- Status
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I guess you could do it with a keyboard, but really driving games are best with a joypad. The rumblepad is excellent with this game.[/citation]
I'd say a G25 would be the best option for a driving game. A joypad really doesn't improve your options, but it does make it easier for the console generation to play a pc game.
Anyway, some racing games are very playable on keyboard. Grid and the need for speed series being some of them. And if you can be bothered to fiddle with configurations, cross racing championship and live for speed can be very playable on keyboards too in fact. But they aren't in their shipped defaults. I've got to say though, that if you play with traction control and abs turned off in racing games, you NEED an input device with stepless steering and accellerator/brake. But most games are made so that traction control on equals playing with digital (on/off) inputs like joypads and keyboard.
[citation][nom]Cletus_slackjawd[/nom]I agree completely with your well stated response. Consider that these types of websites are basically online magazines. A magazine makes it's money selling advertisement space so of course it's going to sell you on the idea of purchasing new hardware. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to put that into perspective when digesting the articles. The resolutions they are testing are unrealistic. You simply don't find those resolutions in monitors under US $2,000.00[/citation]
Congrats! you're the first person I've noticed which openly admits to agreeing with our favorite forum troll on .. well anything really.
I'd say a G25 would be the best option for a driving game. A joypad really doesn't improve your options, but it does make it easier for the console generation to play a pc game.
Anyway, some racing games are very playable on keyboard. Grid and the need for speed series being some of them. And if you can be bothered to fiddle with configurations, cross racing championship and live for speed can be very playable on keyboards too in fact. But they aren't in their shipped defaults. I've got to say though, that if you play with traction control and abs turned off in racing games, you NEED an input device with stepless steering and accellerator/brake. But most games are made so that traction control on equals playing with digital (on/off) inputs like joypads and keyboard.
[citation][nom]Cletus_slackjawd[/nom]I agree completely with your well stated response. Consider that these types of websites are basically online magazines. A magazine makes it's money selling advertisement space so of course it's going to sell you on the idea of purchasing new hardware. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to put that into perspective when digesting the articles. The resolutions they are testing are unrealistic. You simply don't find those resolutions in monitors under US $2,000.00[/citation]
Congrats! you're the first person I've noticed which openly admits to agreeing with our favorite forum troll on .. well anything really.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]Luscious[/nom]I haven't played this game yet but I'm a big fan of NFS:MW - can anyone comment if this is as good?Great review btw - concise, quick and clear. Tom's definitely needs a pc games section and more game performance reviews like this.[/citation]
Bah I'd just written a fuckload of stuff in a reply, and by accident I made ie eat it. Cock!
Oh well. I'll try again.
nfs and burnout have a lot of basic things in common. Both are steered in the same arcade manner. To get around a corner you aren't supposed to use your brakes or balance between grip and speed. What you do is use the handbrake, or do liftoff oversteer. Like in nfs that won't spin your car out of control, but simply make it 'run on tracks' round the corner. In fact there's the same lack of car physics in both games. In burnout there's no over and understeer based on driving style or car charactaristics (weight, wheelbase, drive etc). It's simply an arcade racing game. Like nfs games it has a variety of challenge types. There's a race type, which in essence is a point to point race, with the destination predefined, and the route being optional. Then there's a stunt mode, where you in essence have to keep the car in a 'stunt loop' from begin to end. This is easily done if you don't use a 'race' class car by using the nitrous feature you know from nfs. The point of stunt mode is to do stunts in succession without crashing. The same stunt can be performed serveral times, but it won't count more than once. More important than the score you attain is the multiplier applied to it. This is being upped by performing certain types of high risk stunts or hitting some signs that are usually hard to access and like the stunts only count once even if they respawn before the end of the stunt. Then there's a road rage race, which is simply a 'crash your opponents' thing. Unlike flatout, the cars will respawn, and there isn't a set course or any checkpoints. Like flatout's derby modes there's a timer dictating the end of your road rage though. And you've got a predefined amount of 'lives' as well though they can be reset in certain facilities scattered thruout the play world. Also there's a time trial mode. Same's the race mode, but with a time limit instead of rivals. On top of that there's a special trial mode unique in the way, that it can only be performed with a specific car. When that is won, you attain an upgraded and in most cases better version of the car. These events need only be raced once. All the other events 'reset' every time you advance your driving license. Unlike nfs as you progress your 'career' the game will actually get more difficult. In nfs games you simply drive longer courses or more laps, but here the time limits, the opponents, the target scores and the number of road rage kills increase. Stunt and road rage events advance based on how many of the types of event you've finished, while the rest seem based on license level. Cars by the way are not bought or chosen from a list of options like most nfs games. They're aquired by crashing them when you see them on the road. They get unlocked when you've attained predefined numbers of wins. A bit like undercover, where you win someone's car when you've beaten all his buddies and him. But it's a lot easier here - once you find one that is.
The game lacks lan support that doesn't depend on internet availability, and there are minor visual flaws - but the absense of an autosculpt feature means the game will most likely not crash at any point. Also it shares a handling issue with test drive unlimited. When you change surface the car reacts quite a lot to it, and there are tons of invisible walls to hit if you're trying to go ways that look possible but aren't. Also stunts mode often makes you fail in the 'eastern part' of the game world when you end up outside the predefined driving areas - something very easy to do at certain jump points. So it's best to perform stunt events near the bridge, or in town generally. Also like earlier nfs games taking shortcuts doesn't nessecarily improve your odds at winning. You could end up facing hte wrong direction, or being on the wrong road in the first place. So the more you play, the faster you drive - because you know where you end up.
I think that covers most of it. All in all it's a game worth buying if you like need for speed, and you don't need it for lan gaming. It doesn't hold the same multiplayer fun as flatout, revolt or insane, but for singleplayer and online gaming it's fine.
Bah I'd just written a fuckload of stuff in a reply, and by accident I made ie eat it. Cock!
Oh well. I'll try again.
nfs and burnout have a lot of basic things in common. Both are steered in the same arcade manner. To get around a corner you aren't supposed to use your brakes or balance between grip and speed. What you do is use the handbrake, or do liftoff oversteer. Like in nfs that won't spin your car out of control, but simply make it 'run on tracks' round the corner. In fact there's the same lack of car physics in both games. In burnout there's no over and understeer based on driving style or car charactaristics (weight, wheelbase, drive etc). It's simply an arcade racing game. Like nfs games it has a variety of challenge types. There's a race type, which in essence is a point to point race, with the destination predefined, and the route being optional. Then there's a stunt mode, where you in essence have to keep the car in a 'stunt loop' from begin to end. This is easily done if you don't use a 'race' class car by using the nitrous feature you know from nfs. The point of stunt mode is to do stunts in succession without crashing. The same stunt can be performed serveral times, but it won't count more than once. More important than the score you attain is the multiplier applied to it. This is being upped by performing certain types of high risk stunts or hitting some signs that are usually hard to access and like the stunts only count once even if they respawn before the end of the stunt. Then there's a road rage race, which is simply a 'crash your opponents' thing. Unlike flatout, the cars will respawn, and there isn't a set course or any checkpoints. Like flatout's derby modes there's a timer dictating the end of your road rage though. And you've got a predefined amount of 'lives' as well though they can be reset in certain facilities scattered thruout the play world. Also there's a time trial mode. Same's the race mode, but with a time limit instead of rivals. On top of that there's a special trial mode unique in the way, that it can only be performed with a specific car. When that is won, you attain an upgraded and in most cases better version of the car. These events need only be raced once. All the other events 'reset' every time you advance your driving license. Unlike nfs as you progress your 'career' the game will actually get more difficult. In nfs games you simply drive longer courses or more laps, but here the time limits, the opponents, the target scores and the number of road rage kills increase. Stunt and road rage events advance based on how many of the types of event you've finished, while the rest seem based on license level. Cars by the way are not bought or chosen from a list of options like most nfs games. They're aquired by crashing them when you see them on the road. They get unlocked when you've attained predefined numbers of wins. A bit like undercover, where you win someone's car when you've beaten all his buddies and him. But it's a lot easier here - once you find one that is.
The game lacks lan support that doesn't depend on internet availability, and there are minor visual flaws - but the absense of an autosculpt feature means the game will most likely not crash at any point. Also it shares a handling issue with test drive unlimited. When you change surface the car reacts quite a lot to it, and there are tons of invisible walls to hit if you're trying to go ways that look possible but aren't. Also stunts mode often makes you fail in the 'eastern part' of the game world when you end up outside the predefined driving areas - something very easy to do at certain jump points. So it's best to perform stunt events near the bridge, or in town generally. Also like earlier nfs games taking shortcuts doesn't nessecarily improve your odds at winning. You could end up facing hte wrong direction, or being on the wrong road in the first place. So the more you play, the faster you drive - because you know where you end up.
