I have a p4 2.4 machine with 1 gig DDR PC 2700 RAM with a GeForce 4 ti4600 and when I run the Far Cry Demo the frame rates are a joke. I would be lucky to get 3 fps with all the settings on minimum. I got the latest drivers and still nada. I d/l 'ed the painkiller demo and it runs sweet on full detail. I can also run May Payne 2 and Call of Duty on full res without an issue.

Anyone got any ideas at all what could be wrong?

i have a P4 3GHZ HT, 512MB DDR400, 9800 XT 256MB and this game runs like s***. i seriosuly don't believe it. when i have it on max settings, it seem to run the same as when have it on minimum settings, even though it looks worse, except when i turn AA on, the thing puts s*** on my screen (like in UT2K3 when ur in spectating mode and u go far through the walls and then look back). it takes like 20 times longer to load than Morrowind, and every now and then it would freeze for a few seconds, and then start moving again at turtle speed. when i try to exit, it takes another 5 minutes to get to desktop.

i seriously hope this game fixes up the glitches (probably will since it's only a beta demo) b/c from the 4 minutes of gameplay, i manged to JUST see some potential.

Don't run it with aa or any other "extra" features on other then high reso andhigh detail... p4 2.5 and a 9700 and it runs flawlessly at 1600X1200 and full detail... ur pc must be fubar GH

My specs are verys simliar to boxhead and yeh, ran pretty much flawlessy, AWESOME GRAPHICS!!

I have geforce 2, p4 1.6 and it runs flawlessly.

HAHA SURE!

yeah, i think it's time for a format, i scanned my PC recently and it came up with 88 files infected with this virus that's supposed to affect the memory, but no lethal damage though...maybe that's the problem...

I dont go on the NET at home on the machine in question. It never has actually. So no viruses for me. I also have virus software on it as well. I cant see why I would need a format (I know you didn't tell me to) as every other game I own/play works fine.

Even with all settingsd on minimum the fps is a joke. AA is off as far as I know too.

hmm funny thing just happened...Far Cry ran well! i did a few experiments. first, i had the settings in my ATI Display Settings set to optimal performance, and then, in the game, i turned off AA but had everything else at maximum including the resolution, and it ran perfectly, although the lack of video sync (a very hardware taxing setting if turned on) was disturbing.

so then i went back to desktop, and turned vertical sync back on and then had texture preference, mipmap detail level and Truform turned to max and then in-game, i kept the previous settings. the game still works fine! although i noticed there was a slight decrease in performance when Vertical Sync was on, but hell, this is waaay better than b4. but i have decided to keep resolutions to 1024X768 b/c this way i can have the other settings to max and still have an excellent frame-rate. finally, i can start playing this game properly.

i just had a 20 minute session on it and i must say i love this demo! i enjoy this free roaming experience, and i like how the enemy guards patrol the area like in a real situation, they don't just spawn out of nowhere. the jungle is very detailed, but i have seen better texture work though, namely in UT2K3 and Unreal 2, plus, Unreal 2 had better looking lighting (slightly), but the scope of this game certianly makes up for it. the water scenery is also one of the best i have ever seen. the water it self may not be anything too special since i believe Morrowind and Halo's water is just as good, but the things within the water, such as the lighting, the fish, the sea life...really reminds me of the Matrox Parhelia demos b4 the card was released.

one little thing that got to me was the mouse. it felt slightly laggy...maybe not so bad, but it certainly doesn't feel as tight as for example, Half-Life or UT. it's still better than Halo on PC though. the demo was very immersive, it automatically made me hide behind covers and shadows and look around corners. it's like the first time i played Halo on the XBox, except much better visuals.

i for one will definitely be looking forward to the full release of this game.

last edited by God's Hitman at 18:37:54 24/Feb/04

last edited by God's Hitman at 18:38:22 24/Feb/04

you can tell that you're a reviewer god's hitman :D

i can't help it, even demos get me worked up! :P

there and back again - "HAHA SURE!"

Geforce 2 GTS2 Pro 64mb AGP

Don't beleive me? Try it for yourself.

max pyne2 and painkiller have the same engine ( i think ) so that would explain y both of them run equally as well. i had a few probs with far cry but if u make sure the water effects are down and pop the res down 2 about 800x600 it should run fine ( you have to quit the game b4 the changes take effect so that might be what ur problem is )

As in quit to the desktop?

I turned off AA and got it up to about 5-10 fps. Still s*** though. Everytime I give up I hear someone say its worth playing so I am determined to get it going.

OS: WinXP Professional 5.1 Service Pack 1 (Build #2600)
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ (T-Bred) , 1.67 GHz
Video: Default Monitor on ATi ASUS Radeon A9600XT (1024x768x32bpp 75Hz)
Sound: C-Media Wave Device
Memory: Used: 281/768MB Uptime: 6h 13m 7s
HD: [C:] 4.71/111.79 GB [D:LAN s***] 18.84/19.13 GB

Runs fine

last edited by RamNinja at 14:29:32 27/Feb/04

I got the demo from my local game shop today. I'm really impressed. Loved it.
It was a bit sluggish at first, but that was my fault (can't help fiddling with the settings when I first try a game).
I'll definitely be buying Far Cry when it comes out.
I'm running an AMD 2600+, Win XP home, 512 RAM, radeon 256 Mb 9600 pro.

On another note: It really runs on a 64 meg GF2?
I'd be really amazed by that. My old GF4 would probably chug like a bitch with far cry.

'there and back again - "HAHA SURE!"

Geforce 2 GTS2 Pro 64mb AGP

Don't beleive me? Try it for yourself.'

It might run fine, but it obviously looks like crap, it can't run flawlessly and look as good as it does on my radeon 9800..... If you get me?

any1 kno wen the full version gets released?

and how much did you pay for that radeon? haha

'and how much did you pay for that radeon? haha'


Thats not the point, you pay for quality and you can't run Farcry at maximum quality (hence enjoy it), without paying FOR QUALITY. I shudder to think how bad and unenjoyable it would be on your computer, why bother even downloading it? haha?

60 fps at medium quality is enjoyable enough for me.

Yeh and you totally missed point.....

why would you want to play a s*** game like FAR CRY (sounds like FAR KEW) when BFV is coming out soon and Merciless Creations is working on 1.6? The demo was s***, it ran like s***, it felt like s***

My point was that I can run farcry on a geforce 2 flawlessly... on medium detail. If you we're not arguing that point then you are just fishing for an argument.

Perhaps you should look past your own pride and arrogance before you attack somebody.

Firstly I didn't attack you, I simply pointed out your flawed argument. Secondly, why would argue a point that isn't worth arguing? You're negating the very reason people are compelled to play a graphically superior game. You don't play a game that's designed for a much better video card. Its like trying to watch a new release movie on VHS, on an old VHS player, its not only stupid, it negates the reason of watching it in the first place. Don't you understand experience/quality? I am NOT fishing for an argument, I just won the argument you attempted to instigate. Mate, no offence, but you're wrong. :)

Maximum quality with great graphics has nothing to do with enjoyment, it is just a bonus. I have run quite a few games at lowest quality and still thouroughly enjoyed them. i got p3 800mhz, gf4 mx440 128mb (before september last year was running tnt2 16mb) Your argument is like saying gba games aint fun coz the graphics aint 3D.

Neither crytek or FarCry have released system requirements. Infact the FarCry site states that they are "Coming soon". So your argument of "FarCry is designed for a superior video card" is flawed itself.

All you people that are running DX8 cards and saying how good it runs seem to be unaware that Farcry is a DX9 game with back support for DX8. Most of the people who are having fps troubles are running DX9 cards which use more advanced features Eg. Pixleshader 2.0, mmm nice water. Farcry with DX8 and Farcry with DX9 are completely different.

Thankyou Psycho for that clarification, ZasZ, Mr_Shrimp; please refer to Psycho's post. As he pointed out its COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, hence a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT experience.......Understand? :)

The only reason you are running it 'flawlessly' is because your outdated cards don't even COME CLOSE to fully utilizing the DX9.0 graphical features the game boasts.

To quote a recent post by a certain someone:

Yeh and you totally missed point.....

So what if you dont get to see eyebrows moving or shimmering water or some total bollocks like that, my point was that games are still thouroughly ENJOYABLY with a lowend system/card. read what is written. totally different experience my arse.

and for those who want to know, the system requirements have now been released on the farcry website and are as follows:

Minimum:

Supported OS: Windows® 98SE/2000/XP (only)
Processor: AMD Athlon™ 1 GHz or Pentium® III 1 GHz
RAM: 256 MB
Video Card: 64 MB DirectX® 9.0b-compatible graphics card (see supported list)
Sound Card: DirectX® 9.0b-compatible PCI card
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (included on disc)
CD-ROM: 4x DVD or 16x CD-ROM
Hard Drive Space: 4 GB
Multiplayer: Broadband with 64 Kbps upstream to play (512 Kbps upstream to host 8 players)

Recommended:

Supported OS: Windows 98SE/2000/XP (only)
Processor: AMD Athlon 2400-3000+ or Pentium 4 2-3 GHz
RAM: 512-1024 MB
Video Card: 128 MB GeForce 4 128 MB to GeForce FX 5950; ATI Radeon 9500-9800 XT
Sound Card: Sound Blaster® Audigy® series
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (included on disc)
CD-ROM: 8x-16x DVD or 32x CD-ROM
Hard Drive Space: 4 GB
Multiplayer: Broadband with 64 Kbps upstream to play (512 Kbps upstream to host 8 players)

'So what if you dont get to see eyebrows moving or shimmering water or some total bollocks like that, my point was that games are still thouroughly ENJOYABLY with a lowend system/card. read what is written. totally different experience my arse. '

Aren't you totally negating the idea of progress in game graphics?? i.e. the whole point of DX9 games being made is so people with DX9 systems can fully utilize the new features which all together create a MUCH more immersive/enjoyable gaming experience? You can pretend to enjoy them, but you will NEVER get the experience intended by the respective developers, by playing their games on MINIMUM spec machines......

Thanks for proving my point by displaying Farcry's recommended minimum specs, notice the the DX9 video card? Are you starting to absorb the hints yet? :)

'So what if you dont get to see eyebrows moving or shimmering water or some total bollocks like that'

Furthermore, maybe you should slow down and actually READ about directx9 and the amazing array of features it delivers ontop of directx8....Try some research before you get all excited about mediocre graphics on a mediocre machine playing a higher than mediocre (graphics wise) game.

hey 'there and back again' I thought you did'nt play games m8? Ya must be sneakin' in a few games while you diligently complete your uni studies tsk, tsk.

The water in Farcry (using DX9) is the best ive ever seen, both up close and at a distance. And if you ask me it really does enhance the game play. Another feature is the light coronas (DX9 again) which also really enhancing play. These arnt just fancy graphical gimicks slaped in there, they really make the game more enjoyable IMO. Now it would be a problem if the game wasnt enjoable withought a dx9 card but by the sounds of it its still quite good. But i definitly would recomend upgrading for this game and some other obviouse future titles.

ok, i can admit when im wrong.

I still have fun playing Half Life. Games aren't always about the graphics, some people don't place as much importance on them as you do, possibly.

hmm cees, i don't really think you understand the point of this arguement (not that there is much of a point). it is true BFV is coming out soon and that it'll probably be an amazing game judging from the fact that BF1942 rocked, but so what? there are plenty of great games coming out...but what does that mean? you're just gonna get one of them? i think it's so stupid when ppl say stuff like "why bother with this game when this and this is coming out". unless you only get one game a year, this kind of arguement is pointless.

and as for the importance of graphics in a game, i think it is second to gameplay. pure graphics (nice looking models and textures) is not enough to do anything, if the rest of the game is s***, then this is wasted. u need to couple the basic graphics with a believable world that is both atmospheric and immersive (by making the world large, unpredictable and include many types of life forms such as birds and others, ofcourse, where appropriate in the game's world). all of this goes to the graphics department, since graphic department's job is to bring the world on the screen to the player's room. i think Far Cry has managed that, which is why i will be looking out for it.

gameplay matters a lot, but in my experiences, with FPS, as long as you have the basic structure nailed (such as how Halo only allows 2 weapons, and that the weapons are very strategically designed) then it should work fine, and from the demo, Far Cry certainly weren't disappointing.

i think it's really pointless to debate whether or not u can run this game on a GF2 or not since wtf cares? i know i don't. if you can play this game, then great! the textures and character modles may not look as crisp and smooth and sharp as a 9800 XT, but hey, if the frame rate is playable, then there is nothing wrong with it since the world is gonna be just as big.

Mr_Shrimp, you're not wrong and I am not right.

well isnt that nice. :D
to be honest, most of the games im looking out for aint on pc this year, e.g. MGS3, MGS:TTS, Driv3r etc. almost twin snakes time yippeeeee!!!!! :D

there and back again; yea, so my original statement is still true. I didn't say my picture quality was better did I? So basicly that whole little argument we had was pointless.

Playing and enjoying a game revolves around oneself separating from reality and not realising it. That is you get so involved in a game that you are oblivious to your real world surroundings.

The effect of achieving that requires (in my opinion) the formula of both graphics, gameplay and reason. Reason being the belief that what you are doing in a game has a purpose. By combining all these elements a completely emmersive game is made. I don't think having all of one element while neglecting the others makes a good game. No matter how good the graphics or gameplay is.

I'd say Far Cry rocks. Especially after playing it on Hard. If you just try and take in everything in the environment (sound and visuals) you'll know what I mean.

yo god's hitman, sweet what u say m8, but when I play a game even if it is a new game coming out and I think it's gonna better than Far Cry, I play it to have fun, not run around tweaking video settings and enjoying the way the water looks. And that's the great thing about a game like BF1942, you only need to buy one game a year cos' there is that many mods you can try and keep trying as they roll out. You ever played DC or FH or MC on a good server? Epic battles with 32, 64 players plus! What's Far Cry got, 8 players that's it, mate I game for the fun of it and it's not costing me f*** all. A bit of internet cost and a game or two a year. Plus there is the modding side of it, they can actually be as fun or more fun than actually playing the game. Far Cry is just one of those games that'll come and go, people will forget about it, no one will play it in a year, the hordes want Multiplay, why is The Sims so popular, online fantasy, Battlefield, online fantasy, m8 you've gotta to play a game that will last not pass into the gaming junkpile that is already too high. AUSSIE cees

I agree with sgt.tickles, almost completely. Whilst games are there to realise a world different from ur reality, u can still have an immersive game by creating another REALITY world, but just inside the screen rather than outside the screen and inside and beyond the room. There are different types of games ie. Games that describe the real world, and games that create an altogether different world, and offcourse, games that do a bit of both.

Cees, I agree, I don’t play games just for the sake of tweaking the settings around. But since I am always interested to see how my rig stacks up to the latest software, the initial stage of tweaking is unavoidable. But I have found a setting I am happy with, I settle down and then forget about it totally and then start to appreciate the actual game itself. As for the water, I never said anything about staring at the water (I don’t think I did). I did say the graphics and the environments play a large role in the enjoyment factor when playing a game, but really, if u understood my argument correctly, you would know that these things are merely worth glancing at, they are there to build up the atmosphere. By themselves, they are nothing.

As for BF1942, I play it very often, hell it’s probably the only full version game I play at the moment (replays of CoD take up my time as well, but replays don’t count. I’m also currently trying out Painkiller and DX2, but they’re only demos). I have Desert Combat V0.7 and the Galactic Conquest mod, but that’s not the point. My argument was that IF you only buy one game in a year, then what u said (how Far Cry is not worth everybody’s time since there are better games in ur opinion coming out such as BF:V) is valid. But since most of us don’t just buy one game a year, it’s stupid to say how you won’t get one game because another is better. If they’re both quality games, no mater how much one of them edges ahead of the other, the other is still worth the time and money.

How do you know Far Cry is gonna be one of those come and go games? How do you know the max multiplayer count is 8? How do you know it doesn’t have modding potential (actually, from what I heard, this game has massive modding potential since CryTek is gonna include a version of the FarCry builder in the game). You don’t have any prove for any of these claims. Truth is, I don’t know what’s gonna happen with this game, but since no one knows what the hell is going on, then we might as well be optimistic (unless ur a BF fanboy) since this game could possibly be the next Half-Life phenomenon and bring on a legion of mods that matches or exceeds CS.

One last thing. Single player games (let’s just pretend that FarCry is a single player heavy game for now) will always be different to multiplayer only games such as BF1942. playing online against real people will always require much more skill and experience that single player games, no matter how good the AI is, BUT, single player games have something multiplayer games don’t have, or lack (in the case of MMORPG, this may not be true, but we’re talking about FPS) and that is storyline. Storyline and good execution is what ultimately deliver a good immersive experience (proven by Half-Life). So far, I haven’t seen a single MP based FPS achieve that same sort of effect as a good single player game. MP games will always be competitive, but ultimately, you are who you are in that game world. In single player games, you take the role of another character, and you live through the story. I have yet to see that happen in a MP game, but im sure it will be possible one day with the world jumping onto the fast internet lane.

god's hitman, you are exactly right. cees, i dont own battlefield (i did play dc at lan cafe A LOT) but i did try the single player and i see NO point to it whatsoever. sure the multiplayer is fantastic but i see multiplayer as an addition to a game, not an essential factor. IMO cod was fantastic because it had a great singleplayer mode (plus its funny watching my dad try to do the russian campaign after a few beers). dont get me wrong, im not knocking bf or dc (infact i mean to buy it sometime soon now that ive got a parttime job and can handle the expense), i just think that for a balanced game, singleplayer is an important part.

I just loaded the latest ATI Catalyst 4.2 drivers on my 9800 pro and now dropping a lot more frames and the rocks appear a grey blocks.

yo God's Hitman (are you really God's Hitman?) m8 I guess I'm just hooked on BF1942 or BFV or COD or MOHAA series cos' I am ex-military, I'm a World War 2 historian and I love WW2 games, and also on the Merciless Creations team and we are currently producing MC1.6, and I actually spend more time on the modding and testing side of BF than actually playing it nowadays. Sweet mate, FarCry demo didn't run well for me and I 'd rather go back to what I enjoy with BF'42 than try to get a game like FarCry to work when I could be doing what I enjoy. And the amount of games coming out, I can't keep up with the new releases plus I have already spent considerable amounts of money on new games and my wife wants me to spend money on something more useful................that's what I like the WW2 franchise of game, but I really wish COD was a bit less story driven, it's just like MOHAA imo, maybe the new Pacific Assault with it's random way to go about the missions etc. is for me, I guess BFV and PA will be the next games I buy........AUSSIE cees

i have an 80286 with 2 meg of ram and dos 5.0 and Farcry runs perfectly on my P4 3.0 800FSB Geforce FX 5800 thats sitting next to the cabinet that I stuffed it into, so i dont see why you should have a problem? I mean 80286's are heaps slow...

what's a 80286? weird...

hey Bexxman, that's interesting, i never tried the demo b4 i got the 4.2 drivers, so i dont know how well it performed whilst i had the 3.10 drivers. but i can't be bothered switching back so let's hope this "problem" gets ironed out for the full release. it runs fine now for me though at the settings i described b4 so that's a relief.

as for the single/multiplayer thing, i guess in the end, different people appreciate different things. i will always spend more time and effort on the multiplayer area of a game, but i will also always enjoy the single player game more. i have just recently purchased CoD and i think the "story" part of the game adds more character. it makes the AI feel like real people at times, which helps balance out some of the flaws with single player games. the multiplayer side of the game is pretty similar affair to other MP games, but since the actual game mechanics is excellent, it does stand a little more ahead. i believe the game is different to the MoH games, but this game keeps the tension and intensity going all the way. there is ALWAYS something going on in the background, and you truly never feel alone. in MoH, there are many moments like this, but not entirely.

but yeah anyways, everyone's different, so there's nothing wrong if you enjoy MP more than SP. i got pretty excited over this topic b/c i recently read a few letters in various magazines and many people chose MP over SP games because of reasons that i think just misses the point. like i said, when u play a good SP game, u take the role of someone else, and live through an alternate universe. in MP game, you are who you are, which ultimately only provides competition, which is both a good thing but can also be a bad thing if it goes overboard.

Y'know, I don't know why anyone would want to play anything but Doom.
Cmon, compared to that, every other 3d game is just dirivative tripe.
Errm... Except maybe Wolfenstein... Or Rise of the Triads. Can't quite recall.
Hell, why don't we all just get NES's and play Mario Bros in it's true form?
Or a Sega Master System so we can play Hang-On?

Seriously though, I need variety in my games, and I love BF1942, but I also loved Call of Duty. And hell if I'm not playing Morrowind as well as Neverwinter Nights.
Good luck to Far Cry is all I can say. We don't need every game to be the same as BF, nor do we need them to be UT clones. Just enjoy the diversity.

Hey Cees, if your into WW2 games then you should check out the many ww2 themed addons for "Operation Flashpoint", you can check some of them out here: http://dynamic6.gamespy.com/%7Eww2ec/

Hm, Operation Flashpoint is actualy a good example of a game that relies on gameplay, both mp ans sp, rather than flashy graphics (unless you turn everything up which will crunch on anything less than a supercomputer). Probably best AI and realism in any game ive ever seen too.

lol Chaotis, i was just about scold you then i realised u were veing sarcastic... :D

im a little slow when it comes to internet humour :P

This game use to run fine on my pc, now for some reason it goes to a blue screen apon level loading and then reboots my machine :O

I'm getting annoyed, does any1 have any ideas? I have latest drivers and what not etc etc,, Maybe it don't like latest drivers?


System is nforce2 xp2800+ and 9800XT

I just got this Demo yesterday from the latest PC Powerplay Mag. I must say GOD DAM.. Graphics r superb. I am running all at Very High and it is not lagging one bit

P4 2.8 (o/c 3.09)
Asus P4C800 Deluxe
1 GB DDR Dual Channel
HIS Excal 9600 Pro (slightly o/c)

Carn't wait for this game to hit the shelf. I will be buying it.

u dont need a radeon 9800xt 2 run farcry. my 9600xt runs perfectly

My 9600 Pro runs it sweet.


I am amazed at the graphics...

Best ive eva seen

The graphics in FarCry are some of the best I've seen, especially when you tweak the level files to up the water quality. If you unzip the level.pak files and open either "mission_fort.xml" or "mission_research.xml" and change the value of Water="WaterTexture_onlySky" to Water="WaterTexture", it causes the water to reflect everything within the game.

Here are some other console commands I found on the net.

USEFUL CONSOLE COMMANDS

\ca_drawbones 1 -- Display bones used by skeletal animation engine
\hud_panoramic 1 -- Use with cl_display_hud 0, play in letterbox mode for a movie-like experience
\e_terrain_lod_ratio -- Set to 1 or less to display more detail in the terrain far ahead
\meminfo 1 -- Display interesting information about game modules and memory consumption
\r_stats 1 -- Display info on current shaders and textures
\r_rendermode 0 -- Normal mode
\r_rendermode 1 -- Use "soft light" renderer for a dreamy effect
\r_rendermode 2 -- Use "cold colors" renderer for a realistic effect
\r_rendermode 3 -- Use "cel shaded" renderer for a cartoony, XIII-like effect
\r_rendermode 4 -- Use "ultra contrast" renderer if you want to ruin your eyes because you can't see anything
\e_water_ocean_sun_reflection 1 - Enable cool effect of sun reflecting in water

\r_waterreflections 1 -- Already enabled by default, consider disabling it to boost fps
\r_waterrefractions 1 -- Disabled by default, enable for refraction effect in water
\save_game savename -- Saves the current game into the file AnySaveGame
\load_game savename -- Obviously, loads save game AnySaveGame from disk
\start_frame_display -- I'm not even gonna try to explain what's going on there, lots of cool renderer stats
\start_frame_profiling -- Remove stats shown with start_frame_display
\w_recoil_max_degree 0 -- For you ladies out there, disables the recoil of all the guns
\w_accuracy_decay_speed 0 -- Another one for the mouse-handicapped, gun accuracy remains steady while firing
\e_deformable_terrain 1 -- It will take the rocket launcher to do it, and only in open terrain, not near trees or buildings. It won't do a huge hole like GeoMod did either, but it shows it is possible in this engine

Have fun