FarCry vs. HL2 (please help)

[iyfyoufhl]

Guys, i got FarCry last night, it's an awsome game, but...

I play HL2 all on highest settings and it runs fine.
I played FarCry on medium settings and it's soooo slow on some of the parts, what the hell is wrong?

Please help

 

[jimbo118]

patch it i guess, defrag, the usual.

fc is pretty system intensive.

your specs?

 

[Mr. Redundant]

some games are merely better coded/optimized than others unfortunately.

Im in the same boat, you just have to fiddle with the settings until you find some compromise that is comfortable for you, somewhere between performance and quality.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

patch it i guess, defrag, the usual.

fc is pretty system intensive.

your specs?

yeah, that's what i did, i downloaded the patch but haven't had a chance to install it and run the game with it, i can't give you my specs right now cause i'm at work, but i'll come home do the patch if it's still bad i'll comeback and post it with my specs

 

[JellyWorld]

Halo is the worst in terms of optimization. Halo at 800*600 with shadows off runs slower than HL2 1280*1024 max settings (no AA/AF for either).

 

[socK]

Farcry ran pretty damn good for the most part, about the same as HL2. Looked nicer for the most part too.

 

[SenorDingDong]

Farcry ran pretty damn good for the most part, about the same as HL2. Looked nicer for the most part too.

no it defintly does not look nicer.

 

[socK]

Oh it looked pretty nice. Plus it looked even nicer when you set the rendermode to some other leet one and everything got this nice bloomy effect. I think it was nicer visually than HL2. I need to install it again. :[

 

[pomegranate]

I found FC actually ran better than HL2 on my system. I think it looked better....

 

[bvasgm]

Far Cry looks good, but not as good as HL2.

Also...Far Cry sucks.

 

[Doppelgofer]

Far Cry looks good, but not as good as HL2.

Also...Far Cry sucks.

i thought the water in far cry looked better but....the art direction in half-life 2 is amazing....its so fantastically detailed it makes me want to shit at times

...but then again, sometimes i play far cry and look across its lush islands and part of me thinks it looks better than half-life 2

i'll settle for they both look amazing

 

[pomegranate]

HL2's interior scenes were generally better, but I found the exterior scenes quite bland. Vice versa for FC.

 

[Doppelgofer]

HL2's interior scenes were generally better, but I found the exterior scenes quite bland. Vice versa for FC.

thats probably how i feel...but then again in half-life 2, when you go outside for the first time and see the breencast monitor high up with scanners floating about everywhere, i was gobsmacked with how it looked

 

[pomegranate]

Yeah I think I woulda liked it more on a better system, my system doesn't quite get the best out of HL2... on the other hand, I don't think HL2 really gets the best out of Source... I found the some of the urban locations quite mundane for example, compared to some of the concept ideas they had...

 

[Sparta]

Yeah same goes for me. For some reason it runs like shit on my system where as everything else runs fine. Doom 3, HL2, Riddick, all run fine but Far Cry doesnt. Don't know whats up with that.

 

[FictiousWill]

Farcry ran pretty damn good for the most part, about the same as HL2. Looked nicer for the most part too.

Yeah, far cry ran smoother and looked better. Better ragdolls too. Better AI....

I'll stop before I get attacked!

 

[Prince of China]

I thought that both were great games.
They both run very well on my computer and even on great detail settings. Far Cry was more challenging and longer.

 

[Sparta]

I agree with what FictiousWill said about the A.I and graphics, and with what Prince of China said about Far Cry being more challenging and longer.

But how anyone can think that those Far Cry Ragdoll's are better then Half-Life 2's is beyond me.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

This would be the same AI that was unable to shoot you from the other side of a bush. Fantastic.

 

[Sparta]

That was actually a glitch that was fixed in the first patch. And yeah that was incredibly stupid.

Actually now that i think about it Far Cry's A.I was way too glitchy. I remember cornering a guy behind a jeep on that Pier level and then when i came around the other side to pop him in the face he just danced around in circles for almost a minute before i shot him.

 

[Cole]

In FarCry I had a save right before a guy who was behind a tree...he couldn't get past the tree..so evertime with that save I would just shoot him no prob... He would never even try n shoot me

 

[Prince of China]

I agree with what FictiousWill said about the A.I and graphics, and with what Prince of China said about Far Cry being more challenging and longer.

But how anyone can think that those Far Cry Ragdoll's are better then Half-Life 2's is beyond me.

