choppy but the retail runs silk smooth for me.)
>
>Should I even bother with this game on my old P4 1.7Ghz, 64MB Ti4200, 512MB?
>I had no trouble with Far Cry at medium settings, but this might be pushing
>it.
>

"Alex broden"
>>Should I even bother with this game on my old P4 1.7Ghz, 64MB Ti4200,
>>512MB?
>>I had no trouble with Far Cry at medium settings, but this might be
>>pushing
>>it.

Weeeeell, you can turn it down a lot, resulting in that it looks exactly the
same as COD1, which, I presume, you could play perfectly fine with your
'puter.

I, with 10x7 resolution have to turn down FSAA and textures. But at 800x600
resolution I can max everything out, even settings like dynamic lightning
and shadows, that -i though- where reserved for the latest greatest video
cards...

Try the demo and check the minimum specs!

No one has mentioned yet the DX7 graphics menu option. This will double the
framerate on older cards, at the cost of some detail and shader effects.

rms

"HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in message
news:9PWdnchfgI4g1fDenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Nonymous" <noham.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:zpydnR7qTsX4x_HeRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Knight37" <knight37m.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9704CA16CF665knight37m@130.133.1.4...
>>> "F r e e" <free.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> once tried to test me with:
>>>
>>>> The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures,
>>>> etc. It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce
>>>> 5900XT 128 M, 1,5 giga RAM)
>>>> I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its
>>>> really nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>>>>
>>>> Funny that automatic setup is so bad....
>>>
>>> Not unusual at all.
>>>
>>> First thing I do when I go into a game is change the graphics settings.
>>> I
>>> don't even bother playing it on the default.
>>>
>>> I set mine for 1024x768 with 4xAA and turned most of the graphics
>>> options
>>> on. It looks pretty good but it's somewhat choppy.
>>
>> Same here. It's a bit choppy for me; too much so to be enjoyable. (AMD
>> 3800+. ATI X800XT-PE). I'm going to have to cut back on some settings
>> but haven't diddled with it much yet.
>> The demo was choppy too, so I was hoping the full game would be better
>> but it seems the same. (The Brothers and Arms Earned in Blood demo was
>> choppy but the retail runs silk smooth for me.)
>>
>
> AMD 3500+ with ATI X800 XT PE as well, and ran great until near the end,
> but still plenty playable.

What resolution? I forgot to mention that I'm trying to play at 1600x1200
(my LCD's native res). Haven't tried stepping down yet. (Still need to
finish Q4). Lower resolution may get it smoother for me, but at the sake of
the 'blurriness' you get with non-native resolution.

"Nonymous" <noham.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4rednWtgHsHP-fDenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot at gmail dot com> wrote in message
> news:9PWdnchfgI4g1fDenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Nonymous" <noham.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:zpydnR7qTsX4x_HeRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Knight37" <knight37m.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9704CA16CF665knight37m@130.133.1.4...
>>>> "F r e e" <free.RemoveThis@nospam.com> once tried to test me with:
>>>>
>>>>> The game's automatic settings were so bad: 800x600, medium textures,
>>>>> etc. It looked just like COD1. Outdated. (Atlon2800+ and Geforce
>>>>> 5900XT 128 M, 1,5 giga RAM)
>>>>> I maxed everything out (Extra textures, lightning, etc) and now its
>>>>> really nice, still a bit cartoonish, but thats by design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny that automatic setup is so bad....
>>>>
>>>> Not unusual at all.
>>>>
>>>> First thing I do when I go into a game is change the graphics settings.
>>>> I
>>>> don't even bother playing it on the default.
>>>>
>>>> I set mine for 1024x768 with 4xAA and turned most of the graphics
>>>> options
>>>> on. It looks pretty good but it's somewhat choppy.
>>>
>>> Same here. It's a bit choppy for me; too much so to be enjoyable. (AMD
>>> 3800+. ATI X800XT-PE). I'm going to have to cut back on some settings
>>> but haven't diddled with it much yet.
>>> The demo was choppy too, so I was hoping the full game would be better
>>> but it seems the same. (The Brothers and Arms Earned in Blood demo was
>>> choppy but the retail runs silk smooth for me.)
>>>
>>
>> AMD 3500+ with ATI X800 XT PE as well, and ran great until near the end,
>> but still plenty playable.
>
> What resolution? I forgot to mention that I'm trying to play at 1600x1200
> (my LCD's native res). Haven't tried stepping down yet. (Still need to
> finish Q4). Lower resolution may get it smoother for me, but at the sake
> of the 'blurriness' you get with non-native resolution.
>

Oh yeah, sorry, forgot that tidbit. I ran it at 1024x768, Aniso, all options
on (except shadows I think) with 4xAA. I use this res only because I use a
projector for my games that has that native resolution. I haven't tried it
at 1600x1200 though, but think it might be a bit unplayable.