Adventure Forums

Adventure Forums (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/)
-   General (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/general/)
-   -   "King Kong game raises emotional stakes", also soundtrack! (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/general/11804-king-kong-game-raises-emotional-stakes-also-soundtrack.html)

RLacey 11-24-2005 05:43 AM

I'm torn here. I want the boxed edition, but I want the better graphics.

I'll do what I always do - wait for the Collector's Edition to drop in price, and then consider buying both (and crack and make do with the worse graphics).

squarejawhero 11-24-2005 05:46 AM

I warn you, the gamers edition is really really tough on the system. It made mine slow up a ton with all the trimmings, but even though I had miserable FPS I could tell the textures, lighting and effects were superior to anything else I'd played before.

RLacey 11-24-2005 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squarejawhero
I warn you, the gamers edition is really really tough on the system. It made mine slow up a ton with all the trimmings, but even though I had miserable FPS I could tell the textures, lighting and effects were superior to anything else I'd played before.

What system specs are you running?

Kolzig 11-24-2005 06:10 AM

I installed the game and played it a little.

The settings are as fooked up as they were with the Kong demo.
I can only choose 640x480 or 800x600, because for some odd reason the refresh rate shows only 150 hertz and if I choose for example 1024x768, the settings brings up an error notice saying that "the resolution is not supported with this refresh rate". If I try to choose the low, medium or high settings buttons, both the resolution and refresh rate boxes go all blank and I can't choose anything.

It's really weird. I've never had this problem with any other game.

The game looks awesome, even though it ain't the *Gamer's Edition*, but I'm hoping that someday I'll see that version too and have a chance to compare both versions.

Chance Thomas' musical score is perfect and sets the mood for the game, also the movie cast give good performances as the voice actors for the characters.

squarejawhero 11-24-2005 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLacey
What system specs are you running?

Athlon XP3000+, Geforce n6600GT (it's an upgraded version of the typical 6600GT), 1.5Gb PC2700 DDR, Asus 17v8x rev 1.4, Audigy 2. Not particularly high-end, but it has done the job smoothly on games from FEAR to Quake 4.

Even on low it struggles, and tbh I can't see why it should as I've got no probs with better looking games. I may give up on it, copy the assets, and upgrade later on next year to play it. Shame really, cost me money!

samIamsad 11-24-2005 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squarejawhero
Even on low it struggles, and tbh I can't see why it should as I've got no probs with better looking games.

Graphics aren't everything that needs to be calculed...

squarejawhero 11-24-2005 07:34 AM

So? A game crafted to look beautiful should be something to appreciate too, you troglodyte.

If someone says that again to me on this forum I will book a ticket to their place and eat their face off.

samIamsad 11-24-2005 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squarejawhero
face off.

Watched it a couple o' weeks ago. :P

edit: It seems you didn't get what I was trying to get across (my typo's fault?). Anyway: Not your whole CPU power is spent on visuals alone.

Naveed 11-25-2005 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squarejawhero
Athlon XP3000+, Geforce n6600GT (it's an upgraded version of the typical 6600GT), 1.5Gb PC2700 DDR, Asus 17v8x rev 1.4, Audigy 2. Not particularly high-end, but it has done the job smoothly on games from FEAR to Quake 4.

Even on low it struggles, and tbh I can't see why it should as I've got no probs with better looking games. I may give up on it, copy the assets, and upgrade later on next year to play it. Shame really, cost me money!

Are you sure it gives the option of lower settings in the gamer's edition because they explicitly put the system requirements on the page and your system is below that. I think that it only comes with very high resolution textures and forces Pixel Shader 3 pipeline for rendering at all settings.

squarejawhero 11-25-2005 02:15 PM

Yes it allows lower settings from textures to effects. But you're right, I really should've read up a bit more. LET THIS BE A WARNING TO YOU ALL!

But, tbh, I can't see any reason WHY in the graphics why it should slow down so much. There's simply not enough going on nor are the textures (on low) sufficient to bottleneck somewhere, or don't appear to be. I can't see much difference between it and the normal game.

RLacey 11-25-2005 02:22 PM

Gamestation had an Xbox 360 in (in the UK?) playing the King Kong demo. It looked like the Gamer's Edition graphics. And it looked gorgeous :frown:...

squarejawhero 11-25-2005 02:50 PM

I saw COD 2 running on it. Very pretty, although it has to be said it DID slow down a little in places.

RLacey 11-25-2005 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squarejawhero
I saw COD 2 running on it. Very pretty, although it has to be said it DID slow down a little in places.

I'm not that impressed with Xbox 360 COD2. The jaggies are visible, and it doesn't really look that much better than previous WWII games.

Mind you, I did only watch for a few seconds.

Naveed 11-25-2005 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLacey
I'm not that impressed with Xbox 360 COD2. The jaggies are visible, and it doesn't really look that much better than previous WWII games.

Mind you, I did only watch for a few seconds.

I thought Microsoft forced at least 2X or 4X AA for all the games on XBOX 360.

RLacey 11-25-2005 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naveed
I thought Microsoft forced at least 2X or 4X AA for all the games on XBOX 360.

Oh, I don't think it's missing antialiasing; it's just that there are enough sharp edges on-screen that the edges still end up being rough :(.

squarejawhero 11-26-2005 01:35 AM

I never noticed that on the widescreen LCD display I saw it on. Perhaps it was running at the wrong resolution for the monitor it was on.

Kolzig 11-26-2005 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kolzig
I installed the game and played it a little.

The settings are as fooked up as they were with the Kong demo.
I can only choose 640x480 or 800x600, because for some odd reason the refresh rate shows only 150 hertz and if I choose for example 1024x768, the settings brings up an error notice saying that "the resolution is not supported with this refresh rate". If I try to choose the low, medium or high settings buttons, both the resolution and refresh rate boxes go all blank and I can't choose anything.

It's really weird. I've never had this problem with any other game.

So I guess nobody knows anything that can help me with this problem?

I'll try and ask the tech support at Ubi.com.

Naveed 11-26-2005 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kolzig
So I guess nobody knows anything that can help me with this problem?

I'll try and ask the tech support at Ubi.com.

I don't get it. If you had that problem with the demo, it was brave of you to buy the game without sorting out that issue with the demo first.

Kolzig 11-26-2005 04:04 PM

I was too lazy to ask about it then (and I forgot about it), and it plays fine on 800x600. So it's not like it's stopping me from playing the game. ;)

It's just that it looks better on bigger resolutions.

Kolzig 11-28-2005 03:32 PM

Oh yeah it was just RefreshForce that I had to disable first.

Now that I thought about it a little more, I remembered that this has happened with some other game before, possibly Vice City or some other.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Design & Logo Copyright Ā©1998 - 2017, Adventure GamersĀ®.
All posts by users and Adventure Gamers staff members are property of their original author and don't necessarily represent the opinion or editorial stance of Adventure Gamers.