I agree, Half-Life 2's ragdolls are better.

 

[Alig]

Far Cry looks good, but not as good as HL2.

Also...Far Cry sucks.

To be honest, i find FarCry alot more fun and longer than HL2 ever was and i think FarCry's AI is also better than HL2's, maybe not down on paper, or in tech demo's but where it counts... whilst playing the game. I don't think HL2's graphics are very good either, sure they are nice and crisp but they don't look as good as FarCry's....thats my opinion anyway

@ Thread starter. Turn AA/AF down/off, don't even think for a second because your ATI card can run HL2 like its some 1980's game at 6x/16x so well, it'll be ab le to do even similar on FarCry. I run HL2 at 1280x1024 6x/16x no worries with my X800pro but FarCry is alot more intense, graphically, and 9 times out of 10 there is double on the screen than what there is in HL2 so turn the AA/AF off.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Far Cry is incredibly system intensive, wheras HL2 is incredibly not. HL2 is a better game, but that's not to say that Far Cry is rubbish...I think it's a brilliant game.

The graphics are both good, but Far Cry looks better at times simply because it's more beautiful. Tropical island vs crumbling city?

 

[pomegranate]

This is getting confusing. I found FC far less system intensive than HL2.
Startup time for FC was shorter, game loading times were shorter, graphics smoother and higher framerate than HL2 with the same settings, and I could alt-tab to desktop/ctrl-alt-del without it taking over a minute.
I'm not trying to slag HL2 (though I might be tempted to throw the idea out there that the Source engine isn't as close to perfect as the hype would suggest...), but it does seem odd... anyone wanna guess what differences in system resources are more important to the two games? The only thing I can think of is that HL2 might be more CPU intensive with the lip-syncing, physics calculations and supposedly more advanced AI, perhaps that is the situation.
My system spec is Pentium-M 1.8Ghz, 512mb RAM, 4200RPM HD, Radeon Mobility 9700 64mb. Yeah it's a laptop.

 

[Sparta]

Far Cry is incredibly system intensive, wheras HL2 is incredibly not. HL2 is a better game, but that's not to say that Far Cry is rubbish...I think it's a brilliant game.

The graphics are both good, but Far Cry looks better at times simply because it's more beautiful. Tropical island vs crumbling city?

Yeah true. There was one really good interior scene in Far Cry though, that level where you first meet the invisible guys, that had some pretty good lighting. But i still find HL2 better-looking even though Far Cry has better technology behind it.

Art-direction is the key to good looks. And Far Cry had little in that department. Most games have little in that department really...

 

[Doppelgofer]

This is getting confusing. I found FC far less system intensive than HL2.
Startup time for FC was shorter, game loading times were shorter, graphics smoother and higher framerate than HL2 with the same settings, and I could alt-tab to desktop/ctrl-alt-del without it taking over a minute.
I'm not trying to slag HL2 (though I might be tempted to throw the idea out there that the Source engine isn't as close to perfect as the hype would suggest...), but it does seem odd... anyone wanna guess what differences in system resources are more important to the two games? The only thing I can think of is that HL2 might be more CPU intensive with the lip-syncing, physics calculations and supposedly more advanced AI, perhaps that is the situation.
My system spec is Pentium-M 1.8Ghz, 512mb RAM, 4200RPM HD, Radeon Mobility 9700 64mb. Yeah it's a laptop.

i think the fact that half-life 2 takes ages in loading and alt-tabbing, etc has a lot to do with the whore that is steam

 

[Sulkdodds]

My system spec is Pentium-M 1.8Ghz, 512mb RAM, 4200RPM HD, Radeon Mobility 9700 64mb. Yeah it's a laptop.

2.8ghz, Radeon 9600 128MB (the crappy budget version, I forget what it's called). I run Far Cry on High graphics settings, with slowdown only at the beginning of levels and at checkpoints. Loading times are big, but then it's a big game. Half-Life 2, I can put everything up to full whack but the loading times are so long that I prefer medium sorta options - runs like a dream. Perhaps HL2 is more dependent on your graphics card wheras HL2 has more to do with your CPU?

 

[Sparta]

i think the fact that half-life 2 takes ages in loading and alt-tabbing, etc has a lot to do with the whore that is steam

Yeah i think you're right. I don't think its the engine but more Steam then anything else. Vampire Bloodlines loads faster then Riddick for me with just an added command line and thats on the source engine.

 

[giant384]

AI is alot better in farcry then hl2