I think that covers most of it. All in all it's a game worth buying if you like need for speed, and you don't need it for lan gaming. It doesn't hold the same multiplayer fun as flatout, revolt or insane, but for singleplayer and online gaming it's fine.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]why do all reviewers consider any thing below 30fps "unplayable" 27 fps minimum is hardly what i'd call "unplayable" minimum frames are only really bad when they drop below 24 fps [/citation]
Well, it looks like you've replaced my arbatrary minimum number with your own arbatrary minimum number. And someone else will have their own arbatrary minimum number. It's a subjective quantity, unfortunately, so my experience might not mirror your own.
Having said that, I will point out a few things: it's my job to relay my experience. I've played the game with all of these cards, I didn't run them through a timedemo and walk away. To me, this game felt less responsive when I indicated as such.
And I'm far from saying that the game is unplayable on something like a Radeon 4650 at all resolutions; what I'm saying is that, in my opinon based on my hands on testing, the playability for that card is far superior at a lower resolution. I'm advocating that you'd get a better experience on this card playing 1680x1050 rather than 2560x1600, sacrificing some visual fidelity for smoother responsiveness. That's my experience.
As always, it's subjective. If you say you prefer playing it at 24 fps, that's your perogative. i'm not telling you to play it my way or else, I'm simply relaying my experience.
And for the record, there are lots of games that play well at 20 fps - and I've indicated as such iin my recviews. Real time strategy games and role-playing games are among them.
But twitch games, racing titles and first person shooters - I personally find they lack responsiveness when it counts unless the minimum FPS is somewhere around 30.
Take it for what it's worth, bro. Just one man's opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours as I am to mine.
Well, it looks like you've replaced my arbatrary minimum number with your own arbatrary minimum number. And someone else will have their own arbatrary minimum number. It's a subjective quantity, unfortunately, so my experience might not mirror your own.
Having said that, I will point out a few things: it's my job to relay my experience. I've played the game with all of these cards, I didn't run them through a timedemo and walk away. To me, this game felt less responsive when I indicated as such.
And I'm far from saying that the game is unplayable on something like a Radeon 4650 at all resolutions; what I'm saying is that, in my opinon based on my hands on testing, the playability for that card is far superior at a lower resolution. I'm advocating that you'd get a better experience on this card playing 1680x1050 rather than 2560x1600, sacrificing some visual fidelity for smoother responsiveness. That's my experience.
As always, it's subjective. If you say you prefer playing it at 24 fps, that's your perogative. i'm not telling you to play it my way or else, I'm simply relaying my experience.
And for the record, there are lots of games that play well at 20 fps - and I've indicated as such iin my recviews. Real time strategy games and role-playing games are among them.
But twitch games, racing titles and first person shooters - I personally find they lack responsiveness when it counts unless the minimum FPS is somewhere around 30.
Take it for what it's worth, bro. Just one man's opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours as I am to mine.
Kill@dor
Distinguished
- Apr 28, 2009
- 663
- 0
- 18,980
I have to agree with cknobman...ATI definately has better image quality over Nvidia. But then again...Nvidia can hold its own with with very good image quality and speed. I would rather get Nvida than ATI right now... Time to get rid of my 8800GT.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]I'd say a G25 would be the best option for a driving game. A joypad really doesn't improve your options, but it does make it easier for the console generation to play a pc game.Anyway, some racing games are very playable on keyboard. Grid and the need for speed series being some of them. [/citation]
Once again, it's subjective, right? I've never been much of a a console gamer but I can't stand playing a racing game on a keyboard because I don't like the lack of graduation in the steering; on the other hand, I have buddies who won't play with anything other than a keyboard. So yeah, admittedly it's all personal preference.
Personally, I find it harder to play with steering wheels, but I've been playing racing titles with a Logitech Rumblepad for years. So that's going to factor into my personal preference.
Once again, it's subjective, right? I've never been much of a a console gamer but I can't stand playing a racing game on a keyboard because I don't like the lack of graduation in the steering; on the other hand, I have buddies who won't play with anything other than a keyboard. So yeah, admittedly it's all personal preference.
