qwertyqweqwertwqert
<Banned>
- 1,678
- 149
What was your resolution?
What is that from?
Ahhh, got'cha. Now you're blaming the resolution. Fuck if we put this thing on "lol, a toaster could run this graphics style better". Ya know, just gettin' an idea of where your head's at.
Like what? I have never visited that forum. It could be discussed here, and well, if it wasn't for all you stupid cunts.Why aren't you picking up on any of the points that are put out there that are being actively discussed on the Pantheon forums?
Even if one player was able to run it great, it's clear that many people had many issues running Vanguard, from good to poor systems. Having it be smooth on one system is not an accomplishment and does not mean it ran well. Having it be smooth for 95%+ of people who had the recommended specs does.
I could list every component. But I am the one who asked you first what your graphics card was.
I had more or less the same, core 2 duo I think 2.4ghz which I didn't overclock back then, 8800GTX not sli, 4gb ram, and a raptor. What was your resolution?
unity is very robust. But hell, leave it up to brad mcoxy to fuck that up.Ok I understand that Vanguard ran like shit on most peoples computers, Im not a tech savvy person but being as they are using Unity that shouldnt be a problem..should it? Ive only really only heard good things about unity
I never followed Brad during the whole Vanguard episode so wasnt really aware of all the drama when I backed Pantheon...the whole thing lost a lot of credibility with me with the whole Fuzzy troll holy rollers bullshit (I hated that cunt on the boards)unity is very robust. But hell, leave it up to brad mcoxy to fuck that up.
Resolution is one of the biggest determining factors on how peoples PC's play a game. The difference between 1680 and 1920 is huge. I now play at 2560 and it really cost me, not for the screen, but the upgrades needed to run games at this resolution.
Like what? I have never visited that forum. It could be discussed here, and well, if it wasn't for all you stupid cunts.
This is all bullshit. A high end machine would not "suffer" when running the game if you lowered the settings. I ran it ok with everything cranked on a high end machine and it was still ok, but if you lowered some of the settings it ran perfectly well. There was a setting in the game called Balanced which hardly looked any different to the ultra high, but was a lot easier on the hardware, and there were a million other settings you could tweak to improve performance. If you had a high end PC and you chose appropriate settings, it would have run well. You can't crank a game to full and use settings which were designed for future hardware and then whine about fps. Well you can, but you are a retard.
Love this. First of all states that we're not discussing Pantheon's advantages enough. Then freely admits to never having visited their boards.
I never followed Brad during the whole Vanguard episode so wasnt really aware of all the drama when I backed Pantheon...the whole thing lost a lot of credibility with me with the whole Fuzzy troll holy rollers bullshit (I hated that cunt on the boards)
but I firmly believe in Monty and Joppa...those two are who I am betting on to bring this game home
Yepyou literally had nearly the same machine as me. But mine was kind of better, and some how your computer ran it fine?
I don't think it was optimized at all. The game needed another year of development.If anything thats an indication of how poorly optimized for pcs vanguard really was.
It did. In a screenshot you would be hard pushed to tell the difference. Yeah you missed out on some stuff but it wasn't that different, and the point is, that is how you were supposed to play the game. They said the game was designed for future hardware, they did that for good reason. So people trying to run the game cranked was asking for failure.also balanced looked NOTHING like ultra high settings, which had really detailed shadows, huge draw distance, water reflection, animated trees
Nah resolution is everything in PC gaming. Especially nowadays, but even back then it was a big deal. I know because I had this same discussion with noobs on other games. People bitching about Arma2 running like shit on their uber PC and me saying it ran great for me, which it did. They said I was fake and gay etc. and to prove it, so I did. The reason was because I played at 1680x1050 and they were playing at 1920x1080. The difference is they had worse PC's than me, and yet were trying to run more than 2 million pixels, a third of a million more than me.Also resolution didnt really affect much games on my PC, that is, unless I was playing fucking vanguard! So you are wrong about resolution affecting performance, that is unless you are playing the short bus game vanguard!
Understand what? There is nothing to understand. The game ran well for me. It didn't for you. Poor you. But the comments about "game ran shit for everyone" is not true.How can you not understand this dude?
So? You gotta pay to be involved there, and the posts are noobish and dumb.
Understand what? There is nothing to understand. The game ran well for me. It didn't for you. Poor you. But the comments about "game ran shit for everyone" is not true.
I think it's been established that it was bad for most. I also built a new system to play it and had an 8800gtx, and it ran decently, but I didn't actually start playing until 3 months in following significant stability patches. Even then, there were CTDs, falling thru world and having to /flush all the time.I built a top of the line rig for vanguard complete with a 8800 gtx wich was like $800 at the time and the game ran like shit.