Please stop b*tching!

[Labrie]

I stopped viewing this forum a few months ago because everywhere you looked people were always whining and complaining about how this game sucks and it takes so much to run it. I returned recently looking for a new patch and STILL all people do around here is whine and complain about the same crap over and over again. For the love of god, STFU! No one cares anymore that crappy fx5200's can't run this game. Everyone thought that if their low end p.o.s can run max payne 2 then it should run this game fine...wrong! I'm sick of people complaining that they can't run this game. All I have to say is get a better computer. If you have a 9600pro or above/equivalent you will have no problems running this game with good detail and resolutions. If you haven't got the money to upgrade then you don't deserve to b*tch about the performance of this game. Its not common sense that new high end games, require new high end systems to run them. If you people are complaining this much over this game, I can't wait to hear you when HL2 comes out because believe me, it will be even worse. I have no doubts that people will still say "why can't my geforce ti4200 run HL2?" . So next time people want to rant about old news thats been talked about long before you ever came along, do you homework so you don't look like a n00b whos just making an ass out of himself!

You really are ignorant aren't you? Some of us are complaining for valid reasons. I have a 2gHz cpu and a gig of ram, the only thing thats not the best is my ti4200.

However, just because I haven't got the latest top-of-the-line graphics card like your l337 machine does, doesnt mean I have to just put up with absolutely terrible framerates. Look at the system specs and the supported cards and tell me I haven't got the right to expect a little more than 15-25 fps from this game, I mean they say that a geforce 3 is even supported.

I think its a case of BS system specs. You'd have much less people in here angry if the dang thing would run smoothly on the systems they SAY it will run on. If it needs better than a ti4200 to play with acceptable framerates, well for god's sake put that on the requirements. Or is their idea of acceptable framerates 20 fps at the lowest rosolution/level of detail.

Oh, and as another epample, I just finished downloading the demo for PainKiller... graphics are simply stunning, Awesome lighting and very well done physics, and it runs at 50+ fps with details high on 1024 res. I have played many games that look way better graphically than DE:IW that have SUCH better performance on this rig that I can't accept that its solely my computers fault and not a badly done game.

So by your reasoning, I shouldn't complain If i buy a discman, and upon finding out that this takes 5 aaa batteries to run it instead of two like it said on the box, because its just my fault for not having enough batteries on hand.

(bad analogy i cant think straight this annoyed.)
/end rant

[Labrie]

I'm not ignorant but if you read the requirements then you must have also read the recommended requirements. Just because it says it will support a 32meg video card doesn't mean that it will run good. There not going to say, if you have "this card" it will run "this good". System requirements are only there to specify the absolute lowest specs to start the game. Not anywhere in there does it say that the 32meg card will run this game perfectly. It also says that it should be a dx9 compatible video card. This obviously means that this game will be using dx9 features and therefore your ti4200 will run this game crappy because your card does not support dx9. You DO have to put up with terrible framerates because your card is struggling so much to keep up with the what the game is feeding it and because of this, you physically do NOT have the right to get more frames then your getting, its just not possible.

Sorry, I dont buy it. I've played newer and more "cutting edge" games than this on my computer with WAY better performance. If I saw something in this game that would justify these obscene system requirements, then I would shut up and buy a new video card. My argument is that this game should'nt have such beefy specs needed as theres nothing THAT special in it. It's inneficiently ported to PC or something, because I KNOW what my computer is capable of, and this is obviously not entirely the fault of my "Low end" computer.

If its running so well on your system than jump off your high-horse and go back to playing DX.

[Labrie]

Maybe you don't quite understand the differences between dx8 and 9. It's no doubt that the game runs on a poorly made engine but to use a better analogy: You run 3dmark01 and get a really nice score like 10000 or so lets just say, which is reasonable because its testing dx8 capabilities which your card excells in. Now you go and test your card using 3dmark03 and you get a score of 800 (at least thats what my friend scores, with your card) Your thinking, "what the hell is going on here". The shadows and lighting and physics may look the same on screen but are built using totally different software. If your card doesn't support that new software because it doesn't recognize the code, then it takes out of it what it does know and uses that to the best of its ability, which in turn equals bad performance. New games that seem to run good on your card like max payne 2 and call of duty etc run good because they are more backwards compatible with earlier versions of directx. DX-IW is not so compatible because it is strictly based on dx9. New games like HL2 and Doom 3 will run the same way because they are completely based on dx9 software. Meaning if you don't have a dx9 video card then chances are you won't be able to run it and if you can run it you might be missing parts of the sky here and there and it will just look like garbage.