Personally, I find it harder to play with steering wheels, but I've been playing racing titles with a Logitech Rumblepad for years. So that's going to factor into my personal preference.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]Cletus_slackjawd[/nom]Consider that these types of websites are basically online magazines. A magazine makes it's money selling advertisement space so of course it's going to sell you on the idea of purchasing new hardware. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to put that into perspective when digesting the articles. The resolutions they are testing are unrealistic. You simply don't find those resolutions in monitors under US $2,000.00[/citation]
Dude, my mandate is *not* to get you to buy new hardware. My editors haven't ever given me that directive, and if they did I'd probably hand in my resignation.
When i show benchmarks, I try to show both real-world as well as worst-case scenarios. 2560x1600 represents a worst-case scenario; really, how many people have 30" monitors out there? it's insignificant. but the performance does tell us something, and it's interesting because the average monitor size has ballooned in the past 5 years. In 3 years, a 30" monitor might be par for the course, who knows?
Now, me testing that res isn't the same as me suggesting everyone goes out and buys a 30" monitor. It's just an interesting academic excersise in seeing how this particular game performs with current hardware when pushed to the highest resolution available.
Dude, my mandate is *not* to get you to buy new hardware. My editors haven't ever given me that directive, and if they did I'd probably hand in my resignation.
When i show benchmarks, I try to show both real-world as well as worst-case scenarios. 2560x1600 represents a worst-case scenario; really, how many people have 30" monitors out there? it's insignificant. but the performance does tell us something, and it's interesting because the average monitor size has ballooned in the past 5 years. In 3 years, a 30" monitor might be par for the course, who knows?
Now, me testing that res isn't the same as me suggesting everyone goes out and buys a 30" monitor. It's just an interesting academic excersise in seeing how this particular game performs with current hardware when pushed to the highest resolution available.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
you can use it on multiple computers I believe, but each one would probably require the DVD to run it.
You couldn't play multiplayer unless each person had their own copy because you need to associate the game with your EA account to play multiplayer.
It realy sucks if you just want to LAN play.
You couldn't play multiplayer unless each person had their own copy because you need to associate the game with your EA account to play multiplayer.
It realy sucks if you just want to LAN play.
life626
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 145
- 0
- 18,690
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]you can use it on multiple computers I believe, but each one would probably require the DVD to run it.You couldn't play multiplayer unless each person had their own copy because you need to associate the game with your EA account to play multiplayer.It realy sucks if you just want to LAN play.[/citation]
What if they all are not on the internet can't you still play on the lan together?
What if they all are not on the internet can't you still play on the lan together?
- Jul 24, 2006
- 23,073
- 347
- 57,490
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]why do all reviewers consider any thing below 30fps "unplayable" 27 fps minimum is hardly what i'd call "unplayable" minimum frames are only really bad when tehy drop below 24 fps [/citation]
Well, I honestly don't give a crap about what you call unplayable. Nor do I give a crap what Don calls unplayable. You are both entitled to your opinions, but as Don is the author he has every right to put what he considers unplayable in there. I'll decide what is unplayable for myself, and look at the numbers rather than the opinion. Reviews are not designed to be tailored for you, just FYI.
Well, I honestly don't give a crap about what you call unplayable. Nor do I give a crap what Don calls unplayable. You are both entitled to your opinions, but as Don is the author he has every right to put what he considers unplayable in there. I'll decide what is unplayable for myself, and look at the numbers rather than the opinion. Reviews are not designed to be tailored for you, just FYI.
hustler539
Distinguished
- Nov 26, 2008
- 60
- 0
- 18,630
I didn't see it mentioned in the article but this game is quite a memory hog. For someone like me who is still on 2gb 🙁 this game took a big chunk of it when loaded. Task manager reported somewhere over 800mb used
- Jul 24, 2006
- 23,073
- 347
- 57,490
800MB isn't that much. Try World in Conflict with 2GB on a 32-bit OS. I couldn't get past the intro cinematics without getting out-of-memory errors.
rockstone1
Distinguished
- Oct 28, 2007
- 436
- 0
- 18,780
cletus_slackjawd
Distinguished
- Dec 26, 2006
- 347
- 0
- 18,790
Gave you a thumbs up Cleeve. Don't think it's playin the troll to state an opinion to see if someone can convince otherwise. Agree with what has been said here. Just like to keep an open mind and not blindly follow a review, cause it's easy to loose perspective. Besides, that's what these forums are for, discussion. Peace out... Constructive to the review: The images that actively cycle between the different cards and settings for comparison are awesome. Never seen that before in a review!
