While not entirely so just yet, PC is looking to be the last refuge for people who don't want to be treated like fools by their games. Civilisation IV, Stalker, The Witcher, Risen; complexity is equal to quality, and a consolised development mentality is producing more and more junk.
Not going as far as to say it's a rule on consoles (as Demon's Souls and Darksiders suggest), but PC is where pure creative visions get a chance. And if the devs can't get it right, modders can lend ...
This game is ill.
Or Complete 2009
That simply isn't true. The episodes intersect with the main game in some minor ways, but each is entirely its own story.
It's called Second Life.
How could they possibly make a Call of Duty mission out of the Iranian embassy siege?
Break historical fact and add 50 terrorists to the situation? Yeah, I don't doubt they'd do it.
Meanwhile ArmA II has retained its community and people have stuck with it during some rough patches because it's a good game. Operation Flashpoint 2 was not.
Physx is purely aesthetic. All the destruction you saw there will be the same on ATI cards, the only difference being the particle effects. So many people get suckered into buying Nvidia for these pointless little tricks, and moreover pointlessly paying a massive amount more.
I find his comments absolutely horrifying.
A difficult game is by its nature a more interesting game, and if difficulty scares away players so be it. Something like Stalker could never be for everyone and nor should it. Call of Duty proves that the entirely scripted hallway shooter, simplistic enough to be played by many, has absolutely no tactical depth nor cerebral engagement.
Widening your potential market exponentially decreases the complexity of your game. "...
More than who?
Win 7 64 bit. I've never really had fluctuations like this besides games like Cryostasis and Stalker Call of Pripyat - to be expected. Far Cry 2 runs at a solid 60, Crysis is consistent at 40.
edit: Indeed, it shouldn't be this taxing. Normal settings actually looks alright so I'll just have to stick with that for a bit.
XFX Radeon 4890, slightly OC
4 GB DDR3 RAM OC @ 1666 mhz
intel i5 750 @ 2.7 Ghz
I can't even give an average fps because with AA off, DX10, 1920x1080, and high settings it fluctuates between 20 frames all the way up to 80 at times. It's completely erratic.
Nvidia users seem to be fine. It's likely an ATI issue - or 4A Games not optimising for ATI.
@tdrules
What are your specs? I'm having serious trouble at high settings with a HD 4890 and an intel i5. Doesn't make sense to me because I've had accounts from nvidia users with lesser cards saying that they can max the game out without a hitch.
Grow up, all of you.
Absolutely. It's lazy and absentminded criticism.
Wrong. The UK review is not up yet.
No. From the main site it seems that this the US score. Someone just linked to it through UK.
GTA IV if you're going by metacritic, I believe... just goes to show how little investment people should put in the majority of 'professional' reviews. Find a few sites you like, and forget the rest.
Fuel is an excellent comparison. I really could not care less about the tale they are trying to spin here, just that I want to ride through every inch of its world. Fuel unfortunately tacked a typical racing game on an atypical premise; that Red Dead is full of dynamic encounters seems to mean that they've anticipated that some might never even touch the main quest.