No I do understand...
Heh 3dmarko3 is bad but not 800
I think i got 1400 or so on that... get 12000 3dmarks in 01 so i do know theres a difference... but 3dmark is SUPPOSED to make your card crawl and use all of the newest goodies in dx9. ITs purposefully testing dx9 performance. You shouldnt have to get 4000 pts in 3dmark03 to run a game thats been out for a while now and can be run with x-friggin-box generation hardware. Why not set a few scalability settings in there to lessen the requirements of the dx9 effects. From what I'm hearing of HL2 by the way, they're adding the ability to scale the engine down to the point where it will run on a 32mb tnt2!! (although u'd need a very fast cpu and you'd see super small textures and only dx6 level effects) But at least they are trying to include those of us who dont have the money to buy a whole new computer at once, and must squeeze a bit more life out of their trusty ti4200.

DX:IW uses the "make everyone get the fastest hardware possible to play this game and forget optimising it" philosophy i think.

THAT is why i am irked.... They seem to have made no effort to ensure a FUN experience for as many people as possible.. only interested in getting this PC version out to squeeze some more $ out of this thing b4 X-Mas, and to heck with those of us who only have a 128mb ti4200.

[Labrie]

Well, there are only two big games that fully utilize dx9 and that would be Halo and DX-IW. The fact that they are so hard to run is because of the fact they are not very backwards compatible and this is why there are no scalability options available. I know they said HL2 would be able to run on low end machines but by the time it is released I highly doubt that will be the case. Games keep moving forward just like technology does and people like yourself get mad because their not slowing down to wait for you to upgrade. Its not fair, I know but thats just the way things go in the tech world.

I have halo... it runs acceptably at 1024x768 and very fast at 800x600 on this rig.
Heh but thanks for the sympathy finally
The tone of your post just got me mad..... as i've just spend the last few days trying to tweak this into playability, knowing full well that my computer should be strong enough, regardless of dx9 support. (like i said, halo runs alright on here)

[Labrie]

halo you can force to use lower version pixel shaders which will give you better performace. I don't know if there is a way with IW and I take it you've done all the tweaks already mentioned on this board?

Lol oh yeah and then some i invented myself lol.... I've already got my system tweaked out to it's max, everything runs sweet except this.

Tried both versions of game, all the ini tweaks some of the ini tweaks, every driver and setting on the drivers possible...anyhow tweaked for 2 days, the end result was absolutely ugly graphics at a low resolution, no shadows, etc, bam maxing out at 25fps. with many many slowdowns to ridiculous 10fps rates..

The boost from the tweaks was all minimal. Increasing the cache size seemed to help a weeny bit, only with the odd stutter from caching to disk, though with 1024 ram i dont find my pagefile gets used a whole lot by anything these days.

Im waiting to replace this gfx card, probably with a 5900 class so hopefully that will help some....but that card will be a while away as I am in a financial place that is far from the computer store...

[Random]

It's not the same people constantly complaining. If new players can't run the game smoothly, they'll come here and say so as well. The fact is, the game does run slowly. It doesn't really bother me -- it runs better on my GF3 than I thought it would -- but others haven't been so lucky. Complaints are to be expected. Hopefully the next patch will help a bit.

[BadMojo]

I have a 3.3ghz machine with a gig of ram and a geforce FX 5900U.

This game runs as though I have a PII-400 with 64MB ram and a TnT2 Ultra.

Explain that...when all other games runs fine.

[DreamEndless]

Originally posted by Labrie
Well, there are only two big games that fully utilize dx9 and that would be Halo and DX-IW. The fact that they are so hard to run is because of the fact they are not very backwards compatible and this is why there are no scalability options available. I know they said HL2 would be able to run on low end machines but by the time it is released I highly doubt that will be the case. Games keep moving forward just like technology does and people like yourself get mad because their not slowing down to wait for you to upgrade. Its not fair, I know but thats just the way things go in the tech world.

I'm not gonna get caught in this argument but I thought you should know:
Neither of these games are DX9 games. Halo is closer and that is only 'cos it uses PS2.0 (and uses it for no good reason with totally crap results as it happens). DX-IW does not use ANY of DX9. Not a single shader. It is a DX8 game. Pure and simple.

Having facts straight makes arguing the fact that you are right (which I think you are for what it's worth) a whole lot easier

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by DreamEndless
DX-IW does not use ANY of DX9. Not a single shader. It is a DX8 game. Pure and simple.

I was thinking that. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why it was being referred to as a DX9 game when, during the install, it CLEARLY asked it you wanted to install DX8.1.

FWIW, I'm running with a P4 2.0gig, 512RAM, and a 128MB GF5600TX. I am running in 800x600 with shadows and multisampling off, and getting between 28 nd 35 FPS...decent enough, considering that I just(within the last month) upgraded from an AMD K6450Mhz with 384 RAM and a 32 MBG F4200MX. So, you see, it's all relative.

BTW...for those that haven't tried em, and are just randomly *****ing about this or that problem, try some of the optimization tweaks. They really do help. And yeah yeah...***** all you want about 'you shouldn't have to tweak it, MP2/KOTOR/NWN/whatthehelleverothergame runs fine out of the box. You and I both know that no game alive ever runs 100% right out of the box. There's *ALWAYS* some sort of compatibility issue that you have to address.

*tosses 2 cents on the table and sits back to wait for a response*

Ah well... I'm uninstalling this anyhow. someone wake me up If ever they decide to make this game work at all.

Thanks for letting me give you 50$ eidos, appreciate that. At least now I have a nice DVD case that I can use for storing more playable games... and 2 shiny new coasters to put drinks on. 50 $ well spent!

Lol As a PS here's the e-mail I just got from tech support. Thanks for the advice ... not as if I hadnt tried this stuff already.

Thank you for your message. If you open My Computer, C: Drive, Program Files, and open Deus Ex: Invisible War. Open the System folder, and you should see the DX2.exe file. Look for the small black square with the skull. Right-click on it, left-click properties. Click on compatibility, and set it to run in Windows 2000 compatibility mode. Then start the game from that DX2.exe file.

Lol and they tell me to turn the shadows and detail to lowest settings after that... rofl Oh well I cant blame em for not actually reading my e-mail, (i told em i had tried this) as im sure they get a new support request for poor performance about every 10 minutes, so all they have time to do is fire off this "handy tweaks" form mail... blah Why didnt I try the demo first.... I ALWAYS try the demos first... cept this time.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by tet5uo
Ah well... I'm uninstalling this anyhow. someone wake me up If ever they decide to make this game work at all.

Thanks for letting me give you 50$ eidos, appreciate that. At least now I have a nice DVD case that I can use for storing more playable games... and 2 shiny new coasters to put drinks on. 50 $ well spent!

LOL...I dont remember who posted it, but another good idea was to use it to put under the legs of the coffee table to keep it level.

Sorry that you are having so much trouble though. Maybe when the new patch is available it'll help.

[oohwha]

Originally posted by BadMojo
I have a 3.3ghz machine with a gig of ram and a geforce FX 5900U.

This game runs as though I have a PII-400 with 64MB ram and a TnT2 Ultra.

Explain that...when all other games runs fine.

I have to agree here. When I have an AMD 1700+ (intel 1.7Ghz equiv.) and an ATi 9800 Pro I really do expect to get above 15 FPS in all areas of DX2 when running 1024x768 with all details set to minimum.

I just put together an Athlon 64 3200+ system last night with 512MB of ECC RAM and I'm going to stick the Radeon 9800 Pro in that puppy tonight after I install XP 64-bit addition. (Now watch the next thing that will happen is DX2 won't install in a 64-bit environment)

Needless to say, that system will obviously be running Halo at 1600x1200 with everything on at PS 2.0 and getting well above 40FPS minimum. (Right now I get 45-60 FPS average with PS 2.0 on 1280x1024 rez with low options)

Obviously this new system will be laughing at pretty much all current games except for 1 of them. If the 1.2 patch doesn't give me a decent frame rate set on AT LEAST 1280x1024 rez with med - high details I'm probably going to buy a gun

1. There are always people complaining

2. This game does run slow (beats me why...its got load zone every 20m).

3. I really doubt people are going to complain when HL2 comes out. That game runs on a gf4mx440 with better graphics, physics, and less load zones.

[Macphisto]

We can all quote our system specs until were blue in the face. The issue here Labrie is that PC users paid $50 for a PC game, and what they got was (by Warren Spectors own admission) is an XBox game. That's a tuff insult to swallow and a kick in the face to the series original fan base. I don't like complaining for the sake of complaining but in this case I believe that PAYING customers are justified in voicing their concerns. Unfortunately we live in a society were you HAVE to speak up (the louder the better) just to get what you paid for. If it weren't for the outcry immediately after the games release we could still be waiting for the first patch. Even though the patch really did not address any of the real problems (like the fact that the game runs like ass) Ion's quick response just goes to show how effective all the "complaining" was.

[winstonsmith1984]

The complaints are justified. I have an Athlon 64FX51 with a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra. No game should run like a$$ on this computer. While DX2 is playable it's not very impressive. That's unnaceptable. There is no reason for this other than rushing the game for Christmas. Really, we all should have known better. From here on out can we all please have enough common sense to avoid all games that come at at Christmas. Obviously they aren't ready. They never are.

[Orumph]

Face it people. This game was slapped together at the last moment for X-Box.

X-Box killed this game.

Think about it, the game only loads 64M chunks for each level (roughly). I have 1G of ram. I could load parcticly the entire game in one shot. That's pretty sad. Especialy with the performance hit it takes now with only a 64M chunck being loaded. I seriously doubt that has anything to do with DX 8 or 9 issues. It's called screw the consumer. Let's make as much money as we can for as little work as we can. Hey, we can make more money off one product and sell it on 2 platforms. So what if there are performance issues. We'll give them a 60% boost through a couple patches over about 6 or 7 months. They'll be happy with that. No biggy.

Chaser is much more exciting and fun than IW. And it's not all that great. Still a lot more fun. Some levels are incredibly HUGE.

UT2004 is going to be awesome. It needs some tweaking still but the graphics are very cool and the performance is awesome.
The Bot AI and pathing still needs a lot of work though. UT2004 blows DX:IW away as far as game play, graphics and performance.

One thing I don't care about is hard core dynamic shadowing, especialy at a huge performance hit. DX:IW could have done without it if the performance would have been 10 times better. It would have made the game a lot better. Still X-Boxified, it's junk.

It's like, Hey, I got a ferrari. Well, sorta. It's a Ferrari kitcar for a fiero chasis. Well,, ok, it's not a ferrari.
Sure it looks good, but there ain't diddly squat in performance by compairison.

All the physics and eye candy in IW does not make up for lack of game play, low performance, rushed story line, the fact that you can lose the enemy quickly and easily, the fact that bots get stuck easily and are easy to lose. IW is a slaped together half-a**ed atempt at a sequal. It's plain and simple junk gaming developed for the 12 yr old X-Boxer with limited imagination. I'll leave it at that and not even go into unified ammo, lack of skills system, BioMods (couple were cool), lack of anything even remotely challenging. Even on Realistic level. My opinion, this game seriously lacks real quality. And it had so much more potential. It's a real shame X-Box killed it.

P.S
DX:IW was supposed to be the all out incredible sequal to an already awesome game. And it fails miserably. Have to say it, but those of you who don't feel ripped off are in denial. Sad really, cause you fail to see what the game should have been and worship it for what it isn't. As I said before. This is what you like, you'll get more of the same. Real shame if this becomes the norm. Something I will be watching out for in the future.

The more people that come in and speak out against these kinds of buisness practices, the better off we will all be. I can tell you right now. I will be checking to make sure I never buy another Console Port to PC again.

As a side note:
The only games recently that I have avidly gone seeking for a patch to make work are Black & White (game is ok, not really my style, but interesting for 15$) and DX:IW. All others have been just to see if there is much difference by loading a patch, normaly I don't notice and difference.

Again, I seriously doubt it's all because DirectX issues. It's slack programing.

[Labrie]

Originally posted by Triikon
1. There are always people complaining

2. This game does run slow (beats me why...its got load zone every 20m).

3. I really doubt people are going to complain when HL2 comes out. That game runs on a gf4mx440 with better graphics, physics, and less load zones.

I don't know what you've been smoking but if you think you can run hl2 on a gf4mx440 and think it will be impressive....your not only confused but totally wrong. First of all, from what your saying, you've already played the game on this card, which isn't possible because its not out yet. And if it was the demo then you would be stupid to think that this will be how the final version performs. I know they said months ago that it would be made to run on lower end systems, but that was for the planned release in 2003. Do you really think that this game will be made to play well on video cards that are 2 years old?! I'm wanna see the day when you get this game and play it on a gf4, and then you let me know how it runs. I'll be surprised if it starts...

[KingRat]

actually, Valve and Id are writing code paths that will allow the older cards to work. JC said the MX cards will default to nv10 code path...........don't expect much in the way of features or IQ though.

[oohwha]

I swear Orumph's post hit every nail right on the head!!!

I especially like the part where he mentioned that if we all pretend to like DX2 and we try to find the good things about it to keep us in denial of it's shameful release quality then more games will come out just like it.

As long as Eidos knows they can port games from console to crappy computer versions and still make boatloads of cash they will continue to do it. We have to protest with our wallets AND our voices here if we want to make a difference.

Basically Eidos made the system specs so overwhelming that they could "technically" say DX2 is "playable" at 640x480 screen rez with everything turned as low as possible.

Wow, so it looks almost as good as QB Club on Nintendo 64?

Ouch, baby... very ouch.

you're gonna be pretty surprised Labrie. Remember...HL2 isn't a XBOX game...