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]Cletus_slackjawd[/nom]Don't think it's playin the troll to state an opinion to see if someone can convince otherwise. Agree with what has been said here. Just like to keep an open mind and not blindly follow a review, cause it's easy to loose perspective. [/citation]
Absolutely I agree with that, Cletus. Open-mindedness is the goal, as every reviewer (myself included) will have their own slant on results, no matter how much we might strive to keep impartial.
Absolutely I agree with that, Cletus. Open-mindedness is the goal, as every reviewer (myself included) will have their own slant on results, no matter how much we might strive to keep impartial.
theangrygimp
Distinguished
- May 10, 2009
- 41
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]I have tested this claim, yes; though not with this game.I know enough about gaming to know that the human eye-brain coordination is not able to view faster than 20fps on a moving image, and perceive about 70fps when seeing black and white flashes.[/citation]
You know enough about gaming?? So I guess that makes you an Optometrist then, qualified to tell people medical information about the eyes?? You either have bad vision, or bad perception of motion. I can use fraps, and kick on recording at 30FPS while in a 40+FPS situation, and I can notice the difference immediately, even at only 10FPS difference above 30. The reason that sports on TV looks so much smoother in motion than the typical movie is cause they are filmed at a higher frame rate than the typical 24fps NTSC frame rate, and even non-gamers can tell the difference between those video sources. Once you start getting past 80+, the law of diminishing returns starts to really take effect, but still is better. I'd say around 100+ it becomes negligable to 98% of people, but that does not mean that no one out there has vision good enough to notice higher than that, even if I couldn't.
Finally, the game itself has a lot to do with what frame rate is reasonably playable. Turn based strategies don't need nearly the frame rate of games like burnout/tekken/COD/Dirt. Plus, if the game itself has very little motion most of the time (myst etc.), a high frame rate wouldn't matter or be noticeable most of the time either.
Finally, there are enough people who have made themselves clear about being able to notice differences in higher frame rates (30+). Don't go around talking crap and calling them, or myself, liars just to gratify your ego over your own genetic shortcomings. I can't do a backflip, does that mean I should go around saying others can't?
You know enough about gaming?? So I guess that makes you an Optometrist then, qualified to tell people medical information about the eyes?? You either have bad vision, or bad perception of motion. I can use fraps, and kick on recording at 30FPS while in a 40+FPS situation, and I can notice the difference immediately, even at only 10FPS difference above 30. The reason that sports on TV looks so much smoother in motion than the typical movie is cause they are filmed at a higher frame rate than the typical 24fps NTSC frame rate, and even non-gamers can tell the difference between those video sources. Once you start getting past 80+, the law of diminishing returns starts to really take effect, but still is better. I'd say around 100+ it becomes negligable to 98% of people, but that does not mean that no one out there has vision good enough to notice higher than that, even if I couldn't.
Finally, the game itself has a lot to do with what frame rate is reasonably playable. Turn based strategies don't need nearly the frame rate of games like burnout/tekken/COD/Dirt. Plus, if the game itself has very little motion most of the time (myst etc.), a high frame rate wouldn't matter or be noticeable most of the time either.
Finally, there are enough people who have made themselves clear about being able to notice differences in higher frame rates (30+). Don't go around talking crap and calling them, or myself, liars just to gratify your ego over your own genetic shortcomings. I can't do a backflip, does that mean I should go around saying others can't?
theangrygimp
Distinguished
- May 10, 2009
- 41
- 0
- 18,530
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]pavan563[/nom]will nvidia geforce 6200 64 bit 256MB with SM 3.0 Support this BurnOutParadise ultimate BoxGame I have all other requriments done.[/citation]
Yes, but it will run slow. You'll probably have to lower the resolution and details quite a bit.
Yes, but it will run slow. You'll probably have to lower the resolution and details quite a bit.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question PC idles at 65C, however when under load the temperatures stay 65C-70C.- Started by Kibuk
- Replies: 4
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram