I just don't get it...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

.... Return of Castle Wolfenstein on my 2.8 Ghz 6600GT runs SMOOTH AS
SILK at 1280x1024 with all the eye candy (looks great!) but Call of
Duty is very 'framey' - especially with a little action going on..
anyone know why? Is that just the way Call of Duty is? Thanks a
lot!

Kevin
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Odd ...COD is more demanding..but there both (basically) Quake 3 engine
games..
Perhaps you have Anti-Alailasing and/or Ansatropic filtering turn on
(high?).
...(mine got dees graphical vords r 'ard to spellin proper)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

trimble bracegirdle wrote:
> Odd ...COD is more demanding..but there both (basically) Quake 3 engine
> games..
> Perhaps you have Anti-Alailasing and/or Ansatropic filtering turn on
> (high?).
> ..(mine got dees graphical vords r 'ard to spellin proper)
>
>

Apart from CoD supporting pixel-shaders and RtoCW not having such a
feature, the only other major difference might be the higher polygon
counts in CoD. It is a newer game after all; it needed to look decent.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

sayNO2steam wrote:
> "buying games via download is like eating food without salt
> its completely tasteless unless you sell a game in a package"

Agree with the point of your main post, but eating food without salt is
healthy and much better for you. There's plenty enought salt in the
foods already without adding extra. And far, from being tasteless, the
food will actually taste like what it is, not of salt.

As for the second line, I buy games in boxes and it hasn't changed the
way my food tastes.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Fred600600" <Fred600600@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76r711dhtsv317d47cvc6fa3p39tsvn827@4ax.com...
>
> ... Return of Castle Wolfenstein on my 2.8 Ghz 6600GT runs SMOOTH AS
> SILK at 1280x1024 with all the eye candy (looks great!) but Call of
> Duty is very 'framey' - especially with a little action going on..
> anyone know why? Is that just the way Call of Duty is? Thanks a
> lot!
>
> Kevin

Recommend that you update your drivers. I was doing fine with most games
with ATI driver X. But then a new game came out and it was pretty jerky on
my system, even though other similar games ran fine. Right after updating
my ATI driver to the latest version the new game ran fine.

Also, you don't have anything else running while trying to play CoD?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, "OldDog" wrote:

> Recommend that you update your drivers. I was doing fine with most games
> with ATI driver X. But then a new game came out and it was pretty jerky on
> my system, even though other similar games ran fine. Right after updating
> my ATI driver to the latest version the new game ran fine.
>
> Also, you don't have anything else running while trying to play CoD?

i like to keep it simple
isn't it just a math thing?
call me basic but one game in from 2001 and another is from 2003
they have two years apart so obviously the older must run faster

one thing i like to see in games in the release date, cause this
way i know what to expect when it comes to my machine performance

when it comes to pc games i currently choose them like wine, the
older the better :)

--
"buying games via download is like eating food without salt
its completely tasteless unless you sell a game in a package"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"It is a newer game after all; it needed to look decent."
This should be the motto for all the game developers in the world . Amen

GFree wrote:

> trimble bracegirdle wrote:
> > Odd ...COD is more demanding..but there both (basically) Quake 3 engine
> > games..
> > Perhaps you have Anti-Alailasing and/or Ansatropic filtering turn on
> > (high?).
> > ..(mine got dees graphical vords r 'ard to spellin proper)
> >
> >
>
> Apart from CoD supporting pixel-shaders and RtoCW not having such a
> feature, the only other major difference might be the higher polygon
> counts in CoD. It is a newer game after all; it needed to look decent.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

STOP TOP-POSTING ;-)
"STEAMMadman" <steammadman@doesnotexist.com> wrote in message
news:421415BB.ECAABE76@doesnotexist.com...
> "It is a newer game after all; it needed to look decent."
> This should be the motto for all the game developers in the world . Amen
>
> GFree wrote:
>
> > trimble bracegirdle wrote:
> > > Odd ...COD is more demanding..but there both (basically) Quake 3
engine
> > > games..
> > > Perhaps you have Anti-Alailasing and/or Ansatropic filtering turn on
> > > (high?).
> > > ..(mine got dees graphical vords r 'ard to spellin proper)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Apart from CoD supporting pixel-shaders and RtoCW not having such a
> > feature, the only other major difference might be the higher polygon
> > counts in CoD. It is a newer game after all; it needed to look decent.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

STEAMMadman wrote:
> "It is a newer game after all; it needed to look decent."
> This should be the motto for all the game developers in the world . Amen
>

Now I'm confused. People have been complaining for a while about how
many games focus on graphics instead of gameplay (eg. Doom 3).
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly STEAMMadman <steammadman@doesnotexist.com> Spake Unto All:

>"It is a newer game after all; it needed to look decent."
>This should be the motto for all the game developers in the world . Amen

I'm getting a reading on my irony-detector, but I don't know why -
seems a very reasonable motto for game developers around the world to
me.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Tecumseh wrote:
> STOP TOP-POSTING ;-)

You sound like a Linux advocate.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

sayNO2piracy wrote:
> > As for the second line, I buy games in boxes and it hasn't changed
the
> > way my food tastes.
>
> valve wants to end all that!
> valve wants to kill the retail market!
> valve is using the retail market, infecting it so they can ultimately
> kill it cowardly
> if you are like me that wants its pc games in a BOX say no to valve!
> you have to understand that steam wants to monopolize pc games!
> if you choose steam you kill pc games in boxes
> valve doesn't want steam to share the market with retail... valve
wants
> the total and complete domination!
> --- 8< SNIP 8< ---

I have a theory. You recall the film Beetlejuice? If you say his name
three times he appears. I think other fairy tales have a similar
concept. Well, on these boards if you mention the words "box",
"retail", "online" or (for the very brave) "steam", difool will
magically appear and rant. Regardless of context.
It's like a killfile in reverse.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 17 Feb 2005, "Chadwick" wrote:

> Agree with the point of your main post, but eating food without salt is
> healthy and much better for you. There's plenty enought salt in the
> foods already without adding extra. And far, from being tasteless, the
> food will actually taste like what it is, not of salt.

i wasn't thinking about medical issues when i wrote that... but i'm sure
you know exactly what i was referring too

> As for the second line, I buy games in boxes and it hasn't changed the
> way my food tastes.

valve wants to end all that!
valve wants to kill the retail market!
valve is using the retail market, infecting it so they can ultimately
kill it cowardly
if you are like me that wants its pc games in a BOX say no to valve!
you have to understand that steam wants to monopolize pc games!
if you choose steam you kill pc games in boxes
valve doesn't want steam to share the market with retail... valve wants
the total and complete domination!

if you want to continue buying pc games in "boxes" you must think very
carefully about what steam is doing, which is wrong and against pc games!

--
its only in the hands of every pc gamer defend what he likes the most
its only pc gamers who will lose with piracy cause the publishers and
developers will find other businesses to work in without being robbed
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"sayNO2piracy" <sayNO2steam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qbfb119e7d4hv2u8ptm7lag9e38pqlmpnf@4ax.com...
> On 17 Feb 2005, "Chadwick" wrote:
<snip>
> > As for the second line, I buy games in boxes and it hasn't changed the
> > way my food tastes.
>
> valve wants to end all that!
> valve wants to kill the retail market!
> valve is using the retail market, infecting it so they can ultimately
> kill it cowardly
> if you are like me that wants its pc games in a BOX say no to valve!
> you have to understand that steam wants to monopolize pc games!
> if you choose steam you kill pc games in boxes
> valve doesn't want steam to share the market with retail... valve wants
> the total and complete domination!
>
> if you want to continue buying pc games in "boxes" you must think very
> carefully about what steam is doing, which is wrong and against pc games!
>

If you want to save a tree and the envirnoment, say YES to Steam.
No more boxes!
No more boxes!
I want no more boxes!
We pc gamers want no more boxes!

Sing along with me.

Steam is right.
Boxes are wrong.
Steam is right.
Boxes are wrong.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Hi,

Fred600600 <Fred600600@hotmail.com> wrote:
#... Return of Castle Wolfenstein on my 2.8 Ghz 6600GT runs SMOOTH AS
#SILK at 1280x1024 with all the eye candy (looks great!) but Call of
#Duty is very 'framey' - especially with a little action going on..
#anyone know why? Is that just the way Call of Duty is? Thanks a
#lot!

No. Both ran smooth as silk on my old AMD XP2200+ with a 6600GT, before
it got turned into a 64bit system, online or off. It should rock on
your 2.8GHz machine (P4?)

Look at/update your sound board drivers, particularly if you are using
EAX2.0/3.0, and, of course, your NVIDIA drivers.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Just say "no" to liars SCO and Soyo
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Return services to local CIS offices!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom