Scottish_rite's forum posts

  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

This is the latest update on Halo 3 ODST. After having recently purchased a used copy of this game from the bargain bin of my local video game store, I must say that I am terribly unimpressed with this game. Although I only paid 15 dollars for this game, I was expecting so much more from Bungie than what this game delivered. I mean come on! We're talking about Bungie here, the same people that delivered the first Halo game way back in 2000 that impressed the entire gaming community with an award-winning product. How could Bungie release such a dismal video game after having such phenominal success with Halo CE on the original Xbox? For instance, the graphics are poor and not up to the same standard as other Xbox 360 triple A titles, the gameplay tactics haven't improved since the first Halo, the framerate of the action is locked at an embarassing 30 frames-per-second, the A.I. hasn't improved since the first Halo game and in fact has actually devolved, and the writing and voice work is terrible with numerous instances of awkward timing and plenty of cringe-worthy moments throughout the entire story arc. Halo 3 ODST has but one shining jewel in it's crown and that is the absolutely stellar soundtrack that accompanies the gameplay: it's very moody and atmospheric and it's the kind of music that's beter suited to a mainstream Hollywood grade B flick than a very generic and highly unimpressive shooter like Halo 3 ODST.

Let's go over my main points more precisely:

1. Poor graphics: The graphics engine appears to be inferior to the original engine used in Halo: Combat Evolved at least in one respect: there's no anti-aliasing at all! This is absolutely unacceptable for an Xbox 360 title to not have sharp graphics and to look worse than the original game that started the franchise from 9 years earlier! Without any anti-aliasing like you would find in very impressive games like Gears of War and Fight Night Round 4, it becomes hard on the eyes to play the game for an extended period of time because the individual pixels that make up the games graphics are much more pronounced and combine to create a more-or-less abstract image of the scene at hand which requires the player to almost squint his eyes at times to see the image clearly which can produce eye strain. The bottom line: 1080i graphics resolution on an Xbox 360 just looks terrible without any anti-aliasing.

2. Poor framerate: The framerate appears to be locked at 30 fps which isn't acceptable for a first-person-shooter these days. It wasn't acceptable in 2007 and it's still not acceptable now. When rapid target acquisition is of the utmost importance in a game, then 30 fps action just won't do.

3. Poor gameplay: The formula hasn't changed much since the first Halo game in the series. This is the generic formula that Bungie still uses in Halo 3 ODST: Circle the target and shoot/ lob grenade/ circle the target and shoot. There's no need to crouch behind cover because the game doesn't support that; there's no mechanic built into the game to allow you to easily stick to surfaces to provide cover for your character from enemy gunfire. Enemy hit detection is not precise enough for players who prefer to snipe their targets from a distance.

4. Terrible A.I.: Not much else needs to be said here to prove the point: Just play the game yourself and find out just how pathetic the artificial intelligence really is. I will say this however, the A.I. has actually devolved from the very first game in the series. That game (original Halo) actually had received quite a few accolades and awards from the gaming industry for implementing such clever and nonscripted A.I.

5. Horrible voice acting: I'd actually recommend this game for people that would like to get a kick out of playing a game with some of the worst dialogue writing and voice acting that the industry is capable of just so you can say you experienced it yourself! Nothing more needs to be said here except this: Bottom line, the writing for this game was done by Bungie junior staffers more than likely who had no business writing at all. These guys couldn't even put together a to-do list if their life depended on it!

6. Great soundtrack: That is strange mystery here. Why such a good soundtrack to accompany such a poor game?!? The graphics are as bad as Halo 3 and Halo 2 and certainly just as bad as Halo Reach!

The verdict for Halo 3 ODST: This game is no better than Halo Reach. Sorry to disappoint you with that one.

Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

What country do you live in? Here in the U.S. computer builders buy our parts exclusively online. As long as you buy from a trusted retailor, such as Newegg, there is very little risk.

ender2009

I'm from Oregon. I just think it's always a risk to make an online purchase no matter what it is. There's no assurance that you'll actually get the product at all if you buy something electronically. So far, I've only purchased a few things online and only from reputable merchants that I know I can trust.

You're right about Nvidia and ATI--both companies make great graphics cards. I almost want to buy a whole new computer now because my motherboard is almost 3 years old with a dual core 2.66 Ghz processor. Most games require a 3.0 Ghz chip or faster...

Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

Now, after a lot of research on the internet, it seems to be a toss up between the Nvidia GTX 260 and the ATI HD 5770. Both cards have pros and cons... The 260 uses a lot of power and consequently generates a lot of heat, is almost 12 inches long and only gives a marginal improvement in frame rate on most next gen games over the 5770. On the other hand, the 5770 uses far less power, runs a lot cooler, gives a near equivalent frame rate performance, has support for Direct X11, and costs about $20 to $40 less (depending on which manufacturer you go with) and so it seems to be the clear winner. Although to be fair, I have read a lot of reports from users of the 5770 that ATI doesn't support it's cards very well with continuous driver updates and the cards can be glitchy on some motherboards. It's also hard to find this puppy on store shelves in any of the big retailers so one is forced to take the risk of purchasing it online. Still, I think I'm going to go with the 5770 anyways and take my chances with an online purchase...

Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

Acutally, his problem might be that he HAS the latest drivers. Nvidia has a lot of crappy drivers that dont work at all with older cards. I run the 181.20 64-bit drivers with my 8800 GTX, and i don't get that many issues with it.

If you play any source engine games, you might as well scrap it and get a new card. Nvidia simply can't make drivers that are stable with source engine games for that card.

matte3560
I always thought Nvidia made the best cards. Geez, all the games I like to play on my PC seem to have that little advertisement for nvidia when I start them up as if they designed the game to take full advantage of the cards features. I would think that another brand might not be the best choice because of that but I'll take whatever advice you guys can give me. I really appreciate the info, btw. The drivers I have for my card are about 6 months old and every time I updated them throughout the last 2 years I noticed a steady improvement in hardware performance so I don't think that's the issue. Well, I've got a budget of about $300 for a new card and if that's the best solution then I'll just replace my old card with something more current.
Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
No wonder you're having problems running games. I use to have the 8800GTS 320 version and it ran games HORRIBLY..but now after using eVGA's step-up program I got the 8800GTS-512 (G92) version and have been maxing games ever since. (except Crysis of course) Your best bet would be to get rid of that Card and get a new one..the 320mb card is really that bad imo.gamer082009
That's an idea, I hadn't even thought of that. It seems like the simplest thing to do and probably the most cost-effective thing to do as well. So are todays cards as compared to my old 8800 GTS much more powerful?
Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

It is a good game, very good game actually. But the technical flaws keep it from being absolutely awesome for me.

Chutebox
You're exactly right. It was all the technical flaws during combat and in other places that prevented most reviewers from giving it a perfect score. The games two saving graces was the brilliant and compelling story and the amazing visual design that prevented it from being lost to obscurity. I can't remember the last time I played through an entire rpg more than once and this game inspired me to play it through 3 times all because of the story! It also had some of the best music I've heard from a game in years...
Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
I gotta say man... I have much more respect for the graphics power of PS3 after watching a few clips of Killzone 2. I had no idea a game could look that good! These kind of graphics clearly rival those found in popular 360 titles like Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 to name a few. The game also won a slew of awards from Gamespot including best FPS and sound design for 2009. I was always under the impression that the 360 beat the PS3 in graphics performance because of games like Gears of War and the fact that it's a Microsoft product. Now all I gotta do is get my hands on one of these systems. If only they'd just bring down the price. What is it? About $400 for one of these consoles?
Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

GTS is less powerful than the GTX. There are basically 3 versions of the GTS, GTS (G80) 320 MB, GTS (G80) 640 MB, and GTS (G92) 512. Out of these, the 512 version is the newest and most powerful. It performs almost on par with the GTX. Do you know which version you have?

ender2009
I have the 320 mb version because I bought my computer when the GTS 8800 line had just been introduced back in 2007. At the time it was supposed to be the best system designed for gaming/photography work for the price according to the salesman. I had no clue about computers back then and I mistakenly purchased an extra 2 gigs of RAM because I thought it would help for games and not knowing that the 32-bit OS Vista wouldn't be able to use the extra memory. But it's all right because it came with a huge case with a glass panel on one side so I could check out the guts of my computer and it had totally cool blue neon lights on the mobo. The keys on the keyboard even lit up so I could play at night with the lights off! Even the mouse lit up all neon blue and it didn't even have a trackball.. I had never seen a rig like that before and it just blew me away! According to the literature, the case is supposed to be worth about $250 alone and it's huge and locks up like a safe. I should also maybe look into upgrading to Windows 7; I've been hearing reports that it's a much more streamlined OS. I've always known that Vista is a system resource hog but there was little that I could do because downgrading to XP was never a possibility. I'm going to start reading the discussions in this forum about pc hardware and educate myself a little more about all this technical stuff.
Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

Well, it really depends on how many amps are on the 12V. I have a friend that had Raidmax 500W PSU with 22A, haha. That's not even rated for ONE 8800GT, and he tried to throw another one in. His power supply literally exploded on the inside, and a huge spark came out the exhaust....

That being said, if you throw in another 8800 GTX, you will have a very powerful system.

ender2009
That's what I'm thinking, but I think I should definitely get a new 750 watt power supply before I do that based on what you guys are saying. And I have actually thought about just buying a new PC but I spent $2100 on my last one only 2 1/2 years ago and I just can't afford that right now. Additionally, my system was designed with upgradeability in mind, so I don't think I need to buy a whole new system just to give it a little boost to play the latest games at max settings. Eventually, I plan on buying a new system in a year or so when I can afford it if they keep putting out amazing games like Bioshock! Oh, btw, I meant to say that I have a GTS 8800 nvidia card... not GTX. I don't even know what the difference is... It would be nice to see what Crysis looks like on the highest settings and max resolution.
Avatar image for Scottish_rite
Scottish_rite

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 Scottish_rite
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="ender2009"]

You're kidding, right? An 8800GTX maxes out those games at like 70+ FPS. You must have not installed the proper drivers or something.

polarwrath11
Yep that card should still be able to run games fine, and bioshock should be running at really high framerates. Definitely lookup the latest drivers for the card, as they can make a world of difference. If you still having problems, you could maybe blame it on some kind of background application thats hogging your resources, so your system is inefficient!

I was just saying that originally Bioshock was a bit choppy at the highest settings with the supplied drivers for the card, but 3 months later Nvidia fixed that problem with updated drivers and the same for Supreme Commander... I just have problems with games like Crysis and FarCry2... I did a little research on the internet and I found out that NVidia recommends a power supply of 650 watts if you want to add 2 8800 GTS cards and I only have a 500 watt ps. These are the specs I found for my system fyi: The E2230 from Velocity Micro comes with a 2.67GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 processor, 2GB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM, a single 400GB 7,200 rpm hard drive and a 320GB GeForce 8800 GTS graphics card. .....The E2230's upgrade room is a key distinction. Like the lower-cost (and much slower) Velocity Micro E2035, this system has room for a second graphics card via Nvidia's SLI technology. Nvidia recommends at minimum a 650-watt PSU for two of those cards, depending on the number of watts going to the internal 12-volt power connectors. While it's likely that the Velocity's a 500-watt PSU would be able to handle two of those cards, we'd feel better if it had a power supply that met Nvidia's spec, especially if you wanted to add 8800 GTX cards or better down the road. I overclocked my cpu and graphics card so I'll need to bring them down to normal speeds if I get a second video card. And you know, I do have a lot of programs running in the background on my pc. I managed to disable a lot of them on startup by messing around with msconfig but I still have about 40 processes going on in the background using about 23% of the system resources. I'm afraid to disable a lot of those programs for fear of causing irreversible damage. I wonder if I can safely disable a few more of those programs to speed things up a bit...
  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3