# [Muro] PC gamers furious: What happened to Far Cry 3's graphics?



## Alatar

Spoiler: Comparison images







Quote:


> Ubisoft forums is running a heated debate recently released Far Cry 3 PC game graphics, which support DirectX 11 API. Conversation started Nyadc-nickname has undertaken a thorough background research on the subject and compared the pictures and videos last summer's E3 presentation of the development phase of the game in finished commercially-available PC version.
> 
> E3 presented in details are really good, in the final game of the outlook is considerably simplified. In particular, the jungle vegetation and the amount of light can be seen in big differences.


Source (translated)
Source
Original forum post

Again translations are always bad but I couldn't find any other non forum source. Still thought that this might be interesting to discuss.


----------



## Kane2207

Maybe if we were all running 32 core machines that, that last useless patch resolved, we'd all be getting better eye candy


----------



## Biorganic

Wow. Super blatant, especially when he surfaces on that island and looks left to right. Vegetation density is less than half.

So they dumbed the veg down for console and decided not to leave it alone on PC. Really? how hard would it have been to leave the vegetation alone in PC version and decrease it in console and have everything else the same. Super lame









If they had left it alone it would be a graphics card melter.... Exactly what I want. Dumb ubisoft, Tricks are for hookers


----------



## MaxFTW

Not buying this now until its fixed...

Im srs


----------



## SmokinWaffle

Wow, that's shocking. Can understand if it's demo'd on a PC and then graphically reduced for consoles maybe, but the other way around just doesn't make sense.


----------



## ]\/[EGADET]-[

ya it's not worth it to stay bleeding edge anymore. piss poor


----------



## charlesquik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MaxFTW*
> 
> Not buying this now until its fixed...
> Im srs


Then your missing a really good game my friend


----------



## Stealth Pyros

I felt FC3 ran very well and could have been a WHOLE lot more intense visually, like on Crysis 3 levels.


----------



## Kane2207

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"*
> \/[EGADET]-[" url="/t/1340188/muro-pc-gamers-furious-what-happened-to-far-cry-3s-graphics#post_18867326"]ya it's not worth it to stay bleeding edge anymore. piss poor


That's not really true, if you're bleeding edge, you might (just might) be able to get a smooth 2560/1440p/60fps out of FC3 without all of the XML tweaks









I enjoyed the game but it shouldn't have been nearly as hardware demanding as it is


----------



## Sisaroth

lol overreacting. The game looks fantastic. And the retail product just looks different, it doesn't look worse imo. It could just as well have been a design decision because the vegetation was maybe limiting the vision more than they wanted.
Under water looks better on the E3 version, but the retail version is much more realistic with the lower viewing distance under water.


----------



## Shmerrick

Honestly this should fall under false advertising. Yes, I know it's an E3 demo, but when you say the game should look like A and then it's released looking like Z, these companies should be held responsible. It's not the GCI days anymore, and showing someone playing the game further reinforces why this is just a cheap dirty trick.


----------



## jprovido

who cares. graphics is still fantastic and far cry 3 is by far the best game I've played in a long time. Far Cry 3 is awesome and everyone that played it will agree


----------



## TheBlindDeafMute

Mods to the rescue.


----------



## Bloitz

Why do they play it with a controller? Anyone knows?
Pretty much everyone knows most presentations / demos are run on a PC so what's the point in keeping up appearances. Mouse and KB are also far more entertaining to watch.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlindDeafMute*
> 
> Mods to the rescue.


Otherwise a nice idea but I don't think any mods will come out soon that'll make the underbrush and vegetation in general in the game look more varied and thicker. That's what always bothers me when I look at FC3 screenshots. All the grass looks the same and there's very little tree variety in some places.

Lighting and so on might be an easier fix.


----------



## mushroomboy

I don't know if it's so much an issue, plus there are things we as the consumer aren't privy too. I wonder if they ditched vegetation to focus on other aspects of development. Personally the game was really good and that might be because they nerfed the graphics to focus more on other aspects.

Not saying it is ok, it couldn't have been too hard but then again if you look at a lot of the vegetation there are some nuances. One of my most hated ones is the grass floating above the ground, might be an engine problem. With more grass and everything it might have made it look worse due to that, so they decided to minimize that as people would still complain. I do think they could have pushed some textures more.

Oh well, even with this I still thought it was an amazing game. I got it on the console to play with friends, unfortunately few people play the multiplayer and I find it saddening. =(


----------



## Norlig

the board planks on the pier was too obvious


----------



## NateN34

Yeah, it sort of is not anymore.

Most everygame that is multiplatform lately looks nearly the same on the console. The exception being BF3, which looks far better on the PC.......everything else is nearly identical, due to us being held back by consoles. Lets face it too, developers don't care to put all that work and add special features/graphics for us, especially since we are the minority and earn them the least amount of money. On top of that, consoles seem to get the best exclusives, while the PC exclusive developers flocked to consoles later...

The only thing that is really better about PC gaming is the FPS. I can run all my games at 60 FPS, native 1080p with no jagged edges, due to AA. Consoles on the other hand are pushing 640p, with jagged edges galore and a messily 30 FPS. I personally cannot play games at 60 FPS anymore, since I get extreme headaches.

In the end though, I think the solid, higher FPS and cleaner graphics alone, makes PC gaming worth it.


----------



## Assirra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bloitz*
> 
> Why do they play it with a controller? Anyone knows?
> Pretty much everyone knows most presentations / demos are run on a PC so what's the point in keeping up appearances. Mouse and KB are also far more entertaining to watch.


Probably a lot easier to show on stage.
You want them to place a whole desktop including desk just to change the way they show off the product?


----------



## icehotshot

Hmm I'm surprised it is as demanding as it is from looking at some benchmark reviews.

I don't own FC3 but I assumed it looked just like the E3 videos/screenshots but since I now know it doesn't look that good I am very surprised how terrible it runs. I mean sure it still looks good, but it should look great.

I was considering buying this during the steam sale if it was cheap but I might reconsider that. I'm not too fond of companies that falsely advertise their products.


----------



## brasco

This is the same as what happened with the Crysis 2 DX9 release, no? Hopefully they'll release it later on, I've got plenty to play in the meantime.


----------



## mothrpe

I would've done the same thing if I was ubisoft..........hmmm 80% of my sales are going to come from consoles, 20% from pc............which market should I be more focused on? Videogame business is a business.


----------



## Crooksy

The most annoying part for me about the performance is that certain areas that appear exactly the same will have vastly different performance. I noticed a few other people have mentioned this also. However, when it is running fine, it's a pretty fun game. Shame it doesn't look like it did in the E3 video.


----------



## Biorganic

I would feel much more immersed in the game world hiding behind vegetation. In the retail release you're crouched on some rocks "sneak up", shoot, or walking down a plain path, E3 version, crouched on rocks hidden by vegetation, slowly peek up above leaves and take your shot. Just a better feel.


----------



## Skiivari

My rig sorta runs it on ultra, and it's the same as playing on medium. More lighting and shadows can't hide the boring grass and textures.


----------



## Razi3l

This is sort of how I felt about Crysis 2. To me, it didn't look good enough compared to what they showed, and that is why I'm not buying the Crysis 3 hype either. I'll wait until it goes on Steam for $5. But then, i think so many developers do this that it isn't really a big surprise. I guess sometimes it is a lot more obvious than other times.

Back OT this is pretty disappointing. I was thinking of buying FC3 just the other day.. well I'll hold out now until (if) they fix this.


----------



## MaxFTW

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlesquik*
> 
> Then your missing a really good game my friend


To be honest, I know that im not.

Its a generic shooter with roaming animals, Theres no real sense of survival after a hours worth of play.

The high price of the game puts me off too, Why is this so special to be £40 when the other games i get are £25-£30?, i mean i was considering getting it if its about £20 or so,,, And that was a big IF because why would i buy this when i could get over 20 games from GOG all of which i would like.

Not to mention good games to me are games like Inquisitor, I rarely class FPS games these days as good.


----------



## Master__Shake

Ubisoft is Ubisoft, just feel lucky it doesn't have always on DRM.

and that they actually made it for PC


----------



## icehotshot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mothrpe*
> 
> I would've done the same thing if I was ubisoft..........hmmm 80% of my sales are going to come from consoles, 20% from pc............which market should I be more focused on? Videogame business is a business.


I would agree with you except for the fact that ubisoft had to WASTE THEIR TIME TO REMOVE DETAIL FROM THE GAME. The detail was already in the game and they had to take it out for the retail PC version. It doesn't make sense why they just wouldn't leave it in the game since it was there.


----------



## Kane2207

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *icehotshot*
> 
> I would agree with you except for the fact that ubisoft had to WASTE THEIR TIME TO REMOVE DETAIL FROM THE GAME. The detail was already in the game and they had to take it out for the retail PC version. It doesn't make sense why they just wouldn't leave it in the game since it was there.


Because there would have been uproar when it ran at 10-15fps at 1080p


----------



## icehotshot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kane2207*
> 
> Because there would have been uproar when it ran at 10-15fps at 1080p


I highly doubt there would have been uproar considering when Crysis came out even quad 8800gtx ultra's couldn't max it at like 1080p.

If something looks awesome people wouldn't care how crappy it runs on current gen hardware they would just wait till the next gen cards like they did with crysis.


----------



## Kane2207

Very true - but then I think Crysis looks better anyway


----------



## Vlasov_581

this is a trend lately......infact most of the games now are ridiculously blown up in commercials


----------



## RobotDevil666

From the story characters and artistic side FC3 is awesome , story is engaging , characters are great and the island is just beautiful , open world gameplay is so captivating.
That said from technical side , compatibility/optimization and bugs are just horrible it seems like an Alpha stage product rather than retail release .
I bought FC3 on release day and I'm still not able to play it , i tried EVERY possible fix i could find on the net but the stutter is not going away .
Such a shame cause this game had a HUGE potential.


----------



## Rognin

After X-Com this year, I promised myself I would no longer play or buy any games unless they were PC exclusives. Granted it limits me, but at least I don't feel robbed of paying 50$ for something that is worth 15$. I just get enraged when I buy a game and feel like I could have played it on a 150$ console instead of my (a lot of money) PC.

Games I now stick too:
EVE
Diablo 3
MWO
WoT

I am now very happy with all the games I play.


----------



## laurelgtxyz

Nooo , was planning to get this game on Steam's Winter Sale. Now this came out from nowhere.


----------



## USFORCES

After wasting money on FC2 there is no way I'll give them more money, I wouldn't take FC3 if it were free.


----------



## SGT. Peppers

Yeah just saving my money for Crysis 3, Far cry 3 just didn't wow me.


----------



## sugarhell

Lol. The game already have magnificent graphics. And its already too heavy for a high end gpu. Ok fc3 has good graphics amazing art style but my main focus when i buy it was the gameplay. Its one of the best game out there. Because they cut down some details for some reason that doesnt mean that the game is not good.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Lol. The game already have magnificent graphics. And *its already too heavy for a high end gpu*. Ok fc3 has good graphics amazing art style but my main focus when i buy it was the gameplay. Its one of the best game out there. Because they cut down some details for some reason that doesnt mean that the game is not good.


Ehhh not really.... my single 7970 shreds it at 2560x1440. Can't even imagine what 2 would do.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Ehhh not really.... my single 7970 shreds it at 2560x1440


Try it with the best settings and 2xmsaa. I dont even talk about 8xmsaa


----------



## Buris

Difference seems minute

IMO the E3 version looks "technically" more advanced but lacks real art direction and looks just like crysis. They made it look more cartoony to diferentiate far cry from crysis and other shooters, and it's payed off. Now THIS is whining just to whine.


----------



## Biorganic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *icehotshot*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mothrpe*
> 
> I would've done the same thing if I was ubisoft..........hmmm 80% of my sales are going to come from consoles, 20% from pc............which market should I be more focused on? Videogame business is a business.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you except for the fact that ubisoft had to WASTE THEIR TIME TO REMOVE DETAIL FROM THE GAME. The detail was already in the game and they had to take it out for the retail PC version. It doesn't make sense why they just wouldn't leave it in the game since it was there.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed . They already had the coding done for PC. Just dumb down the console version. Pretty simple.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *icehotshot*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kane2207*
> 
> Because there would have been uproar when it ran at 10-15fps at 1080p
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt there would have been uproar considering when Crysis came out even quad 8800gtx ultra's couldn't max it at like 1080p.
> 
> If something looks awesome people wouldn't care how crappy it runs on current gen hardware they would just wait till the next gen cards like they did with crysis.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts as well, Turn down the settings to High instaed of Ultra and still play cutting edge game. As it stands they gave us no options. In 2 years the graphics will be beyond Meh.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Try it with the best settings and 2xmsaa. I dont even talk about 8xmsaa


at 2560 dont really need MSAA...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> Difference seems minute
> 
> IMO the E3 version looks "technically" more advanced but lacks real art direction and looks just like crysis. They made it look more cartoony to diferentiate far cry from crysis and other shooters, and it's payed off. Now THIS is whining just to whine.


What??? Look at the lack of vegetation density. That is not art direction, visual elements were completely removed. Scene where he just gets out of water and looks left to right. Look at the differences in vegetation. Pretty blatant


----------



## Kane2207

No AA @2560x1440 and it still can't keep a solid 60fps on Ultra settings, have to drop water to medium and set post FX to false in the XML. Even then, there's plenty of blips when it'll drop to 50 something and become a stuttering mess. (DX11)


----------



## Raven.7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *USFORCES*
> 
> After wasting money on FC2 there is no way I'll give them more money, I wouldn't take FC3 if it were free.


Game looks fine in my opinion. I did notice a decrease in detail from the E3 demo, but it doesn't bother me the least, since I was in it for the story and the gameplay, not spending 20 minutes analyzing grass.


----------



## Sir Beregond

Wow...retail PC looks like a far cry







from what that E3 demo looks like.


----------



## Raven.7

On that note...what the hell, the water looks incredible in the E3 demo.


----------



## Blindrage606

@2560x1440p I can hold about 30-65 FPS w/ disabled PostFX and x2MSAA/HBAO-Ultra settings. This is with unlocked LN2 BIOS w/ voltage control on my MSI Lightning.

And yes, at 2560x1440p you NEED MSAA , those otherwise are 1440p snobs in denial or perhaps blind? With my 680+Korean LG panel, I can still definitely see jaggies and such on more finite things like items, trees, leaves, etc.


----------



## th3illusiveman

Oh boo hoo so they took afew trees out.

It's still one of the best looking games this year and plays great.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Ehhh not really.... my single 7970 shreds it at 2560x1440
> 
> 
> 
> Try it with the best settings and 2xmsaa. I dont even talk about 8xmsaa
Click to expand...

I'm all ultra... MSAA is pretty pointless at that resolution in my opinion so I don't bother with it. Even with it on though I get about 40fps average, 30s low.


----------



## CBZ323

Yeah, people were saying that graphics are amazing, but I was not impressed at all. I thought I was getting too demanding, I guess not...


----------



## Biorganic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kane2207*
> 
> No AA @2560x1440 and it still can't keep a solid 60fps on Ultra settings, have to drop water to medium and set post FX to false in the XML. Even then, there's plenty of blips when it'll drop to 50 something and become a stuttering mess. (DX11)


Since when is 50 something a stuttering mess???????


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kane2207*
> 
> No AA @2560x1440 and it still can't keep a solid 60fps on Ultra settings, have to drop water to medium and set post FX to false in the XML. Even then, there's plenty of blips when it'll drop to 50 something and become a stuttering mess. (DX11)


1440p is pretty tight on a single 570. I had 2 570s and when I upgraded to 1440p I had to go for a single 7970. VRAM limitation was killing me in BF3 and other games. Even though 2 570s _should be_ > 7970, they're not. At least not at 1440p. Coming straight from someone who made the transition.


----------



## Kane2207

I know, 50fps should be sweet but as soon as it dips below around 60fps, it twitches and jumps all over the place. I could lock it 30 and have no issues but 60 is about where I'd like to be.

Could be that it's an SLI issue also

I did look at 7970s and 670s recently but with 2013 just round the corner and the expected update to 7XX and 8XXX series, I figured it's best to hold out a bit.


----------



## Bonkers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> Oh boo hoo so they took afew trees out.
> It's still one of the best looking games this year and plays great.


Its not that they just took a few trees out. That video looks much better imo than the product that was released. Thats what the problem is. It could have the hands down best graphics w/ some of the best gameplay of the year and thats what we feel like we deserve.


----------



## jprovido

funny how people who NEVER tried the game is judging it already lol. Far Cry 3 is an epic game and you will definitely miss out if you don't buy it. graphics looks awesome. admittedly not as good as the video but it's still awesome and one of the best graphics I've ever seen. my gtx 680 runs it pretty well maxed out with 4x MSAA. my poor gtx 680 is at max gpu load 100% of the time.


----------



## RobotDevil666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Biorganic*
> 
> Since when is 50 something a stuttering mess???????


It's not a matter of fps , i can hold 60fps on 1440 , ultra preset , 2xmsaa, hbao but even though fps is there the game is still a horrible stuttering mess.
Just google "far cry 3 stutter" and go through results , its happening on just about every cpu/gpu combination.
My question is how the hell did this crap got through quality testing ?? do they even test it before release , this issue is so widespread I'm having a hard time believing they just missed it.


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobotDevil666*
> 
> It's not a matter of fps , i can hold 60fps on 1440 , ultra preset , 2xmsaa, *hbao* but even though fps is there the game is still a horrible stuttering mess.
> Just google "far cry 3 stutter" and go through results , its happening on just about every cpu/gpu combination.
> My question is how the hell did this crap got through quality testing ?? do they even test it before release , this issue is so widespread I'm having a hard time believing they just missed it.


HBAO is for AMD. use HDAO


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RobotDevil666*
> 
> It's not a matter of fps , i can hold 60fps on 1440 , ultra preset , 2xmsaa, *hbao* but even though fps is there the game is still a horrible stuttering mess.
> Just google "far cry 3 stutter" and go through results , its happening on just about every cpu/gpu combination.
> My question is how the hell did this crap got through quality testing ?? do they even test it before release , this issue is so widespread I'm having a hard time believing they just missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> HBAO is for AMD. use HDAO
Click to expand...

I believe you might have that backwards. I think HDAO is for AMD (Ctrl+F HDAO), HBAO is for NVIDIA. This came to mind because BF3 is NVIDIA-endorsed and uses HBAO.


----------



## mohit9206

hmmm so you guys wanted ubisoft to retain the heavy and dense vegetation from the original build in the final pc version ?
we already know that the current so called simplified version already pushes the hi end graphics cards way too hard at max settings at 1080p and the game is virtually unplayable at 1440p max settings on even 7970 and 680 so just think what would have happened if ubisoft had retained the original vegetation ?
far cry 3 max settings would have been unplayable even on 1080p with 7970 and 680 ultra hi end cards.
then you guys would bash and cry about ubisoft making unoptimised games for pc which are unplayable even on hi end cards..
am actually glad that they simplifed it a bit as its much more playable on my setup


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I think FC3 could have looked even better easily. It could have been a Crysis contender. I play FC3 and while the graphics are good they are not amazing.


----------



## Blindrage606

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> HBAO is for AMD. use HDAO


No.

HBAO = NVIDIA

HDAO = AMD

SSAO = PERFORMANCE


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blindrage606*
> 
> No.
> HBAO = NVIDIA
> HDAO = AMD
> SSAO = PERFORMANCE


omg my mistake. I swear to god I'm using HBAO on my nvidia card. it's 1am here tired and still haven't slept yet


----------



## di inferi

The game is GOTY material and there's people complaining there's not enough bushes.

America.


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *di inferi*
> 
> The game is GOTY material and there's people complaining there's not enough bushes.
> America.


+10000


----------



## DBEAU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *di inferi*
> 
> The game is GOTY material and there's people complaining there's not enough bushes.
> America.


We love bushes so much we made them president.

MOAR BUSHES!!!


----------



## Sir Beregond

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DBEAU*
> 
> We love bushes so much we made them president.
> MOAR BUSHES!!!


Ziiiiing.

I still plan to check this out. I am just saying the graphical difference in the video the OP posted is quite obvious.


----------



## TheLawIX

It's a console port is what happened.


----------



## LBGreenthumb

Wow, glad I didn't buy it.


----------



## DBEAU

Everyone knows they make the marketing material look way better. Buying into pre-release hype would make any post-launch game terrible.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LBGreenthumb*
> 
> Wow, glad I didn't buy it.


Yeah because less bushes means bad games


----------



## LBGreenthumb

I'll wait for a good sale on steam and get it one day, I'm just happy I didn't drop $50 on release day.


----------



## SI51

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sir Beregond*
> 
> Wow...retail PC looks like a far cry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from what that E3 demo looks like.


That was cookie worthy. I'm lol'in hard.

Also, I hope Ubisoft publicly responds to this.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DBEAU*
> 
> Everyone knows they make the marketing material look way better. Buying into pre-release hype would make any post-launch game terrible.


But it wasn't hype. It was a stage demo at E3.


----------



## Bonkers

I love the game. I just think if you are going to demo something at E3 and say this is what our consumers can expect then that is what they deserve. Its like looking at a hotel online and seeing all these nice beds, pools, etc. Then when you get to said hotel the bed is in the right spot but its only a full size, the pools are there but only one works and its not clean.

Its not a sense of entitlement, its simply if I pay $60 for a game I want what they showed off before release.


----------



## Mwarren

Who cares about the graphics, we need more good gameplay on the PC. I'm tired of every other complaint and every other game being about graphics.

If I want good graphics I'll run 3dmark.


----------



## TFL Replica

The game still looks good overall. I just wish static clouds and blurry distant LODs would become history.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Ah, more crybabying from the PC crowd giving the rest of us a bad name. The game looks great.


How do you see this as crying from PC gamers? Fact, the game's graphics are not the same as what was shown at E3. It is expected and JUSTIFIED that many gamers would feel cheated, that this was a huge bait and switch. Crying would be if the dev team said Far Cry 3 would have identical graphics to consoles and PC gamers complaining that their graphics aren't better than consoles. There is a HUGE difference between crying and legitimately providing criticism for a legitimate issue. Please learn and understand the difference between the two.


----------



## Scott1541

The graphics on the E3 demo look way better. It's not just the foliage, trees and plants either, lots of other things look better in the demo. I'd be pretty annoyed if I'd bought it, although my PC probably wouldn't be able to run at settings anywhere near what it's like on the demo.

Despite this it still looks awesome


----------



## DizzlePro

Two words: "BLAME CONSOLES"


----------



## Dradus

The earlier footage indeed looks way better. The water is glorious.


----------



## BusterOddo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *di inferi*
> 
> The game is GOTY material and there's people complaining there's not enough bushes.
> America.


^THIS
The game was fantastic. The graphics are easily in contention for the best in games to date. The gameplay and story were awesome. People saying they aren't getting it now or glad they didnt waste their money are clueless. Sooo much whining


----------



## moocowman

The tattoo in the E3 demo was different as well.

My point? Games prior to release are subject to change and aren't a representation of the final product and anybody who watches E3 footage should know this by now. Remember the Halo 2 E3 demo? Yeah.. that mission wasn't even in the game and some of the aspects didn't even make it into the final release. There could be quite a few reasons why they chose to tone down the graphics. I know people say "because of consoles!!" but that doesn't really make sense since the console graphics are still pretty toned down from what PC gamers got. It could have been for optimization since most PC gamers aren't going to have a system that would handle such high density vegetation and the gameplay was more important to them than the overall graphics. This is speculation, of course, but there's many reasons why they would have toned it down.

Did they deliver a high quality, beautiful, and fun experience? I think so. Are the graphics still better on PC? Very much so. What exactly is the problem here?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DizzlePro*
> 
> Two words: "BLAME CONSOLES"










This is really just as bad as developers and publishers saying "Blame pirates!"


----------



## twitchyzero

anyone didn't bother with this game because it forced you to use UPlay? Having Origin on top of Steam is bad enough...

I also plan to get AC3 on PS3 down the road because of UPlay...


----------



## doomlord52

Well, I was looking forward to playing this, but seeing as Ubi has horrible business practices, I guess I'll wait for it to go to the bargain bin.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BusterOddo*
> 
> ^THIS
> The game was fantastic. The graphics are easily in contention for the best in games to date. The gameplay and story were awesome. People saying they aren't getting it now or glad they didnt waste their money are clueless. Sooo much whining


You are missing the point... They showed something better, but when it came down to selling the game, they provided a product with an inferior level of visual quality. People have a right as a consumer to be upset at the bait and switch. It is the principle of it, not how good or bad the game actually looks.


----------



## moocowman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> You are missing the point... They showed something better, but when it came down to selling the game, they provided a product with an inferior level of visual quality. People have a right as a consumer to be upset at the bait and switch. It is the principle of it, not how good or bad the game actually looks.


It's hardly a bait and switch. E3 demo footage is *never* a final representation of a game.


----------



## QuietlyLinux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NateN34*
> 
> Yeah, it sort of is not anymore.
> 
> Most everygame that is multiplatform lately looks nearly the same on the console. The exception being BF3, which looks far better on the PC.......everything else is nearly identical, due to us being held back by consoles. Lets face it too, developers don't care to put all that work and add special features/graphics for us, especially since we are the minority and earn them the least amount of money. On top of that, consoles seem to get the best exclusives, while the PC exclusive developers flocked to consoles later...
> 
> The only thing that is really better about PC gaming is the FPS. I can run all my games at 60 FPS, native 1080p with no jagged edges, due to AA. Consoles on the other hand are pushing 640p, with jagged edges galore and a messily 30 FPS. I personally cannot play games at 60 FPS anymore, since I get extreme headaches.
> 
> In the end though, I think the solid, higher FPS and cleaner graphics alone, makes PC gaming worth it.


Ever played Crysis on a console? Obviously not.

The only game that looks the same on a console is MW/COD4 and they look crap on a PC anyway.


----------



## YP5 Toronto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> How do you see this as crying from PC gamers? Fact, the game's graphics are not the same as what was shown at E3. It is expected and JUSTIFIED that many gamers would feel cheated, that this was a huge bait and switch. Crying would be if the dev team said Far Cry 3 would have identical graphics to consoles and PC gamers complaining that their graphics aren't better than consoles. There is a HUGE difference between crying and legitimately providing criticism for a legitimate issue. Please learn and understand the difference between the two.


refreshing to see there are people on this board with common sense....


----------



## Capt

Another terrible port by Ubisoft, what else is new.


----------



## Mongol

For the most part, I've stopped buying PC games that aren't developed by Valve.

...yes, I do own consoles. :3 Yes, I do buy some non-Valve PC games.


----------



## HarbingerOfLive

They probably cut a lot of it due to how intensive the game was. I mean, think about it. On my system the game mostly sits between 50-60 on the highest settings, sometimes dipping to 40 in high octane scenes.

Imagine the framerate (even for PC and especially on consoles) with the more detailed lighting and shadows, and the over abundance of vegetation. It would have been brutal.

And besides, the game is still fun, and it looks great.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moocowman*
> 
> It's hardly a bait and switch. E3 demo footage is *never* a final representation of a game.


It does however show customers the state of the game that they are developing and if what they show is different from the end result, then Ubi should have informed customers that they had to decrease the quality of graphics. Instead, gamers with a provided expectation of what the game looked like to what they actually received, had to find out that they shiny graphics they thought were part of the game were less shiny in the final product. If anything, graphics should remain the same as the game becomes more polished and optimized. That is my beef. If you show something and it changes later, you better be damn sure that you let your prospective customers know. Again, it is the principle of the matter.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarbingerOfLive*
> 
> They probably cut a lot of it due to how intensive the game was. I mean, think about it. On my system the game mostly sits between 50-60 on the highest settings, sometimes dipping to 40 in high octane scenes.
> Imagine the framerate (even for PC and especially on consoles) with the more detailed lighting and shadows, and the over abundance of vegetation. It would have been brutal.
> And besides, the game is still fun, and it looks great.


Thats why you can get more then one GTX670.

It probably more likely they did not want PC to look so different from Console.


----------



## di inferi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> Another terrible port by Ubisoft, what else is new.


It is pretty obvious you and everyone else saying this haven't played it.

Also, I highly doubt your rig could even handle the game on medium settings; let alone what was shown at E3...

So what are you complaining about?


----------



## moocowman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> It does however show customers the state of the game that they are developing and if what they show is different from the end result, then Ubi should have informed customers that they had to decrease the quality of graphics. Instead, gamers with a provided expectation of what the game looked like to what they actually received, had to find out that they shiny graphics they thought were part of the game were less shiny in the final product. If anything, graphics should remain the same as the game becomes more polished and optimized. That is my beef. If you show something and it changes later, you better be damn sure that you let your prospective customers know. Again, it is the principle of the matter.


It wasn't exactly hidden that the graphics were toned down..


----------



## dav2693

Sadly they are not the only one who overhype their trailers with lies.


----------



## Munchkinpuncher

Love FC3. Graphics are great so is gameplay. Not once did it feel like a console port. Making the game look like it has better graphics before it comes out is nothing new


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moocowman*
> 
> It wasn't exactly hidden that the graphics were toned down..


My point was not that they were hiding it, but that they didn't let fans know. Those fans who care have a right to voice their displeasure. Do I think the game and mechanics still look great? Yes I do and I never said otherwise. Considering my last very poor experience with Ubisoft and FC2, I am waiting for this game to go on sale before I grab it.


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> Difference seems minute
> IMO the E3 version looks "technically" more advanced but lacks real art direction and looks just like crysis. They made it look more cartoony to diferentiate far cry from crysis and other shooters, and it's payed off. Now THIS is whining just to whine.


maybe differentiate it from other fps, but cartoony/overly vibrant is all the rage for a lot of games and even for movies etc. this overly vibrant/use of flourescent colors needs to die, it's so annoying. google even used it in their brother's grimm page for today (dec 20th is the 200th anniversary). same with windows 8 color choices. i personally find it really abnoxious since not everyone wants to constantly feel that they're at a rave or something


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> How do you see this as crying from PC gamers? Fact, the game's graphics are not the same as what was shown at E3. It is expected and JUSTIFIED that many gamers would feel cheated, that this was a huge bait and switch. Crying would be if the dev team said Far Cry 3 would have identical graphics to consoles and PC gamers complaining that their graphics aren't better than consoles. There is a HUGE difference between crying and legitimately providing criticism for a legitimate issue. Please learn and understand the difference between the two.


All games look epic at E3. That's the whole point of the E3.

Having played the game AND followed it closely before release, I'm happy. The graphics are epic. The best right now, imho.

And it's crying because the graphics are fantastic and yet it's still not enough? They outdo those on the console by a huge margin and, it's still not enough.

E3 is for showing off videogames. All games look better on E3 than release.


----------



## Ugh Ugh

It still looks incredible


----------



## moocowman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OC'ing Noob*
> 
> My point was not that they were hiding it, but that they didn't let fans know. Those fans who care have a right to voice their displeasure. Do I think the game and mechanics still look great? Yes I do and I never said otherwise. Considering my last very poor experience with Ubisoft and FC2, I am waiting for this game to go on sale before I grab it.


There's kind of a flaw in your logic. People who are basing this displeasure off of the E3 footage had the chance to see the GamesCom footage as well and more than likely did if they were following the game closely. If people are so displeased now, why didn't anyone say anything when the GamesCom footage came out now? I haven't heard a single complaint about it until now that someone pointed it out. The fact that the GamesCom footage shows the game closer to its finished state, which was available to the public just as the E3 footage was, makes the whole bait and switch theory moot.

These "fans" can voice their displeasure all they want, but they're going to look silly doing so.


----------



## Jess94

Every single game that has ever been promoted at E3 had better graphics than what was in release. It's no secret companies photoshop screenshots and use pre-rendered gameplay movies at high detailing to make their products look better. Just look at fast food advertisements! The food/burgers never look like that when you buy them. It's not false-advertising.


----------



## JorundJ

Comparing the actual product to the commercial... Do these people live under a stone? Seriously, can it get anymore naive?

I finished the game, and I haven't had a single complaint about it. Played like one of the best FPS's ever, with a crazy ass story line that I'll never forget.


----------



## IRO-Bot

False Advertising! Let's get it taken down like WarZ!

The E3 demo, that guy's just pretend playing with a video. Nobody moves that smoothly.


----------



## Nemesis158

While i can agree the game probably should look more like it does in the E3 video, There becomes a point where one can make the game too immersive for a screen. with foliage like that, it would be more difficult to hunt animals and/or see predators approaching you.
The only real gripe i have about the game is the Lens flare. Seriously, since when did our eyes produce lens flare?
For anyone complaining about stuttering and have SLI/Crossfire, the drivers just haven't been fixed yet. a single 7970/680 will tear through the game just fine, but it will stutter if you have more than 1.


----------



## Gallien

My rig runs [email protected] w/ everything maxed and NO MSAA 55-60fps avg. If my old little Fermis can run this game your Keplers should have no problem


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nemesis158*
> 
> While i can agree the game probably should look more like it does in the E3 video, There becomes a point where one can make the game too immersive for a screen. with foliage like that, it would be more difficult to hunt animals and/or see predators approaching you.
> The only real gripe i have about the game is the Lens flare. Seriously, since when did our eyes produce lens flare?
> For anyone complaining about stuttering and have SLI/Crossfire, the drivers just haven't been fixed yet. a single 7970/680 will tear through the game just fine, but it will stutter if you have more than 1.


which would add to the depth of gameplay in a way. i mean certainly the folia in an actual jungle would probably have a similar effect, it just means you have to have a contextual awareness and would add to the challenge in a way


----------



## mohit9206

the game is great and that is all that matters. graphics can come later. its not like the game is ugly anyways. quite the opposite. so i dont see why some pc gamers must feel cheated


----------



## bad_haze

I've been burned by Ubicrap before. They didn't provide support for Win XP -> Vista support for Brothers in Arms, they released a joke of a game with Asscains Creed 1 due to the embarassing AI, the poorly PC optimized Splinter Cell sequels, Far Cry 1 had such boring gameplay and confusing environment I just stopped playing it halfway through. My experience with Ubicrap is not good and I will never give them my money again. I vote with my wallet.


----------



## xenomorph113

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moocowman*
> 
> It's hardly a bait and switch. E3 demo footage is *never* a final representation of a game.


i always figured the E3 demo was the top level of what the engine "could" do, i imagine that they had to strip some of the extras out of it for the sake of framerates (for both consoles and PCs)

anyone know what system was used in the E3 demo? maybe it was some ridiculous workstation with 4x hex-core(12 threaded) Xeons and 4x top tier graphics cards and a butt load of ram, or something equally unattainable by the consumer market (or at least not easily attainable)

i dunno, i enjoy the game thus far i figure it was worth the $50 on steam, hopefully they'll have an HD pack come out like crysis 2 did


----------



## Chimeracaust

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"*
> \/[EGADET]-[" url="/t/1340188/muro-pc-gamers-furious-what-happened-to-far-cry-3s-graphics#post_18867326"]ya it's not worth it to stay bleeding edge anymore. piss poor


This has been true for like 4 years...


----------



## Akheton

Considering a 680 can't even run the game at 60 fps at 1920x1080 it's not surprising that they scaled back the graphics, which are still very good. There's no real reason for anyone to be "furious."


----------



## Mygaffer

Wow, the E3 demo was definitely running on a PC, so if they had a build that looked that good why did they reduce the quality for the PC release? Is it _really_ so it wouldn't look better than consoles, or so there would be some sort of graphical parity between platforms? Because that is just ridiculous.

This is just one of the reasons I haven't bought an Ubisoft title in years, they just don't get it.

EDIT: You know it may have been a performance issue as well. I haven't played the game so I don't know how hard it is on computers but if what people are saying is true, that maxing it out means you need top end hardware to get decent FPS, well then I can kind of understand the scaling back.


----------



## Stefy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Akheton*
> 
> Considering a 680 can't even run the game at 60 fps at 1920x1080 it's not surprising that they scaled back the graphics, which are still very good. There's no real reason for anyone to be "furious."


Idk tbh, it looks a tad bit too demanding compared to the graphics.


----------



## Capt

What graphics card are they using at that E3 demo? I'm thinking a GTX690 and HD7990 are enough to max this game with the original graphics.


----------



## Systemlord

It's clear that Ubisoft was showcasing the console version as the better version and how much better it looked on the consoles, there's no other way to come away from this and no other interpretation!


----------



## ahhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Systemlord*
> 
> It's clear that Ubisoft was showcasing the console version as the better version and how much better it looked on the consoles, there's no other way to come away from this and no other interpretation!


That sounds the most plausible. Consoles make them FAR more money than PCs.


----------



## Blindrage606

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Akheton*
> 
> Considering a 680 can't even run the game at 60 fps at 1920x1080 it's not surprising that they scaled back the graphics, which are still very good. There's no real reason for anyone to be "furious."


This statement is false.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bad_haze*
> 
> I've been burned by Ubicrap before. They didn't provide support for Win XP -> Vista support for Brothers in Arms, they released a joke of a game with Asscains Creed 1 due to the embarassing AI, the poorly PC optimized Splinter Cell sequels, Far Cry 1 had such boring gameplay and confusing environment I just stopped playing it halfway through. My experience with Ubicrap is not good and I will never give them my money again. I vote with my wallet.


Crytek made FarCry 1. Ubisoft just published it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Akheton*
> 
> Considering a 680 can't even run the game at 60 fps at 1920x1080 it's not surprising that they scaled back the graphics, which are still very good. There's no real reason for anyone to be "furious."


LOL my 670 can play it 60FPS @ 1080p.


----------



## twerk

I think people need to calm down a bit. The game still looks amazing


----------



## WildEast

PC gamers shouldn't be angry about it, they can't even play it on higher graphics.
Unless you are running a dual gpu configuration, but they can't consider the dual gpu users into their market share for obvious reasons.


----------



## Capt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AndyM95*
> 
> I think people need to calm down a bit. The game still looks amazing


Not to me. It looks like a crappy port.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildEast*
> 
> PC gamers shouldn't be angry about it, they can't even play it on higher graphics.
> Unless you are running a dual gpu configuration, but they can't consider the dual gpu users into their market share for obvious reasons.


>Using 4xMSAA on 1600p.
>Thinking it's really going to look much better than without MSAA.

Yea. You're gonna have a bad time. Rofl.

Benchmark was clearly just that, a benchmark. I feel sorry for anyone that insists on AA on that sort of resolution, and I consider myself picky about "it looking as best as it could look."


----------



## Bonkers

I do agree that people need to calm down. While I wish that the game did look as awesome as the demo in the OP, you have to admit it still looks great. Hop on a jet ski and ride on some water and stuff. Its gorgeous.

I understand why people are upset about it but I think calling it just a horrible port etc is a little harsh. I know my 670 is maxed out the entire time I play it.


----------



## Kane2207

27" 1440p and I can't see a reason to use AA. When the pixel pitch is that fine, I gain very little with AA but take a massive performance kick in the nuts if I use it.

Maybe it just me though, someone earlier disagreed quite strongly branding high resolutions/no AA people snobs lol

Maybe I'm just not as sensitive to it as some.


----------



## moocowman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> Not to me. It looks like a crappy port.


I think your eyes might be broken.. Just saying.


----------



## WildEast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> >Using 4xMSAA on 1600p.
> >Thinking it's really going to look much better than without MSAA.
> Yea. You're gonna have a bad time. Rofl.
> Benchmark was clearly just that, a benchmark. I feel sorry for anyone that insists on AA on that sort of resolution, and I consider myself picky about "it looking as best as it could look."


Some devs like to take into consideration higher resolutions and a minimal playable fps. If the graphics were better and got the AA disabled, will you still be satisfied getting a sluggish 30ish fps over the highest end single gpu configuration on the market? I doubt it.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildEast*
> 
> Some devs like to take into consideration higher resolutions and a minimal playable fps. If the graphics were better and got the AA disabled, will you still be satisfied getting a sluggish 30ish fps over the highest end single gpu configuration on the market? I doubt it.


But the single GPU crowd can still play on the same settings as they do now... Higher settings don't hurt them, it's a win-win for everyone. People with multiple GPUs get better graphics now and people with single GPU systems get them when they upgrade.


----------



## Clam Slammer

What we should be furious about is how they yanked PC splitscreen from steam and their own site ONE DAY before European release. I bought the game for that feature.

http://www.co-optimus.com/article/8473/far-cry-3-follow-up-questions-plus-new-co-op-campaign-trailer-and-images.html <- Official article, was on their own site, now is gone.

FALSE ADVERTISING. STILL CO-OP ON CONSOLES. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO DX11 SPLIT SCREEN SOON ANYWAY, WITH NEXT GEN CONSOLES.


----------



## H-man

I want to see a GPU melter. If I wanted something I could max out on my computer I would fire up team fortress 2 or counter strike.
This is overclock.net, not stockclock.net, to pursue performance you need to be unable to obtain it at stock clocks.


----------



## WildEast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> But the single GPU crowd can still play on the same settings as they do now... Higher settings don't hurt them, it's a win-win for everyone. People with multiple GPUs get better graphics now and people with single GPU systems get them when they upgrade.


True. But that gets us to the point where PC gamers as a whole shouldn't really be furious about it. They should however try and further improve it through a couple of standalone patches like crytek, since they already got it to look as good as the presentation.


----------



## Capt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moocowman*
> 
> I think your eyes might be broken.. Just saying.


Nope, not at all. Your eyes on the other hand might be.


----------



## Superplush

I get about 30fps with custom settings ( Everything up high ) and AA off. I personally Think the game doesn't look so much as "gorgeous" it still has that fake 'cartoon-y' tropical island feel to it. Crysis, I felt like I was in a hot area, a snowy or a rainy one. In Farcry 3 I don't feel that warmth, it looks artificial, including the rather camera-lens looking flare from the sun.

By no means is it a crappy game, but certain things do bug me, like the almost Borderlands 2-esque cell shaded hands when you loot corpses and the lack of blood, especially when skinning.


----------



## Zcypot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Comparison images
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source (translated)
> Source
> Original forum post
> Again translations are always bad but I couldn't find any other non forum source. Still thought that this might be interesting to discuss.


I am not mad about the graphics I think they look okay. The game play is amazing! I am a little upset about performance though.. barely keeping 60fps on medium with my rig is sad







.

Edit:The acting is in this is actually really good O.O, I am trying to imagine the voice actors they went all out... at least on the main bad dude.

Possible spoilers


----------



## Unstableiser

Since when are PC gamers not furious about something


----------



## Kane2207

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Idiot*
> 
> I want to see a GPU melter....


Ha, this.

How the hell else can I justify a 690 to the missus?


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildEast*
> 
> PC gamers shouldn't be angry about it, they can't even play it on higher graphics.
> Unless you are running a dual gpu configuration, but they can't consider the dual gpu users into their market share for obvious reasons.


Sorry, but you don't need 4xMultisampling AA. You can use FXAA on Nvidia cards quite nicely. I can run @ 1080p @ 60FPS on a single 670.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clam Slammer*
> 
> What we should be furious about is how they yanked PC splitscreen from steam and their own site ONE DAY before European release. I bought the game for that feature.
> http://www.co-optimus.com/article/8473/far-cry-3-follow-up-questions-plus-new-co-op-campaign-trailer-and-images.html <- Official article, was on their own site, now is gone.
> FALSE ADVERTISING. STILL CO-OP ON PC. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO DX11 SPLIT SCREEN SOON ANYWAY, WITH NEXT GEN CONSOLES.


Ridiculous (you, not the pulling of the feature).


----------



## sugarhell

First we have horrible console ports like gta and dark souls. And now they give us a game with directx11 and general good graphics and amazing gameplay,story and because they missing some features from the original plan we ready our pitchforks







Imo the only important to talk about this game is the stuttering issue. Nothing else


----------



## Kavster12

Wow I didnt know this......now from the I am getting this game this week list, Far Cry 3 has moved to the maybe list.









Hopefully this gets fixed soon.







IF it gets changed that is.....


----------



## snitchkilla11

wont there be texture mods eventully? so who cares..this game allready puts my 680lightnings on its knees


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MaxFTW*
> 
> Not buying this now until its fixed...
> Im srs


gameplay > graphics. Yes, it's not good but really...


----------



## Systemlord

Whenever you need high quality texture mods you know damn well it was designed as a console game first, PC a distant second! If it was designed for a PC you wouldn't need high quality texture mods because they would already be in the game when released!

It's poorly optimized for PC's as it is!


----------



## Hl86

People are alrdy modding, check this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2igrpesVr28


----------



## TKFlight

Quote:


> Then people wonder why developers tend to consoles instead of the cry babies rolleyes.gif


They tend to consoles because that's where the money is at, and PC gamers have the right to cry. Our rigs have to get held back because of consoles not keeping up with the times, that's why peoples rigs on here last for years until its time to upgrade.


----------



## Otterclock

I thought the graphics weren't all that much different from Far Cry 2, but it didn't bother me. There's a whole lot more wrong with the game than the graphics. Yet, I had fun.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Guys, there a big thread on OCN with the mods....

http://www.overclock.net/t/1336307/far-cry-3-mods-thread


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MaxFTW*
> 
> Not buying this now until its fixed...
> Im srs
> 
> 
> 
> gameplay > graphics. Yes, it's not good but really...
Click to expand...

Both are equally important as is sound...Nothing takes precedence over the other.


----------



## Newbie2009

wow pretty big difference alright.


----------



## bigaluksys

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mwarren*
> 
> Who cares about the graphics, we need more good gameplay on the PC. I'm tired of every other complaint and every other game being about graphics.
> If I want good graphics I'll run 3dmark.


Why don't we have both? Good graphics *with* good gameplay. It's not like it's not possible because good graphics will kill gameplay and vice-versa...
IMO, FC3 looks and plays awesome, it could have been better, but I like the way it is.


----------



## GenoOCAU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snitchkilla11*
> 
> wont there be texture mods eventully? so who cares..this game allready puts my 680lightnings on its knees


You cant be serious? I borrowed a friends 2560x1440p monitor, had my 680 lightnings at 1300/6800 and they ripped the game up, almost 120fps everywhere.


----------



## Thingamajig

Quote:


> ya it's not worth it to stay bleeding edge anymore. piss poor


This is something i learned pretty quickly after assembling umbra several years ago.

I'm essentially a guinea pig for manufacturer's and software developers up until the technology i've purchased is mainstream - if this should even happen at all. Buying cutting edge tech just isn't worth it unless you like being a beta tester.

The only thing it offers is bragging rights, and nobody likes someone who brags.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GenoOCAU*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *snitchkilla11*
> 
> wont there be texture mods eventully? so who cares..this game allready puts my 680lightnings on its knees
> 
> 
> 
> You cant be serious? I borrowed a friends 2560x1440p monitor, had my 680 lightnings at 1300/6800 and they ripped the game up, almost 120fps everywhere.
Click to expand...

Lol I really don't understand these guys... they have to be running with some horrible bottlenecks. FC3 runs as smooth as your typical COD game for me.


----------



## Bloodbath

Farcry 3 looks fantastic and it really stresses my sig rig out, seriously I'm getting 90% usage on all three 680s but all that aside it looks spectacular if you've got a enough grunt to really crank up the graphics.


----------



## DirectXtreme

Completely asinine decision. They literally wasted time and money just to reduce the graphics in the game.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Lol I really don't understand these guys... they have to be running with some horrible bottlenecks. FC3 runs as smooth as your typical COD game for me.


If you mean the low 40 and 30 smooth like your previous post. Can you maintain 60 fps all the time at 1440p?


----------



## Hexa

This is the problem with PC gamers that just never stops to amaze me. I'm not going to try and say Far Cry 3 is the greatest PC game of the past few years but dang the game is simply FUN. In my opinion it's also far from ugly looking to. Basically it's just amazing to me that as another poster pointed out, some of you are complaining b/c there is less grass to look at. Is that what you do in games, stare at grass the entire time?

Honestly I feel like I am one of the few true PC gamers left. The great majority of you are just entitled little punks who can never be pleased with everything about a game. It's not pirates or people of the sort who are killing PC gaming, it's people like you guys. You will never hear console gamers whining over something this silly. Console gamers, buy the game, play the game and talk about how fun it is to their friends. PC gamers buy (or pirate) the game and talk about all the crappy things it has to their friends.


----------



## zylonite

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jess94*
> 
> Every single game that has ever been promoted at E3 had better graphics than what was in release. It's no secret companies photoshop screenshots and use pre-rendered gameplay movies at high detailing to make their products look better. Just look at fast food advertisements! The food/burgers never look like that when you buy them. It's not false-advertising.


except Hitman.


----------



## bryonhowley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MaxFTW*
> 
> Not buying this now until its fixed...
> Im srs


Nothing to fix the game is great the way it is. Play it or do not play it is your loss ether way it is still a great game with very good graphics.


----------



## Booty Warrior

First world problems.


----------



## Hotcarl

Companies are known to do this for presentation purposes, some game demos are worked on more extra and made to look better in the area of demo. Don't want to name the game but like I said, this isn't rare to happen. I'm sure other games do this, hell look back at Far Cry 2 presentation when it was shown at E3


----------



## Otterclock

I feel more misled by them saying the game was open-world. "Leaving Mission Area!" lol, k.


----------



## RobotDevil666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bryonhowley*
> 
> Nothing to fix the game is great the way it is. Play it or do not play it is your loss ether way it is still a great game with very good graphics.


lol sure , there is more things that need fixing in this game than i care to list , for starters fix the gaddamn stutter so i can finally play it


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Ehhh not really.... *my single 7970 shreds it at 2560x1440. Can't even imagine what 2 would do.*


Hmmm. "Shreds it" aye?

Try turning on 8xMSAA, HDAO, Vsync, and everything else on ultra + your res, and see how your single 7970 slows to a crawl.

I'm running the game completely maxed out, 8xMSAA, downsampled 2560x1600 to 1200p, and I average low 50's but get frequent drops into the 30's, and this is with 2 OC'd 7970's. This game is pretty demanding with everything cranked up.

As for the people I've seen in this thread saying they're no longer buying the game because of this, well, all I have to say is that's silly. The game still looks fantastic. Don't let this discourage you from getting one of the best games to come out in years.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Otterclock*
> 
> I feel more misled by them saying the game was open-world. "Leaving Mission Area!" lol, k.


Huh? The game IS completely open world. What game are you playing?

Missions will always be fairly linear as they need to be for the story line to progress, everything else outside of these missions is totally open for exploration.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> Lol I really don't understand these guys... they have to be running with some horrible bottlenecks. FC3 runs as smooth as your typical COD game for me.
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the low 40 and 30 smooth like your previous post. Can you maintain 60 fps all the time at 1440p?
Click to expand...

That was with MSAA on which is a joke at 1440p. And that was mid 30s absolute lowest (meaning even for a split second). Without MSAA I net around 50 absolute lowest, again for a second or two and then I'm back up to average ~60.


----------



## EliteReplay

i still remember crysis presentation was way better than actual game... tho


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexa*
> 
> This is the problem with PC gamers that just never stops to amaze me. I'm not going to try and say Far Cry 3 is the greatest PC game of the past few years but dang the game is simply FUN. In my opinion it's also far from ugly looking to. Basically it's just amazing to me that as another poster pointed out, some of you are complaining b/c there is less grass to look at. Is that what you do in games, stare at grass the entire time?
> 
> Honestly I feel like I am one of the few true PC gamers left. The great majority of you are just entitled little punks who can never be pleased with everything about a game. It's not pirates or people of the sort who are killing PC gaming, it's people like you guys. You will never hear console gamers whining over something this silly. Console gamers, buy the game, play the game and talk about how fun it is to their friends. PC gamers buy (or pirate) the game and talk about all the crappy things it has to their friends.


You talk as if the problems you outlined isn't prevalent on consoles. All PC gamers demand, is quality.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> That was with MSAA on which is a joke at 1440p. And that was mid 30s absolute lowest (meaning even for a split second). Without MSAA I net around 50 absolute lowest, again for a second or two and then I'm back up to average ~60.


I play in eyefinity and without postfx and msaa i can see clearly jaggies edge. The fact that you play with some settings off doesnt means that the game doesnt need some beefy gpu.


----------



## Clam Slammer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Sorry, but you don't need 4xMultisampling AA. You can use FXAA on Nvidia cards quite nicely. I can run @ 1080p @ 60FPS on a single 670.
> Ridiculous (you, not the pulling of the feature).


At least my complaint is about gameplay, not how good it looks on two grand's worth of GPU. Is it ridiculous to be upset when you buy something for a feature, that is taken out a day before release, with no official response or refund? I don't think it's ridiculous.


----------



## tubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlasov_581*
> 
> this is a trend lately......infact most of the games now are ridiculously blown up in commercials


I bet that MGS Ground Zeroes would look nothing like in the 1st trailer for when it's released on consoles. I kept reading around comments that the new trailer, Phantom Pain, has a significant enough hit in gfx.


----------



## Kazumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> You talk as if the problems you outlined isn't prevalent on consoles. All PC gamers demand, is quality.


I'll second this. Console gamers "used" to complain if a game did not meet the standards they expected. However years and years of poor quality have led most to "accept" it because it's a older console. So they focus more on the social aspect, not the game aspect. PC gamers however have systems that far out play a console. We know what's possible, and what's not possible on our machines. I don't think anyone has demanded anything they didn't already show us was possible. PC gamers like to push the boundaries of gaming. If someone is Satisfied with the current state of gaming, then THEY are not really PC gamers. PC gamers will continue to ask for what's within our grasp. Not settle for a partial attempt when the devs have the skill to provide so much more.


----------



## theturbofd

Guess you tell the truth about people on OCN and a mod comes in quick to delete lol

Seriously the game is worth it just stop crying about the graphics which still look good.


----------



## Thingamajig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kazumi*
> 
> I'll second this. Console gamers "used" to complain if a game did not meet the standards they expected. However years and years of poor quality have led most to "accept" it because it's a older console. So they focus more on the social aspect, not the game aspect. PC gamers however have systems that far out play a console. We know what's possible, and what's not possible on our machines. I don't think anyone has demanded anything they didn't already show us was possible. PC gamers like to push the boundaries of gaming. *If someone is Satisfied with the current state of gaming, then THEY are not really PC gamers. PC gamers will continue to ask for what's within our grasp. Not settle for a partial attempt when the devs have the skill to provide so much more.*


Quoteworthy, that.

As for FC3, never really followed the franchise so i couldn't care much for this topic, but some things said encouraged me to post.


----------



## Akheton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Crytek made FarCry 1. Ubisoft just published it.
> LOL my 670 can play it 60FPS @ 1080p.


You must have gotten one special 670: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html

Next time check to see that you actually maxed out the graphics before posting such silliness. Try enabling 4x MSAA and HBAO.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blindrage606*
> 
> This statement is false.


Neither guru3d nor a friend of mine with a 680 can average 60 fps with everything maxed out, however he, like the vast majority of 680 owners, doesn't have a Lightning so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Booty Warrior

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kazumi*
> 
> I'll second this. Console gamers "used" to complain if a game did not meet the standards they expected. However years and years of poor quality have led most to "accept" it because it's a older console. So they focus more on the social aspect, not the game aspect. PC gamers however have systems that far out play a console. We know what's possible, and what's not possible on our machines. I don't think anyone has demanded anything they didn't already show us was possible. PC gamers like to push the boundaries of gaming. If someone is Satisfied with the current state of gaming, then THEY are not really PC gamers. PC gamers will continue to ask for what's within our grasp. Not settle for a partial attempt when the devs have the skill to provide so much more.


Honestly, you sound like you want a benchmark more than a game. I guess tight gameplay, an engaging story, and an innovative progression system take a back seat to pretty graphics (which this game still has...).

I could understand the griping if the game was a crappy port that looked horrible, but it's one of the best looking games of all time. People boycotting it because if a few missing shrubs _really_ need to get a grip.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> First world problems.


This guy gets it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clam Slammer*
> 
> At least my complaint is about gameplay, not how good it looks on two grand's worth of GPU. Is it ridiculous to be upset when you buy something for a feature, that is taken out a day before release, with no official response or refund? I don't think it's ridiculous.


So take that up with Steam and demand your refund. It's not a massive deal. You still have the whole game.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tubers*
> 
> I bet that MGS Ground Zeroes would look nothing like in the 1st trailer for when it's released on consoles. I kept reading around comments that the new trailer, Phantom Pain, has a significant enough hit in gfx.


To be fair, MGS famously use real time rendering for all their show off videos, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was toned down for release... this is just the norm.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Akheton*
> 
> You must have gotten one special 670: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html
> Next time check to see that you actually maxed out the graphics before posting such silliness. Try enabling 4x MSAA and HBAO.
> Neither guru3d nor a friend of mine with a 680 can average 60 fps with everything maxed out, however he, like the vast majority of 680 owners, doesn't have a Lightning so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Yeah... turn off MSAA and enable FXAA. It looks EXACTLY the same and performs way better. I have everything on ultra and HBAO on, but MSAA off, V-Sync to one frame and triple buffering on. I'm locked at 60FPS constantly. If I take it off I'm between 70 and 80 FPS with drops into the low 60's... but of course that's no use since I get screen tearing, hence the V-Sync.

I'm sure MSAA looks better in screenshots or something, but for playing it's very, very hard to tell.

So, yeah, maxed out over 60 FPS with a GTX670. It's doable.


----------



## Crouch

I ran the game at 1080p with everything set to high except for water which was ultra & with no AA, the game was amazingly smooth







I really loved it


----------



## CrazyNikel

I have the game maxed besides AA @ 1080p with my sig rig. Played completely fine. Actually I was EXPECTING more lag then what I got(hardly any if none at all). I gotta say I'm a bit disappointed after watching the comparison video. I'm now making a mental note to further check games upon release.


----------



## sixor

every pc game has the same crap LOD as consoles. period

and yes, i am talking to you assasing creed crap LOD and shadows


----------



## Feild Scarecrow

To all you complaining about ubisoft purposefully downgraded graphics so it would look better in comparison on consoles are spineless and let others dictate your opinions. Do you not understand that developers do not have to make games for this platform. You expect far too much support and special given that we are less than 20% market share. Far Cry is a fun game that has good graphics but people love to whine about everything that is popular. The footage that was released was *ALPHA FOOTAGE* ubisoft decided it was not worth their effort to put so much detail into an area and therefore make the explore able map larger.
My mother is a bitter old woman because her expectations are always too high. These are game meant to be fun and your job is not to critique them therefore why waste your life being angry and look at the bright side of things. The worst game where that occurs is LoL but now I see even people playing alone are even inspired to be angry. Tick Tock that's the sound of your life fading away no one is respecting or looking up to you more for been uptight and hating things. You only have your self to blame if you buy something without doing adequate research and regretting it. If you look at a trailer made 8 months ago and base your conclusion on the amount of foliage learn from your mistake and move on. Sorry for my poor grammar

TL: DR Lower your expectations and life will be more fun. Guaranteed.


----------



## gerickjohn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bloitz*
> 
> Why do they play it with a controller? Anyone knows?
> Pretty much everyone knows most presentations / demos are run on a PC so what's the point in keeping up appearances. Mouse and KB are also far more entertaining to watch.


Fluidity, Mouse movement isn't smooth, might as well be too jerky compared to the cinematic like movements on a controller.


----------



## Alatar

I'm astonished that some people think that consumers being critical and demanding better products is a bad thing... Complaining and keeping companies on their toes is what a good consumer is supposed to do.

If people didn't complain war Z would still be on steam, crysis 2 wouldn't have a DX11/high res patch, dark souls wouldn't be on the PC, and mass effect 3 wouldn't have an improved ending. I guess gamers should just have kept their mouths shut since crying will just hurt gaming.


----------



## Vakten

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Feild Scarecrow*
> 
> To all you complaining about ubisoft purposefully downgraded graphics so it would look better in comparison on consoles are spineless and let others dictate your opinions. Do you not understand that developers do not have to make games for this platform. You expect far too much support and special given that we are less than 20% market share. Far Cry is a fun game that has good graphics but people love to whine about everything that is popular. The footage that was released was *ALPHA FOOTAGE* ubisoft decided it was not worth their effort to put so much detail into an area and therefore make the explore able map larger. Grow up and accept that companies will not give you special treatment because you stomp you feet and hold your breath.
> You really need to grow up if you hate:
> Justin Bieber
> Crysis 2
> Black ops 2
> Nickel Back
> World of Warcraft
> Hipsters
> George Bush
> Twilight
> My mother is a bitter old woman because her expectations are always too high. These are game meant to be fun and your job is not to critique them therefore why waste your life being angry and look at the bright side of things. The worst game where that occurs is LoL but now I see even people playing alone are even inspired to be angry. Tick Tock that's the sound of your life fading away no one is respecting or looking up to you more for been uptight and hating things. You only have your self to blame if you buy something without doing adequate research and regretting it. If you look at a trailer made 8 months ago and base your conclusion on the amount of foliage learn from your mistake and move on. Sorry for my poor grammar





*TL: DR Lower your expectations and life will be more fun. Guaranteed*.

I get what your saying, but when someone gives you the expectations by presenting a game with a certain level of graphics, then it's not your fault for having expectations for those graphics. The expectations were built on what they showed us, not what we assumed so no, its not a case were we need to lower our expectations because we shouldn't have to expect lower quality from what they presented us with.


----------



## UNOE

I own it its pretty much unplayable with one, two or three GPU's on any settings. Major FPS drop spikes, stutter with multi GPU, dx9 and dx11 look the same, GPU usage is 90% percent no matter how many GPU's you have with no increase in FPS. Just more power consumption and no extra Frames per second, also random artifacts/glitches in various places, really makes you appreciate BF3 a game that really knows how to use hardware properly.


----------



## iFluX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> Honestly, you sound like you want a benchmark more than a game. I guess tight gameplay, an engaging story, and an innovative progression system take a back seat to pretty graphics (which this game still has...).
> I could understand the griping if the game was a crappy port that looked horrible, but it's one of the best looking games of all time. People boycotting it because if a few missing shrubs _really_ need to get a grip.


Im sure someone has mentioned this but, im just going to say it again for clarity. We are not boycotting because a few things are missing. We(at least i am) are boycotting because they removed something that was implemented and available for public to see, without saying anything about (Some people would argue that, that is lying(Lying by Omission)).

The game producers are lowering graphics because gfx card cant handle it, and the graphic card manufactures are slowing down RnD since there isn't any demanding games. Crazy Paranoid Guy:"They are all working together!"


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UNOE*
> 
> I own it its pretty much unplayable with *one, two or three GPU's on any settings*. Major FPS drop spikes, stutter with multi GPU, dx9 and dx11 look the same, GPU usage is 90% percent no matter how many GPU's you have with no increase in FPS. Just more power consumption and no extra Frames per second, also random artifacts/glitches in various places, really makes you appreciate BF3 a game that really knows how to use hardware properly.


lolwut? I'm playing the game on a single overclocked gtx 680 everything maxed out at 1920x1200 4x MSAA and I'm running it at 40-60fps. no issues whatsoever

edit:


----------



## sausageson

I love how people are throwing a fit over this game despite it already being praised for having great gameplay, voice acting and the graphics look 10x better than games pc gamers usually play and praise; looking at you blizzard and valve games.


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Feild Scarecrow*
> 
> To all you complaining about ubisoft purposefully downgraded graphics so it would look better in comparison on consoles are spineless and let others dictate your opinions. Do you not understand that developers do not have to make games for this platform. You expect far too much support and special given that we are less than 20% market share. Far Cry is a fun game that has good graphics but people love to whine about everything that is popular. The footage that was released was *ALPHA FOOTAGE* ubisoft decided it was not worth their effort to put so much detail into an area and therefore make the explore able map larger. Grow up and accept that companies will not give you special treatment because you stomp you feet and hold your breath.
> You really need to grow up if you hate:
> Justin Bieber
> Crysis 2
> Black ops 2
> Nickel Back
> World of Warcraft
> Hipsters
> George Bush
> Twilight


Actually I think hating all these things pretty much makes you a hipster (hating on "hipsters" is like hipster rule #1). But hey hipster girls are hot imo, so who says that "hating" will make you unhappy


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> I love how people are throwing a fit over this game despite it already being praised for having great gameplay, voice acting and the graphics look 10x better than games pc gamers usually play and praise; looking at you blizzard and valve games.


I don't understand people tbh. they praise a game like the witcher 2, skyrim etc. (which I find really boring games that's just me though) and great games like Far Cry 3 they call them crap i know it's all about personal preference but come on. a great game is finally on the market and these people say "good thing I didn't buy it" and "graphics looks horrible". smfh


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> I don't understand people tbh. they praise a game like the witcher 2, skyrim etc. (which I find really boring games that's just me though) and great games like Far Cry 3 they call them crap i know it's all about personal preference but come on. a great game is finally on the market and these people say "good thing I didn't buy it" and "graphics looks horrible". smfh


That because they are comparing it to what "it should have been", but for some reason ubisoft decided to not push the envelope and toned down the graphics(for consoles).

I think FC3 looks good, and is a great game, but after seeing what it looked like at E3, it could of looked amazing and been a great game.


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexa*
> 
> This is the problem with PC gamers that just never stops to amaze me. I'm not going to try and say Far Cry 3 is the greatest PC game of the past few years but dang the game is simply FUN. In my opinion it's also far from ugly looking to. Basically it's just amazing to me that as another poster pointed out, some of you are complaining b/c there is less grass to look at. Is that what you do in games, stare at grass the entire time?
> Honestly I feel like I am one of the few true PC gamers left. The great majority of you are just entitled little punks who can never be pleased with everything about a game. It's not pirates or people of the sort who are killing PC gaming, it's people like you guys. You will never hear console gamers whining over something this silly. Console gamers, buy the game, play the game and talk about how fun it is to their friends. PC gamers buy (or pirate) the game and talk about all the crappy things it has to their friends.


Console gamers probably can't afford nor know how good a PC games can look! Oh and the reason why we PC gamer's complain is because some end up spending $2500-$3500 dollars to get the latest cutting edge PC graphics only to have it look worse than a $300 dollar console, you bet your butt I have the right to complain!


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> I'm astonished that some people think that consumers being critical and demanding better products is a bad thing... Complaining and keeping companies on their toes is what a good consumer is supposed to do.
> If people didn't complain war Z would still be on steam, crysis 2 wouldn't have a DX11/high res patch, dark souls wouldn't be on the PC, and mass effect 3 wouldn't have an improved ending. I guess gamers should just have kept their mouths shut since crying will just hurt gaming.


Yes and no... See, Crysis 2 was CRYSIS and people expected DX11 and fancy graphics, War Z was just plain unfinished.

FarCry 3 has some of the best graphics on the market and pushes PC's to their limits (sort of) yet people wanted what was in the E3 video... despite it being E3, the "show off your upcoming products" Expo.

As someone said, there was a much later video showing more down to earth graphics much closer to release.

Complaining is good, but this doesn't deserve complaining about. Requests and such, maybe, but this is a downright great game. Whinging that ti doesn't look like the E3 video shows a clear lack of the understanding and history of E3, lol, and just seems like some of the thunder left from WarZ being kicked.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> I love how people are throwing a fit over this game despite it already being praised for having great gameplay, voice acting and the graphics look 10x better than games pc gamers usually play and praise; looking at you blizzard and valve games.


Holy crap... I agree with you!


----------



## Clocknut

to be honest? Am I the only one here think Nvidia and AMD should setup their own Game studio to push the sales of their product? because at this kind of pace preatty soon things can get so much worst that...

Radeon HD x700 or GTX x50($150 card) can max everything then there will be no point selling high end cards. I am not having any high hopes of Xbox720/PS4 gonna have any mid end GPU let alone high end ones.

PS3/Xbox360 have high end GPU at its time.


----------



## SlackerITGuy

The sad thing about this is that it happens on every game.

Go check BF3's Operation Guillotine Trailer and then go play it yourself, the explosions in that trailer were mind blowing, here:


----------



## DigitalSavior

Never had a problem with the PC version, looked and played great.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> I love how people are throwing a fit over this game despite it already being praised for having great gameplay, voice acting and the graphics look 10x better than games pc gamers usually play and praise; looking at you blizzard and valve games.


The product has been falsely misrepresented and falsely advertised. That's the problem here.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> I'm astonished that some people think that consumers being critical and demanding better products is a bad thing... Complaining and keeping companies on their toes is what a good consumer is supposed to do.
> 
> If people didn't complain war Z would still be on steam, crysis 2 wouldn't have a DX11/high res patch, dark souls wouldn't be on the PC, and mass effect 3 wouldn't have an improved ending. I guess gamers should just have kept their mouths shut since crying will just hurt gaming.


This! Complaining about your basic right as a consumer. Folks, this is money we are talking about. How does it feel like to be scammed? It hurts doesn't it?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kazumi*
> 
> I'll second this. Console gamers "used" to complain if a game did not meet the standards they expected. However years and years of poor quality have led most to "accept" it because it's a older console. So they focus more on the social aspect, not the game aspect. PC gamers however have systems that far out play a console. We know what's possible, and what's not possible on our machines. I don't think anyone has demanded anything they didn't already show us was possible. PC gamers like to push the boundaries of gaming. If someone is Satisfied with the current state of gaming, then THEY are not really PC gamers. PC gamers will continue to ask for what's within our grasp. Not settle for a partial attempt when the devs have the skill to provide so much more.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, you sound like you want a benchmark more than a game. I guess tight gameplay, an engaging story, and an innovative progression system take a back seat to pretty graphics (which this game still has...).
> 
> I could understand the griping if the game was a crappy port that looked horrible, but it's one of the best looking games of all time. People boycotting it because if a few missing shrubs _really_ need to get a grip.
Click to expand...

Again, as mentioned above, the product has been falsely represented.


----------



## Capt

Like some people have already said, this happens with every game that comes out now so there's nothing we can do about it.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> The product has been falsely misrepresented and falsely advertised. That's the problem here.
> This! Complaining about your basic right as a consumer. Folks, this is money we are talking about. How does it feel like to be scammed? It hurts doesn't it?
> Again, as mentioned above, the product has been falsely represented.


No, not really. All alpha footages says so and says it's not representative of the final game, this includes E3 footage.

The problem here is that exact mindset. No, it wasn't falsely represented at all. Mass Effect was falsely represented... More succinctly, WarZ was entirely falsely represented.

FarCry 3 was not. So they toned the graphics down well before release... This happens ALL the time. It's part of a development cycle.

Where's Lordikon when you need him?

EDIT:

point is, we saw the video, we know what the Dunia engine is capable of. Ubisoft decided that it wasn't worth having a Crysis on thier hands and that more people should have a better looking game. Next generation of cards and next iteration of the Dunia engine, we know what to expect.


----------



## amd955be5670

GOTY fail.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> The product has been falsely misrepresented and falsely advertised. That's the problem here.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> I'm astonished that some people think that consumers being critical and demanding better products is a bad thing... Complaining and keeping companies on their toes is what a good consumer is supposed to do.
> 
> If people didn't complain war Z would still be on steam, crysis 2 wouldn't have a DX11/high res patch, dark souls wouldn't be on the PC, and mass effect 3 wouldn't have an improved ending. I guess gamers should just have kept their mouths shut since crying will just hurt gaming.
> 
> 
> 
> This! Complaining about your basic right as a consumer. Folks, this is money we are talking about. How does it feel like to be scammed? It hurts doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I fully agree with both Alatar and 5entinel. This is a business, customers pay good money that they usually have to work for (something that some teenagers with parents that pay for the games may not fully have the feeling for), so this does make a difference.

Of course people should read reviews and such to confirm facts, but from all of those, including videos, just like the BF3 video posted above shows, they may not give you an accurate idea of the product you're buying, and when you find out, after buying, it's too late. This is all about representing a product. If they had said during E3 "Hey, this is what our engine is capable of, but beware, even though we are demonstrating our engine in a game that actually is going to be released, it's not going to look like this." This would have been the honest thing to do, but they didn't, did they ? _Caveat emptor_ has limits, you know ?

Complaining about the game not looking as it did at E3 has got nothing to do with the fact whether it still looks nice or whether it's a good game, or whether it's great that it made it to the PC. Why should a consumer shut up just because they did a lot of things right ? Does that suddenly render all problems obsolete ? Of course not! Companies do screw up. Some admit to their mistakes. John Carmack went so far as to apologize for RAGE, others, like Crytek, are a bit arrogant and say they did us a favor by making the Crysis 2 DX 11 patch, others have a more corporate, market oriented, neutral final position, like with Mass Effect 3, where they said they would give customers another ending because many people made valid complaints. These things end up benefiting everybody if handled right. If Ubisoft didn't want bad press now they could have toned down the graphics at E3. They have a golden opportunity to make things right now. In an age where you can deliver a patch via Internet, it's hardly an excuse they can't do it. Heck, they did it for E3, they have all the lighting code and placing more vegetation is usually an easy thing to do.

They can also make an Ultra High preset with these settings. People forget that Crysis ran and looked great at Medium settings and ran very well on an 8800GT at High settings. Yes, Very High was very demanding, but why shouldn't we have more options ? Why does everybody have to feel entitled to have the game run great at maximum settings ? This logic ends up necessarily dumbing down games, and not only in graphics. I'm currently playing Far Cry, and at least to me, the game seems harder than Crysis on the preset settings. But it makes for a fine challenge AND you can tone it down.


----------



## Booty Warrior

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Again, as mentioned above, the product has been falsely represented.


Pre-release footage is _always_ subject to change. And in this case the changes were really minor.

I'm all for people giving positive and negative feedback (done constructively it helps things move forward), but trashing a _great_ game over some missing foliage is petty.


----------



## theturbofd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> Pre-release footage is _always_ subject to change. And in this case the changes were really minor.
> I'm all for people giving positive and negative feedback (done constructively it helps things move forward), but trashing a _great_ game over some missing foliage is petty.


^This


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> I fully agree with both Alatar and 5entinel. This is a business, customers pay good money that they usually have to work for (something that some teenagers with parents that pay for the games may not fully have the feeling for), so this does make a difference.
> Of course people should read reviews and such to confirm facts, but from all of those, including videos, just like the BF3 video posted above shows, they may not give you an accurate idea of the product you're buying, and when you find out, after buying, it's too late. This is all about representing a product. If they had said during E3 "Hey, this is what our engine is capable of, but beware, even though we are demonstrating our engine in a game that actually is going to be released, it's not going to look like this." This would have been the honest thing to do, but they didn't, did they ? _Caveat emptor_ has limits, you know ?
> Complaining about the game not looking as it did at E3 has got nothing to do with the fact whether it still looks nice or whether it's a good game, or whether it's great that it made it to the PC. Why should a consumer shut up just because they did a lot of things right ? Does that suddenly render all problems obsolete ? Of course not! Companies do screw up. Some admit to their mistakes. John Carmack went so far as to apologize for RAGE, others, like Crytek, are a bit arrogant and say they did us a favor by making the Crysis 2 DX 11 patch, others have a more corporate, market oriented, neutral final position, like with Mass Effect 3, where they said they would give customers another ending because many people made valid complaints. These things end up benefiting everybody if handled right. If Ubisoft didn't want bad press now they could have toned down the graphics at E3. They have a golden opportunity to make things right now. In an age where you can deliver a patch via Internet, it's hardly an excuse they can't do it. Heck, they did it for E3, they have all the lighting code and placing more vegetation is usually an easy thing to do.


In this case, consumers should be more quiet. Not shut up. Sure, I'd also like, in an ideal world, for games to look like their E3 footage. But since the dawn of E3, it has never been this way. You make a quip about teenagers and their parents buying their games but your post seems shortsighted.

There really is no need to be drumming up such a tirade against this game. Crytek screwed the pooch on Dx11. RAGE was flat out faulty. WarZ had missing features labelled as being in the game. FarCry 3 didn't look like it's E3 footage... spot the odd one out.

That's my issue. Outrage over something that's not an outrage and by no means should a game with good gameplay, generally bug free (It's entirely playable to completion) and the best graphics right now imho come under such ridiculous and pathetic scrutiny where it's not due.

Mass Effect 3 "Your choices matter" - only three/four generic endings. Your choices hardly mattered.
WarZ "150sq KM maps, skills! private servers" None of those things.
Crysis 2 "The best graphics you have ever seen " Runs on DX9.
FarCry 3 "Kill lots of different crap, do you know the definition of insanity" Gamers display insanity over E3 footage.

Seriously? Come on.


----------



## UNOE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> lolwut? I'm playing the game on a single overclocked gtx 680 everything maxed out at 1920x1200 4x MSAA and I'm running it at 40-60fps. no issues whatsoever
> edit:


Yes I believe you, and very reason why I'm going with Nvidia next time. Nvidia drivers are usually updated before the game comes out. Some times a week after. AMD drivers are usually still in some beta a week after a game is released and weeks later drivers are still buggy.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> In this case, consumers should be more quiet. Not shut up. Sure, I'd also like, in an ideal world, for games to look like their E3 footage. But since the dawn of E3, it has never been this way. You make a quip about teenagers and their parents buying their games but your post seems shortsighted.In an ideal world women would find penis' attractive and I'd be receiving £1,000 a week for doing nothing... in an ideal world.
> 
> There really is no need to be drumming up such a tirade against this game. Crytek screwed the pooch on Dx11. RAGE was flat out faulty. WarZ had missing features labelled as being in the game. FarCry 3 didn't look like it's E3 footage... spot the odd one out.
> 
> That's my issue. Outrage over something that's not an outrage and by no means should a game with good gameplay, generally bug free (It's entirely playable to completion) and the best graphics right now imho come under such ridiculous and pathetic scrutiny where it's not due.
> 
> Mass Effect 3 "Your choices matter" - only three/four generic endings. Your choices hardly mattered.
> WarZ "150sq KM maps, skills! private servers" None of those things.
> Crysis 2 "The best graphics you have ever seen " Runs on DX9.
> FarCry 3 "Kill lots of different crap, do you know the definition of insanity" Gamers display insanity over E3 footage.
> 
> Seriously? Come on.


Let's recenter the debate. I haven't read the whole thread nor have I read the threads on other forums, so I don't know the general tone of the debate. Are people just outright bashing the game altogether ? That is one thing. However, that is not what I said, so I don't know how you can consider my post short-sighted. It's exactly the opposite. You can take my post into the context of all others (or a few, or whatever you perceive as being the tone, having read the other posts or not) and draw wrong conclusions, like many people do and why some journalists end up having an excuse for writing over the top headlines, or you can actually read what I wrote and take it for what it is.

The fact is that they could have done one of four things at E3:

1. Demonstrate their engine on a non game / non future commercial product related scenario, just like Crytek does. Their Cry Engine 3 tech demos are not from Crysis 2;

2. Demonstrate their engine by running an excerpt from a forthcoming game, but tell people that it wouldn't look like that (this, of course, is something they would never do, but it's nonetheless a hypothesis, and is the right thing to do should they opt to present actual game footage);

3. Demonstrate their engine AND a forthcoming game by running a level taken from it, but not include that level in the final game. Lots of companies do this, exactly to prevent exact comparisons. Even so, if demonstrating lighting effects, it should be noted that those effects would not be present in the final game.

4. Do what they did. Willingly or unwillingly, they misrepresented an actual future product. One thing is to say they didn't include so much foliage because beta testers complained it was too hard to spot enemies, this would be a perfectly valid reason, as to the lighting, they have no excuse, the game does look less polished. DX 11 is not only a moniker, you know ? They promised DX 11 graphics, good lighting is part of it, especially when they have actually showed it to the world (E3 videos get posted on Youtube, the world sees it, Ubisoft should know that).


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UNOE*
> 
> Yes I believe you, and very reason why I'm going with Nvidia next time. Nvidia drivers are usually updated before the game comes out. Some times a week after. AMD drivers are usually still in some beta a week after a game is released and weeks later drivers are still buggy.


it's not always rainbows, butterfiles and unicorns in nvidia land. just 2 days ago the new WHQL drivers were released. it ruined my OS. I had to do a clean install.







trust me I wasn't happy at all. I was so pissed I wanted to kick puppies and kittens


----------



## di inferi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> Pre-release footage is _always_ subject to change. And in this case the changes were really minor.
> I'm all for people giving positive and negative feedback (done constructively it helps things move forward), but trashing a _great_ game over some missing foliage is petty.


+rep to the comment and the glorious avatar.


----------



## Feild Scarecrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> I'm astonished that some people think that consumers being critical and demanding better products is a bad thing... Complaining and keeping companies on their toes is what a good consumer is supposed to do.
> If people didn't complain war Z would still be on steam, crysis 2 wouldn't have a DX11/high res patch, dark souls wouldn't be on the PC, and mass effect 3 wouldn't have an improved ending. I guess gamers should just have kept their mouths shut since crying will just hurt gaming.


My grief is just in which the negative comments are displayed. Instead of giving constructive criticism people bluntly state this game sucks instead of saying: "wish they would have added resolution control" such as dark souls. Products that properly support pc games sell better than if they did not EA does not care about forums hating on theirs games or services like origin. I am amazed the crytek released that patch and should have been more joyously received.

How does infinity ward make the next iteration of cod enjoyable?(ranked server and graphics are obvious)

OT
My guess is that someone who is inspired will make the graphics in the video a reality via mods or some what equivalent. CryEngine 3 pretty easily modifiable as seen here in crysis 2 with only one texture mod


----------



## K2mil

Why oh why I got the feeling we will experience same thing with crysis 3. Kudos for that guy who spotted the difference we are so busy with our lives that we don't pay attention and they make fools out of us. Bastards


----------



## Sisaroth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nemesis158*
> 
> While i can agree the game probably should look more like it does in the E3 video, There becomes a point where one can make the game too immersive for a screen. with foliage like that, it would be more difficult to hunt animals and/or see predators approaching you.
> The only real gripe i have about the game is the Lens flare. Seriously, since when did our eyes produce lens flare?
> For anyone complaining about stuttering and have SLI/Crossfire, the drivers just haven't been fixed yet. a single 7970/680 will tear through the game just fine, but it will stutter if you have more than 1.


Maybe in europe people have different eyes, but here cars have flaps that you flip before the top of the window so you are not blinded when the sun shines towards the front of your car. On top of that: there is a lens in your eye.


----------



## mohit9206

far cry 3 is among my best of 2012 games with the walking dead topping that list with far cry 3 and max payne 3 coming in 2nd and 3rd respectively.( havent yet played ME3, dishonored,halo4,etc)
apparently lack of great graphics didnt stop me from enjoying walking dead and didnt stop it from becoming the GOTY.


----------



## Feild Scarecrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> 1. Demonstrate their engine on a non game / non future commercial product related scenario, just like Crytek does. Their Cry Engine 3 tech demos are not from Crysis 2


Crytek is selling their engine more so than the actual game for example the soft body truck video.
Is it just me who researches(approximately an hour) a game before buying it?


----------



## [-Snake-]

Jeee I don't know.....If I see a guy with a controller standing on stage playing a game then find out the end-product turned out worse, I'd make a fit too. Sounds like false advertising to me.


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"*
> \/[EGADET]-[" url="/t/1340188/muro-pc-gamers-furious-what-happened-to-far-cry-3s-graphics#post_18867326"]ya it's not worth it to stay bleeding edge anymore. piss poor


It hasn't EVER paid off to be bleeding edge. That top .05% of the market never cared about that much. They just wanted to showoff more or less.


----------



## Digikid

Honestly who the heck cares? Graphics are not what matters. STORYLINE and PLAYABILITY matters......Graphics are a moot point.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> Honestly who the heck cares? Graphics are not what matters. STORYLINE and PLAYABILITY matters......Graphics are a moot point.


While i agree with you but the MOOT point is we're talking about is PC graphics. I am certain it could be BETTER if we had much better textures and graphics. I can tell the difference between a port and a scratch from ground up PC game. Look at Star Citzen for example!


----------



## bigkahuna360

Saw it coming. Ubisoft is terrible... The only game I ever played and liked for a while was Rainbow Six Vegas 2.

EDIT: I will say that I value graphics more than a good storyline.


----------



## redfroth

Why is this a controversy? Honestly sounds like people getting pissed at shelling out $400+ dollars for one or more GPUs more than anything else.


----------



## Grobi

The graphics are just slightly better in the E3 demonstration video. I think that PC gamers should not be furious, at all. I run the game on medium settings and it looks pretty good.


----------



## CovertCover

If people are seriously getting all bent out of shape over this...

It's pre-release footage. The foliage in the original looks extremely dense but, while awesome and potentially more realistic, it seems like it would hamper the overall gameplay of the game. Not being able to see through all the foliage could get pretty annoying.

Seriously everyone, it's about GAMEPLAY; and this game has some of the best overall game mechanics in a FPS that I have seen in a long time. The character animations are some of the best that I have ever seen. The story is really engaging, and it feels like a major improvement over FC2 ... while living up to all the fame of FC1. This game is just plain fun to play.

As for people who say they aren't getting the game because of this... you are truly missing out on some of the best gameplay in a FPS in a long time.

If there is a mod that eventually fixes this, I'll definitely be getting it though.


----------



## oc_user

Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts

-wiki-


----------



## runnin17

Meh. No eye candy no buy.


----------



## TwilightEscape

How many people noticed there was a difference before this article came out? Any hands? Didn't think so.
None of the people posting here with their entitlement crap noticed that there was a difference from the E3 showing to the actual game.

Sure the game looked a lot better at E3. It's essentially a preview trailer and as we all know trailers really do not depict the actual game (or movie) in any fashion and are there to hype the game up and make it look as good as it can be so it sells well. Do we really think there is any chance in hell that the current gen GPU's that most of us have would be able to render all the foliage and detail and run at playable rates? Not at all. Yet people are here claiming they want a refund, have been misled and wont buy the game simply because it's "different from what was shown" -- even if they're really not missing anything.

The game is fine as it is. Many have enjoyed it without any issue at all. If a little bit of a graphics change from all the way back in E3 to release is what's causing you to not buy the game then so be it, you wouldn't be one of the ones that would enjoy it any ways. Community has gotten so entitled with everything lately. DRM this, EA sucks that, Ubisoft blows chunks here, this developer sucks, nobody can make games up to peoples standards anymore apparently because all people do is want and want. Seems every week another company is going bankrupt and people still continue to complain that there's no good games coming out, maybe it's because people feel too entitled to buy anything anymore.


----------



## calavera

I don't see what the fuss is about. Sure there is less foliage in the retail game, but it's such a small detail compared to the big picture. There's still enough that I have a hard time hunting animals sometimes, having to rely on the grass movement and sound to hunt.

If I had to nit pick, the constant pop ups are some what annoying and there's no detailed sound option. Most games have FX, voice, music, master..etc but FC3 doesn't have those. Also looting dead enemies overlapping with the option to switch to the weapon on the ground can get annoying as well but these are all very minute details that doesn't hinder overall experience.

But back to the big picture, seriously it's a GREAT GAME. Superb character voicing and acting, diverse missions...etc. It's one of the very rare cases where I sincerely wish there's a story DLC coming soon.


----------



## Stealth2o

Far Cry devs always do this. I remember when Far Cry 2 came out, i was super hyped for the game because they made it look really good in their advertisements. I was quickly disappointed with the game. That's why i didn't even bother with this one.

The problem is that they tried to disguise it as game play. Games that look better in the trailers are usually obvious in that sense, and a lot of the time state 'not actual game play'. Other wise, it would be considered false marketing.


----------



## TFL Replica

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth2o*
> 
> Far Cry devs always do this. I remember when Far Cry 2 came out, i was super hyped for the game because they made it look really good in their advertisements. I was quickly disappointed with the game. That's why i didn't even bother with this one.


FC3 is lightyears ahead of FC2 in terms of gameplay and fun.


----------



## SimplyTheBest

I think what people are most furious about is that during the development around E3 I am assuming the PC was the main focus which was then ported to the consoles but instead of leaving all the bells and whistles they made the PC version more accessible so they probably lowered the overall quality.

On their defense the game is still pretty and was very fun but I think showing off the game at E3 to gather hype to then later on in the development lower overall quality is saddening.

I think a lot of people in the PC gaming world are to blame since Crysis was a game that didn't hold back anything and what did people do? Cry that their system couldn't run the game. Its time for software to catch up to the hardware that is put out there, Consoles have so little performance compared to PC gaming yet graphically for some games like Halo 4 and Uncharted give PC games a run for their money with much less hardware. I wish Microsoft/Nvidia/AMD gave more incentives for developers to spend that extra time to make PC games really shine, This is really all about money and unfortunately there is less of it on PC gaming.


----------



## kornedbeefy

I'm so furious....now back to playing Dishonored.


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SimplyTheBest*
> 
> Consoles have so little performance compared to PC gaming yet graphically for some games like Halo 4 and Uncharted give PC games a run for their money with much less hardware.


uh no not really. anything at 720p is going to grainy and awful on a decent sized display. that goes for uncharted to.

my brother got the new uncharted and was playing it on a 24" monitor and i couldn't believe how people raved about the graphics. d3 isn't really a pretty game, but i think even it blows uncharted away if run at 1080p or higher. at least it looks relatively crisp and not so grainy

it is funny how console developers get so much money to develop games that are going to be so severely gimped by the fact that they can't be run at higher resolutions though.

maybe people just think console games are pretty or decent looking at least because they tend to sit further away from the screen?


----------



## amd955be5670

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *perfectblade*
> 
> maybe people just think console games are pretty or decent looking at least because they tend to sit further away from the screen?


Yes indeed.

I ran my friend's ps3 on my monitor, and it wasn't good at all.


----------



## Edge Of Pain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros*
> 
> I believe you might have that backwards. I think HDAO is for AMD (Ctrl+F HDAO), HBAO is for NVIDIA. This came to mind because BF3 is NVIDIA-endorsed and uses HBAO.


Necro quote, but HBAO is in BFBC2 and I've only ever played that game on AMD GPUs.


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

Sounds like over reaction to me.......

When FC3 dropped everyone was raving about it's great graphics and now that you learn it's missing some details you get all butt-hurt? Calm down.

I'm so ashamed to see this thread. Since when should graphics make or break your decision to buy a game? Shouldn't the deciding factor be gameplay...?


----------



## Otterclock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> Huh? The game IS completely open world. What game are you playing?
> Missions will always be fairly linear as they need to be for the story line to progress, everything else outside of these missions is totally open for exploration.


Actually failing a mission and being respawned due to leaving a designated mission area completely disqualifies this game as open world. It doesnt just fail the mission; it actually forces a respawn elsewhere. Toss in missions where your weapons become unusable. That is not what I've come to know as open-world gameplay. Now, that doesn't mean it's a bad game (the lazy writing/amateur design/half-finished content does that), but it's not open world.

_Race against the clock mini games where you shoot barrels for more time._

Really.

That's in there.

great game, lol.

just imo, of course.


----------



## TFL Replica

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge Of Pain*
> 
> Necro quote, but HBAO is in BFBC2 and I've only ever played that game on AMD GPUs.


It was developed and optimized for Nvidia hardware, that doesn't mean you can't run it on AMD GPUs.


----------



## Edge Of Pain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TFL Replica*
> 
> It was developed and optimized for Nvidia hardware, that doesn't mean you can't run it on AMD GPUs.


I see, so it's not like PhysX then?


----------



## Otterclock

you got spotted, game over. open world lolz.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> I fully agree with both Alatar and 5entinel. This is a business, customers pay good money that they usually have to work for (something that some teenagers with parents that pay for the games may not fully have the feeling for), so this does make a difference.
> Of course people should read reviews and such to confirm facts, but from all of those, including videos, just like the BF3 video posted above shows, they may not give you an accurate idea of the product you're buying, and when you find out, after buying, it's too late. This is all about representing a product. If they had said during E3 "Hey, this is what our engine is capable of, but beware, even though we are demonstrating our engine in a game that actually is going to be released, it's not going to look like this." This would have been the honest thing to do, but they didn't, did they ? _Caveat emptor_ has limits, you know ?
> Complaining about the game not looking as it did at E3 has got nothing to do with the fact whether it still looks nice or whether it's a good game, or whether it's great that it made it to the PC. Why should a consumer shut up just because they did a lot of things right ? Does that suddenly render all problems obsolete ? Of course not! Companies do screw up. Some admit to their mistakes. John Carmack went so far as to apologize for RAGE, others, like Crytek, are a bit arrogant and say they did us a favor by making the Crysis 2 DX 11 patch, others have a more corporate, market oriented, neutral final position, like with Mass Effect 3, where they said they would give customers another ending because many people made valid complaints. These things end up benefiting everybody if handled right. If Ubisoft didn't want bad press now they could have toned down the graphics at E3. They have a golden opportunity to make things right now. In an age where you can deliver a patch via Internet, it's hardly an excuse they can't do it. Heck, they did it for E3, they have all the lighting code and placing more vegetation is usually an easy thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, consumers should be more quiet. Not shut up. Sure, I'd also like, in an ideal world, for games to look like their E3 footage. But since the dawn of E3, it has never been this way. You make a quip about teenagers and their parents buying their games but your post seems shortsighted.
> 
> There really is no need to be drumming up such a tirade against this game. Crytek screwed the pooch on Dx11. RAGE was flat out faulty. WarZ had missing features labelled as being in the game. FarCry 3 didn't look like it's E3 footage... spot the odd one out.
> 
> That's my issue. Outrage over something that's not an outrage and by no means should a game with good gameplay, generally bug free (It's entirely playable to completion) and the best graphics right now imho come under such ridiculous and pathetic scrutiny where it's not due.
> 
> Mass Effect 3 "Your choices matter" - only three/four generic endings. Your choices hardly mattered.
> WarZ "150sq KM maps, skills! private servers" None of those things.
> Crysis 2 "The best graphics you have ever seen " Runs on DX9.
> FarCry 3 "Kill lots of different crap, do you know the definition of insanity" Gamers display insanity over E3 footage.
> 
> Seriously? Come on.
Click to expand...

Like I've mentioned previously, that graphics and gameplay are both equally important and neither takes precedence over the other.After all, gaming is a form of entertainment and this being a AAA title.

There is a reason why a lot of people are furious about this is because people were expecting a great looking game with this. Instead, what we got was a game with hideous textures,plants that look painted(a lot of them look 2D), and the color palette selection all wrong especially during the night-time.


----------



## TFL Replica

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge Of Pain*
> 
> I see, so it's not like PhysX then?


Thankfully no.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Like I've mentioned previously, that graphics and gameplay are both equally important and neither takes precedence over the other.After all, gaming is a form of entertainment and this being a AAA title.
> There is a reason why a lot of people are furious about this is because people were expecting a great looking game with this. Instead, what we got was a game with hideous textures,plants that look painted(a lot of them look 2D), and the color palette selection all wrong especially during the night-time.


We are even playing the same game?


----------



## perfectblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> We are even playing the same game?


the color palette is overly vibrant.


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> Honestly who the heck cares? Graphics are not what matters. STORYLINE and PLAYABILITY matters......Graphics are a moot point.


I'll assume your speaking for yourself, really? Removing features of the previous FC2 is considered a step forward? Like shooting trees down and having them fall on an unsuspecting bad guy. Last time I checked that is gameplay that was removed from a game that came out couple of years ago, I seriously doubt a console could handle (the physics) multiply trees falling.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Like I've mentioned previously, that graphics and gameplay are both equally important and neither takes precedence over the other.After all, gaming is a form of entertainment and this being a AAA title.
> There is a reason why a lot of people are furious about this is because people were expecting a great looking game with this. Instead, what we got was a game with hideous textures,plants that look painted(a lot of them look 2D), and the color palette selection all wrong especially during the night-time.


Thank God some of us actually understand the point we are trying to make!


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Lol. The game already have magnificent graphics. And its already too heavy for a high end gpu. Ok fc3 has good graphics amazing art style but my main focus when i buy it was the gameplay. Its one of the best game out there. Because they cut down some details for some reason that doesnt mean that the game is not good.


My 670 FTW runs the game completely maxed out at 50-60 fps. So it's obviously not too heavy


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTHMfreak*
> 
> My 670 FTW runs the *game completely maxed* out at 50-60 fps. So it's obviously not too heavy


Yeah sure


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oc_user*
> 
> Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts
> -wiki-


It's not fraud unless it was advertised as the final product.


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Yeah sure


There are actually plenty of 670 owners playing this game maxed at that fps range


----------



## sugarhell

maxed out you mean with 8xmsaa right?


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> maxed out you mean with 8xmsaa right?


Yes


----------



## noahhova

Game looks awesome.....i was somewhat sad the first time i started and shot a tree and it didnt fall ill give you that but in no way does it diminish how awesome this game is


----------



## Hexa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> You talk as if the problems you outlined isn't prevalent on consoles. All PC gamers demand, is quality.


If all you demanded was quality then you wouldn't be talking smack about this game. It's simply amazing. If quality to a person is how much grass they render on the ground then they would be exactly the type of person I was talking about. Sorry but console gamers are no where near this bad.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Systemlord*
> 
> Console gamers probably can't afford nor know how good a PC games can look! Oh and the reason why we PC gamer's complain is because some end up spending $2500-$3500 dollars to get the latest cutting edge PC graphics only to have it look worse than a $300 dollar console, you bet your butt I have the right to complain!


Yes my rig cost me a pretty penny to but that doesn't mean I have the right to complain. After all did Ubisoft hold a gun to my head and scream in my ears I must spend a ton of money on my PC? No they did not, it was completely my choice.

Simply put Far Cry 3 is one of the better PC games to launch in a long time. The gameplay is fun, the voice acting is good and it's plain polished imo. It's seriously laughable that an article can be written with a title that includes PC gamers furious when all it talks about is grass and random vegetation. Seriously, think about that for a second.


----------



## noahhova

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexa*
> 
> If all you demanded was quality then you wouldn't be talking smack about this game. It's simply amazing. *If quality to a person is how much grass they render on the ground* then they would be exactly the type of person I was talking about. Sorry but console gamers are no where near this bad.
> .










made me laugh .... this game is so fun...not the BEST graphics ever but good enough


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTHMfreak*
> 
> Yes


http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html
So with only 2xmsaa and not maxed out they cant average 60 fps. So they lying?









8xmsaa is insane for this game.


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> The product has been falsely misrepresented and falsely advertised. That's the problem here.


falsely misrepresented?

e3 can be consider beta even alpha footage, what about all the trailers and videos leading up to Farcry 3 release? I guess those did not count at all and we should all go by a six month old e3 footage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noahhova*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> made me laugh .... this game is so fun...not the BEST graphics ever but good enough


best graphics of the year next to hitman absolution, yet people still talk smack about it.


----------



## moocowman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> falsely misrepresented?
> e3 can be consider beta even alpha footage, what about all the trailers and videos leading up to Farcry 3 release? I guess those did not count at all and we should all go by a six month old e3 footage.
> best graphics of the year next to hitman absolution, yet people still talk smack about it.


Like the GamesCom footage I posted that showed the game with the same graphics as it came out with? That kills any argument of "fraud" and "bait and switch."

I just like how this wasn't even a big deal until someone pointed it out weeks after its release.


----------



## Rubers

There is no reason anyone can be furious about this game at all. There was no bait and switch and there is nothing wrong with the graphics or textures. Anyone who watched that E3 footage and then remained ignorant to all the footage that came AFTER it deserves what they got.

I've followed this game since the announcement. It's everything it was meant to be. It's great.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> The product has been falsely misrepresented and falsely advertised. That's the problem here.
> 
> 
> 
> falsely misrepresented?
> 
> e3 can be consider beta even alpha footage, what about all the trailers and videos leading up to Farcry 3 release? I guess those did not count at all and we should all go by a six month old e3 footage.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *noahhova*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> made me laugh .... this game is so fun...not the BEST graphics ever but good enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> best graphics of the year next to hitman absolution, yet people still talk smack about it.
Click to expand...

From what I read, it wasn't a tech demo but an actual playable demo at E3. When they meant subject to change, there was an assumption, that bugs and texture glitches would get ironed out not lowering the graphical fidelity of the game. This feels like buying a car with a cheap interrior


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> From what I read, it wasn't a tech demo but an actual playable demo at E3. When they meant subject to change, there was an assumption, that bugs and texture glitches would get ironed out not lowering the graphical fidelity of the game. This feels like buying a car with a cheap interrior


Again recent videos and trailers showed the current state of the graphics, I do not get how people were deceived. Sure if they led up with those graphics right up until release I would have maybe agreed but there were plenty of videos, trailers and screenshots before release. The worst part about it are the posts that completely discredit the game for not having uber like graphics even tho the graphics are better than 90% of games PC users and play and that are praised by them; the game does great things in open world design, gameplay, characters etc. Yet people are saying "not buying saying the game is crap".

So many posts in this thread of " my 500$ graphics card is wasted on this game" like ubisoft cares about that, in fact there is no reason for them to care as a tech achievement just means it can run on less rigs and they don't see that graphics card money anyways.


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTHMfreak*
> 
> Yes


this is a lie. my overclocked gtx 680 can only play it at 4xaa

btw I just finished the game. by far one of the best games I've played in recent memory. twas a lot of fun!


----------



## Dannnnn_the_man

WOW, people are really throwing this wayyyy out of proportion. I honestly thought the game was almost perfect. Exploring was amazing, the perk trees were awesome, playing the game how you want made it awesome. The story was im my opinion really good. I thought it was a very good game.


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> Again recent videos and trailers showed the current state of the graphics, I do not get how people were deceived. Sure if they led up with those graphics right up until release I would have maybe agreed but there were plenty of videos, trailers and screenshots before release. The worst part about it are the posts that completely discredit the game for not having uber like graphics even tho the graphics are better than 90% of games PC users and play and that are praised by them; the game does great things in open world design, gameplay, characters etc. Yet people are saying "not buying saying the game is crap".
> So many posts in this thread of " my 500$ graphics card is wasted on this game" like ubisoft cares about that, in fact there is no reason for them to care as a tech achievement just means it can run on less rigs and they don't see that graphics card money anyways.


The actual gameplay and graphics should look equal to or better than the videos released at E3, given all of the extra development time! Why on Earth would they spend all of the extra time lowering the visuals from those at E3? That is a step barkwards and not forwords!


----------



## d33r

Looks like another console port, just better get used to it, there are nolonger anymore pc first original games. All ported from console cause console makes more money and is bigger market...


----------



## Hexa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> From what I read, it wasn't a tech demo but an actual playable demo at E3. When they meant subject to change, there was an assumption, that bugs and texture glitches would get ironed out not lowering the graphical fidelity of the game. This feels like buying a car with a cheap interrior


At this point I can't even tell if you are being serious or just plain sarcastic. You are a mod at this awesome site so you have to be fairly smart. I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic since assuming is the thing to do now








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Systemlord*
> 
> The actual gameplay and graphics should look equal to or better than the videos released at E3, given all of the extra development time! Why on Earth would they spend all of the extra time lowering the visuals from those at E3? That is a step barkwards and not forwords!


Maybe because there is a lot more to games then just graphics.

As I said, real PC gamers are simply dying. We're being taken over by the most entitelistic (not even sure if that's a word, see what you people are doing to me?) bunch of fellows I've ever seen.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> From what I read, it wasn't a tech demo but an actual playable demo at E3. When they meant subject to change, there was an assumption, that bugs and texture glitches would get ironed out not lowering the graphical fidelity of the game. This feels like buying a car with a cheap interrior
> 
> 
> 
> Again recent videos and trailers showed the current state of the graphics, I do not get how people were deceived. Sure if they led up with those graphics right up until release I would have maybe agreed but there were plenty of videos, trailers and screenshots before release. The worst part about it are the posts that completely discredit the game for not having uber like graphics even tho the graphics are better than 90% of games PC users and play and that are praised by them; the game does great things in open world design, gameplay, characters etc. Yet people are saying "not buying saying the game is crap".
> 
> So many posts in this thread of " my 500$ graphics card is wasted on this game" like ubisoft cares about that, in fact there is no reason for them to care as a tech achievement just means it can run on less rigs and they don't see that graphics card money anyways.
Click to expand...

I understand your concerns and do admit that there is sometimes a double-standards when it comes to PC gaming. This is because the PC gaming community is split into 3 groups. The casual to the hardcore players to the people who love graphics and gameplay. However, speaking as an individual and not behalf of the PC gaming community, I adore gorgeous graphics and won't touch a AAA title if the graphics look really bad. Maybe if they were released 15-20 years ago, maybe I would touch them when I first started gaming, but since this is 2012, my expectation are a little higher than say previous years.I also don't like it the fact that blizzard and valve has made all this money from their games but they don't bother to update their engines which looks dated. Blizzard especially seems to spend all that money on making gorgeous looking pre-rendered CGI scene but that unfortunately is not how the game looks.

I do allow _some_ level of compromize when it comes to indie games- because of the size of the budget being smaller, but I won't touch games like minecraft purely because they just look ugly to the eye and the whole mechanics of the game just seems broken to me.


----------



## Evil Penguin

That's why we need to take E3 footage of games with a grain of salt these days.

Anyone here remember HL2's E3 footage?
The final game was pretty different but in a good way for sure and with improved graphics.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexa*
> 
> At this point I can't even tell if you are being serious or just plain sarcastic. You are a mod at this awesome site so you have to be fairly smart. I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic since assuming is the thing to do now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because there is a lot more to games then just graphics.
> As I said, real PC gamers are simply dying. We're being taken over by the most entitelistic (not even sure if that's a word, see what you people are doing to me?) bunch of fellows I've ever seen.


Nothing to do with being entitled, that's such strange word to even use. Nowadays it's always used to complain about people who complain (funny eh?).

Look, all aspects of games are just as important, gameplay, graphics, audio design, social aspects, etc. Whether you value one over the others is your business and doesn't make you any more of a gamer than a guy who likes say graphics or excellent sound design. It's completely subjective, different people enjoy different things. There are no "real PC gamers". Enjoying graphics a lot doesn't make you any less of a gamer than someone who doesn't care about them.

Now I wouldn't go as far as saying that this was false advertising, there's always those disclaimers in videos like that, but I do think it's worth complaining about. As I've pointed out previously in the thread, just staying quiet and taking what you're given isn't going to make your gaming experience better. Pushing companies to cater to their customers will, and that happens by complaining (and to a point by buying their products). There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a fuss about something that you care about in a game, it's what a good consumer does.

I just think it's sad that companies have the tech to produce better visuals but refrain from actually using that tech in their games. Everyone should be in favor of technological progress, in the end that's what's been driving the industry since it began...


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Evil Penguin*
> 
> That's why we need to take E3 footage of games with a grain of salt these days.
> 
> Anyone here remember HL2's E3 footage?
> *The final game was pretty different but in a good way for sure and with improved graphics*.


Exactly what I mentioned earlier







When games are subject to change, you would assume that they would only be the usual artifacts, texture,graphical glitches being ironed out;not stripping the entire game of it's looks.


----------



## Mygaffer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> I understand your concerns and do admit that there is sometimes a double-standards when it comes to PC gaming. This is because the PC gaming community is split into 3 groups. The casual to the hardcore players to the people who love graphics and gameplay. However, speaking as an individual and not behalf of the PC gaming community, I adore gorgeous graphics and won't touch a AAA title if the graphics look really bad. Maybe if they were released 15-20 years ago, maybe I would touch them when I first started gaming, but since this is 2012, my expectation are a little higher than say previous years.I also don't like it the fact that blizzard and valve has made all this money from their games but they don't bother to update their engines which looks dated. Blizzard especially seems to spend all that money on making gorgeous looking pre-rendered CGI scene but that unfortunately is not how the game looks.
> I do allow _some_ level of compromize when it comes to indie games- because of the size of the budget being smaller, but I won't touch games like minecraft purely because they just look ugly to the eye and the whole mechanics of the game just seems broken to me.


To me that is totally backwards. I do enjoy great graphics but the crappiest game with the best graphics is still the crappiest game. For instance I enjoy Minecraft. I also love FTL, which has very basic graphics.

I play games that I find fun and rewarding, sometimes that is because of the graphics, sometimes the game play, and when I am lucky it is both.

I think you really limit yourself when you judge games solely on how pretty they look.


----------



## dioxholster

so battlefield 3 or Far Cry 3 graphics?


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexa*
> 
> This is the problem with PC gamers that just never stops to amaze me. I'm not going to try and say Far Cry 3 is the greatest PC game of the past few years but dang the game is simply FUN. In my opinion it's also far from ugly looking to. Basically it's just amazing to me that as another poster pointed out, some of you are complaining b/c there is less grass to look at. Is that what you do in games, stare at grass the entire time?
> Honestly I feel like I am one of the few true PC gamers left. The great majority of you are just entitled little punks who can never be pleased with everything about a game. It's not pirates or people of the sort who are killing PC gaming, it's people like you guys. You will never hear console gamers whining over something this silly. Console gamers, buy the game, play the game and talk about how fun it is to their friends. PC gamers buy (or pirate) the game and talk about all the crappy things it has to their friends.


Or it could be turned around, because of all of you that are satisfied with this with this type of (here this is what it looks like, and here this is what you get) goings on, it gives the developers the ok to not have to try hard because "you" are satisfied with what ever they give you.

Case point COD, same crap every year. The deveopers know this, but since there isn't an outcry to make it better and people buy it on name not quality they give you exactly that the name and the same polished turd. That sums up the gaming community these days IMO.

The reason that you don't hear whinging from console players is because 5 times out of 10 they have their heads buried so far up their posterior they don't know that you can get better, or they legitimately think consoles are graphically better...I have converted some of those so called non complaining console heads, and they soon became whinging console players or went directly to exclusively playing PC.

Once better is given it's hard to go back.....


----------



## BlackVenom

Ubisoft game disappoints PC gamers!? Am I the only one surprised by this?


----------



## robbo2

I played this game for a bit at a friends house on his xbox. I honestly couldn't tell you if it looked crap or beautiful because I was having to much fun playing the game!


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mygaffer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> I understand your concerns and do admit that there is sometimes a double-standards when it comes to PC gaming. This is because the PC gaming community is split into 3 groups. The casual to the hardcore players to the people who love graphics and gameplay. However, speaking as an individual and not behalf of the PC gaming community, I adore gorgeous graphics and won't touch a AAA title if the graphics look really bad. Maybe if they were released 15-20 years ago, maybe I would touch them when I first started gaming, but since this is 2012, my expectation are a little higher than say previous years.I also don't like it the fact that blizzard and valve has made all this money from their games but they don't bother to update their engines which looks dated. Blizzard especially seems to spend all that money on making gorgeous looking pre-rendered CGI scene but that unfortunately is not how the game looks.
> I do allow _some_ level of compromize when it comes to indie games- because of the size of the budget being smaller, but I won't touch games like minecraft purely because they just look ugly to the eye and the whole mechanics of the game just seems broken to me.
> 
> 
> 
> To me that is totally backwards. I do enjoy great graphics but the crappiest game with the best graphics is still the crappiest game. For instance I enjoy Minecraft. I also love FTL, which has very basic graphics.
> 
> I play games that I find fun and rewarding, sometimes that is because of the graphics, sometimes the game play, and when I am lucky it is both.
> 
> I think you really limit yourself when you judge games solely on how pretty they look.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned, I like both and to me as a consumer and a gamer, both are equally important. If one is down, I won't enjoy it because it ruins the overall experience. Gaming to me like all forms of hobby. it's all about entertainment.
Watching a movie with bad sound or poor quality ruins the experience. The very same principle applies here.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Hexa*
> 
> This is the problem with PC gamers that just never stops to amaze me. I'm not going to try and say Far Cry 3 is the greatest PC game of the past few years but dang the game is simply FUN. In my opinion it's also far from ugly looking to. Basically it's just amazing to me that as another poster pointed out, some of you are complaining b/c there is less grass to look at. Is that what you do in games, stare at grass the entire time?
> Honestly I feel like I am one of the few true PC gamers left. The great majority of you are just entitled little punks who can never be pleased with everything about a game. It's not pirates or people of the sort who are killing PC gaming, it's people like you guys. You will never hear console gamers whining over something this silly. Console gamers, buy the game, play the game and talk about how fun it is to their friends. PC gamers buy (or pirate) the game and talk about all the crappy things it has to their friends.
> 
> 
> 
> Or it could be turned around, because of all of you that are satisfied with this with this type of (here this is what it looks like, and here this is what you get) goings on, it gives the developers the ok to not have to try hard because "you" are satisfied with what ever they give you.
> 
> Case point COD, same crap every year. The deveopers know this, but since there isn't an outcry to make it better and people buy it on name not quality they give you exactly that the name and the same polished turd. That sums up the gaming community these days IMO.
> 
> The reason that you don't hear whinging from console players is because 5 times out of 10 they have their heads buried so far up their posterior they don't know that you can get better, or they legitimately think consoles are graphically better...I have converted some of those so called non complaining console heads, and they soon became whinging console players or went directly to exclusively playing PC.
> 
> *Once better is given it's hard to go back....*.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Bullseye! You've hit the mark on that sir. Well said. It's hard to settle for second or third best when you've seen the best


----------



## Dradus

People who keep saying, "Who cares about the graphics? The gameplay is still fun", seem to discount the effect graphics have on immersion. When it comes to action/adventure games, immersion is probably the most important quality to me, behind combat.


----------



## Jess94

The game is really fun so far. I have two 6750's CFX and I can play the game at 2048x1152 on "High" and get solid frame rates. I have no complaints so far.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *5entinel*
> 
> Like I mentioned, I like both and to me as a consumer and a gamer, both are equally important. If one is down, I won't enjoy it because it ruins the overall experience. Gaming to me like all forms of hobby. it's all about entertainment.
> Watching a movie with bad sound or poor quality ruins the experience. The very same principle applies here.
> Bingo! Bullseye! You've hit the mark on that sir. Well said. It's hard to settle for second or third best when you've seen the best


I try....lol.

But don't get me wrong, I haven't played the game so I tried to avoid the sense that I was bagging the game out...I will be getting it regardless, I am one of the weird people that loved farcry and farcry2. I enjoyed the constant outpost enemy re deploy thing...It made the game challenging...also I loved the driving about...But yes I hated the choppyness of it.

But I do think it's a bit of a PITA that they would do that, but I can also say "yeah, they do that at E3" also.

But the main thing is, we cant take back seat, because all platforms suffer console and PC. It doesn't matter which one is flavor for the month, year or decade.....


----------



## Spritanium

Ultra-realism is cool and all, but where are all the colorful games?

That new Rayman game for the Wii U looks better than any other game on the market, and it's entirely 2D


----------



## Hexa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Or it could be turned around, because of all of you that are satisfied with this with this type of (here this is what it looks like, and here this is what you get) goings on, it gives the developers the ok to not have to try hard because "you" are satisfied with what ever they give you.
> Case point COD, same crap every year. The deveopers know this, but since there isn't an outcry to make it better and people buy it on name not quality they give you exactly that the name and the same polished turd. That sums up the gaming community these days IMO.
> The reason that you don't hear whinging from console players is because 5 times out of 10 they have their heads buried so far up their posterior they don't know that you can get better, or they legitimately think consoles are graphically better...I have converted some of those so called non complaining console heads, and they soon became whinging console players or went directly to exclusively playing PC.
> Once better is given it's hard to go back.....


Possibly but I never once said I believe COD is great though. I've never once said we should just accept anything. What I said was that most PC gamers now days are fanatical about their approach towards the devs. Seriously re read this thread please a long with the title.

"PC Gamers are furious" over rendered grass. That is flat out what this entire thread boils down to. Do you not think that is absolutely absurd. Seriously if this was about the real world half of these people so "furious" over something so trivial would be in the psych ward.

Regardless I would argue that people who like graphics more then gameplay are less of a gamer then someone who is vice versa. Does that mean they are wrong, or bad? Well no of course it doesn't. It simply means they are more of the "enthusiast" crowd who cares more about performance and benchmarking #'s. Nothing wrong with that but if Devs catered to you guys all the time all we'd have is a bunch of futuremark benchmarks being released with no actual games to play.


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

I swear the majority PC gamers cry about the smallest things. Far Cry comes out, gets rave reviews, is dubbed as "Game of the year" by the majority of PC gamers despite being released in December and is claimed to have stunning graphics by the majority. Then a ridiculous article comes out showing that it's graphics where slightly dumbed down from the E3 demonstration and everybody starts complaining. Some people can never be pleased.









Its rather sad. Grow up. It's not like Ubisoft promised a bunch of features that never showed up in the game *cough* The War Z *Cough*


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexa*
> 
> Possibly but I never once said I believe COD is great though. I've never once said we should just accept anything. What I said was that most PC gamers now days are fanatical about their approach towards the devs. Seriously re read this thread please a long with the title.
> "PC Gamers are furious" over rendered grass. That is flat out what this entire thread boils down to. Do you not think that is absolutely absurd. Seriously if this was about the real world half of these people so "furious" over something so trivial would be in the psych ward.
> Regardless I would argue that people who like graphics more then gameplay are less of a gamer then someone who is vice versa. Does that mean they are wrong, or bad? Well no of course it doesn't. It simply means they are more of the "enthusiast" crowd who cares more about performance and benchmarking #'s. Nothing wrong with that but if Devs catered to you guys all the time all we'd have is a bunch of futuremark benchmarks being released with no actual games to play.


I read the whole thread...

It also seems that you missed my point also....I agree a game isn't just the graphics, yes I understand that this is what devs do for E3....The point I am making is that it takes 1 dev to make a standard and all follow, and all we are getting are teasers to great things then when time comes we get unfinished games and day 1 content.

Your statement also shows that you didn't read my second post either, so don't accuse one for an action that you don't take yourself. I conceded with most that this is what happens at E3 and that I wasn't speaking about the game directly. I said that I plan to buy this to go with my other far cry's in my game stack .. So don't go all new gamer on my ass. I was gaming since Wolfenstein 3d, Commander Keen and I remember talking with my mates in the playground about the release of DOOM (yeah the first one, in a time when people actually strive'd to make great games).

All I am saying is that, if we don't hold dev's accountable for the crap they pull we get crap given to us. I never said that " you" said COD was good, it's whats called an example an example of what we can expect from devs if we let this slide. Not just for this game ALL games, on ALL platforms.

Any other questions ?

Also before another smart alec response comes back, here are my games of choice ATM.

Super Meatboy
Machinarium
The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom
Super Crate Box
Dwarfs F2P
Bastion

And lastly my favorite Planetside 2

All of which are Indy and some of which use sprites....I am a big supporter of Free to play and indy developers, I have little faith in the AAA developers. They are just in it for the money, and there is nothing wrong with money. But sometimes it shows, when you can get a game for $8-10 and it is more engaging than one that is $100.


----------



## Rubers

I'm sorry but this is the first instance of utter crybabying over E3 footage I've ever come across.

It's pathetic.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Your choice to read.


----------



## raghu78

Farcry 3 is a good game. i have been playing it for a few hours. i like the open ended world. the driving controls are not so good. But the graphics is in no way as good as it should be considering how demanding it is on the high end graphics cards at max settings on the PC.

anyway here is a comparison of Farcry 3 and Crysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agbTFdy3BTg

I like the Crysis look more than the Farcry 3 look. Farcry 3 art direction has gone for a cartoonish look unlike Crysis which went for a realistic look. both are good looking. but after 5 years and with much better hardware available Farcry 3 hasn't pushed the bar for PC gaming graphics like the original Crysis did. anyway looking forward to Crysis 3. hopefully they really improve the realism factor.


----------



## Digikid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Systemlord*
> 
> I'll assume your speaking for yourself, really? Removing features of the previous FC2 is considered a step forward? Like shooting trees down and having them fall on an unsuspecting bad guy. Last time I checked that is gameplay that was removed from a game that came out couple of years ago, I seriously doubt a console could handle (the physics) multiply trees falling.
> Thank God some of us actually understand the point we are trying to make!


No I am speaking for a lot of people....most of which know that I am correct on this issue and you are not. Gameplay and Storyline and far more important than graphics. Shooting a tree and having it fall on someone is NOT graphical....it is Physics and can be done even without all these fancy USELESS graphics that you are foolishly drooling over.


----------



## SMK

Does anyone still watch E3 demos and expect that's exactly what their going to get??


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *runnin17*
> 
> Meh. No eye candy no buy.


lol bad for you. coz you are missing out on this years best shooter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kornedbeefy*
> 
> I'm so furious....now back to playing Dishonored.


you do realise that dishonored graphics are far worse than far cry 3's graphics right ?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noahhova*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> made me laugh .... this game is so fun...not the BEST graphics ever but good enough


good enough to completely immerse me in the game world and really enjoy the game to the max

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *robbo2*
> 
> I played this game for a bit at a friends house on his xbox. I honestly couldn't tell you if it looked crap or beautiful because I was having to much fun playing the game!


yep some people are too busy looking for flaws in the graphics rather than enjoying what the game offers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dradus*
> 
> People who keep saying, "Who cares about the graphics? The gameplay is still fun", seem to discount the effect graphics have on immersion. When it comes to action/adventure games, immersion is probably the most important quality to me, behind combat.


and far cry 3 has such good graphics so as to completely immerse a person in the game . i assume you havent yet played the game have you ?


----------



## dzalias

I do not regret my purchase one bit.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Farcry 3 is a good game. i have been playing it for a few hours. i like the open ended world. the driving controls are not so good. But the graphics is in no way as good as it should be considering how demanding it is on the high end graphics cards at max settings on the PC.
> anyway here is a comparison of Farcry 3 and Crysis.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agbTFdy3BTg
> I like the Crysis look more than the Farcry 3 look. Farcry 3 art direction has gone for a cartoonish look unlike Crysis which went for a realistic look. both are good looking. but after 5 years and with much better hardware available Farcry 3 hasn't pushed the bar for PC gaming graphics like the original Crysis did. anyway looking forward to Crysis 3. hopefully they really improve the realism factor.


Why must every game strive for photo-realism in order to be considered graphically impressive? These games (FC3/Crysis) have different artistic directions, and yet I can spot quite a few things that I find more visually impressive in Far Cry 3 than in Crysis. Overall texture quality, for one, is better in FC3, and that, too me, makes a world of difference.

You must remember that Far Cry 3 is game designed with consoles in mind, i.e. a console port, and even with console limitations, it still released looking pretty great.


----------



## Dromihetes

The game is quite heavy as it is.
It looks good in my opinion.
I expected nice graphics and it has it ,opposed to Crysis 2 that looked like crap and performed like crap even after the so called DX 11 patch ,horredus water and effects.
In FC 3 if i shoot a tire of a car it blows do the same in Crysis 2 .
FC 3 is a good successor to FC 2 while Crysis 2 was not for Crysis









They removed some details so we could run it most probable








To bad the story is a little weaker than on the FC 2 and the games is shorter.


----------



## Dromihetes

Yeah ,nice virtual sex when choosing the wrong finish for the game








The girl is polished enough though at least in the upper part of the body


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ELCID777*
> 
> Why must every game strive for photo-realism in order to be considered graphically impressive? These games (FC3/Crysis) have different artistic directions, and yet I can spot quite a few things that I find more visually impressive in Far Cry 3 than in Crysis. Overall texture quality, for one, is better in FC3, and that, too me, makes a world of difference.
> You must remember that Far Cry 3 is game designed with consoles in mind, i.e. a console port, and even with console limitations, it still released looking pretty great.


Texture quality is one of the places where Farcry 3 falls flat. Compared to BF3, Max Payne 3 the textures are quite poor. many objects in the world had poor texture quality. You precisely hit the nail on the head when you mentioned a game designed with consoles in mind. Crysis was designed for the PC and pushed it to its limits on launch. The image quality for the graphics hardware on which it ran was amazing. BF3 is a game which has superior image quality than Farcry 3 and ran well on high end PC graphics cards like GTX 580 on its launch. With the current gen cards it runs even better.


----------



## Dromihetes

How can you even compare the BF 3 crap to Max Payne 3 and FC 3 i wonder.









Yes the texture is not at a high level in FC 3 but the world is huge the amount of NPC-s as well .Have you played the game or ... you are just saying ?


----------



## Dradus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> and far cry 3 has such good graphics so as to completely immerse a person in the game . i assume you havent yet played the game have you ?


I have about 10 hours in the game. Ignoring the cartoonish color pallet and silly-looking UI, yes, the graphics are quite immersive. My point was that the level of immersion in a game is a spectrum, such that any improved graphics translates to deeper immersion. So they aren't "just graphics".


----------



## modinn

Any person who would rather have a game their mega-rig can handle at maximum settings rather than medium settings is not a true PC gamer, AT ALL. If the game can't be maxxed out with the current generation of hardware, so what?? That gives the video card industry extra pressure to push the envelope next generation since theoretically more people will upgrade their hardware to max out these games giving the manufacturers more incentive. It's a win-win for the consumers and the industry. It happened for Crysis, why can't it happen a second time? We've become so entrenched with the status quo of console graphics that many PC gamers have become complacent that _this_ is as good as it gets and we shouldn't expect anything better, when we should instead demand it (look at Star Citizen).

Ranting aside, why is nobody pointing out the fact that the Devs could have simply provided an INI tweak (like in Skyrim) for their engine to change the density of the vegetation? I don't see the whole reason to get up-in-arms over this, it's just vegetation. If the engine procedurally generates vegetation as I believe it does, then shouldn't it be somewhat simple to create different density profiles for each graphical setting. I'm sure this was overlooked in lieu of that fact that FC3 wasn't a PC-focused game, but it could be something implemented now with relative ease.

Regardless, I plan to buy Far Cry 3 if it becomes part of the Steam Holiday Sale. I personally think the game looks great and fun to play from various gameplay videos.


----------



## passey

It looks good but its no amazing as it shud have been.

Some big bugs. Was driving earlier and the dirt path just vanished and was air below.


----------



## [-Snake-]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SMK*
> 
> Does anyone still watch E3 demos and expect that's exactly what their going to get??


So in other words...You are saying this generation of gamers will buy a game even though they knowingly expect a lesser-developed video game? It all makes sense to me though since it seems the priorities of gamers today are set to a new-low.

I remember back then in E3, the footage you saw was the game you were going to get, or an improved version of it. Not one or two steps down finished game.


----------



## Rubers

This game has caught so much undue flak it's just annoying. Some of you should just stop playing games for a bit. Really. I get to play maybe 2-3 hours a FORTNIGHT these days and I really appreciate my time on games. So much that I don't find the smallest and most stupid things to cry about.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Yeah but having only that time to play per fortnight may of conditioned you to look past a lot of stuff. Thats not your fault, I would be the same if in the same position.

But in having only that little time you lose a critical eye.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Yeah but having only that time to play per fortnight may of conditioned you to look past a lot of stuff. Thats not your fault, I would be the same if in the same position.
> But in having only that little time you lose a critical eye.


I still have my critical eye. I know the flaws of FC3, I could reel a fair few off. The difference is I don't care because they're not game breaking and/or a massive deal.

Stuff that's a massive deal to me I notice, care about and make a fuss.

But this case? There were PLENTY of trailers out before release showing these graphics we have now. Expecting the E3 footage to be what we play is a god damn pipe dream. It's rarely like that. Those footages are EXTREMELY well scripted. All this stupid crap like "oh we were lied to and misled" total and utter bullcrap.

BF3's Premium taking out the guns that were in the earlier premium posters... that's being misled (and that's a very broad use of the term "misled"). WArZ's profile page was misleading. Far Cry3 wasn't misleading and I genuinely think some of you are being way over the top with this and I think some of you are just looking for something to moan about.


----------



## SheepMoose

Knowing what the graphics were advertised as being, and delivered as being, I think I'll pass on this game.
For the graphics you're given, I don't think the game is worth the $60 - $70 that's been asked by Steam. If the graphics were as amazing as the E3 demonstration had shown, I'd pay the $60 - $70.

Maybe it's just me, but I haven't chosen to support developers that don't fully support PC to an extent. I'm holding off from buying any Rockstar games until GTA V gets announced on PC, too.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> I still have my critical eye. I know the flaws of FC3, I could reel a fair few off. The difference is I don't care because they're not game breaking and/or a massive deal.
> Stuff that's a massive deal to me I notice, care about and make a fuss.
> But this case? There were PLENTY of trailers out before release showing these graphics we have now. Expecting the E3 footage to be what we play is a god damn pipe dream. It's rarely like that. Those footages are EXTREMELY well scripted. All this stupid crap like "oh we were lied to and misled" total and utter bullcrap.
> BF3's Premium taking out the guns that were in the earlier premium posters... that's being misled (and that's a very broad use of the term "misled"). WArZ's profile page was misleading. Far Cry3 wasn't misleading and I genuinely think some of you are being way over the top with this and I think some of you are just looking for something to moan about.


Yeah I see your point....

Yeah we weren't lied to, but they weren't overly forth coming either.

But to be fair, I don't personally have a beef with it. But it would of been nice as an addition to the PC version. What I was getting at was we as a gamer whole have been to accepting as a community to much crud from AAA devs.


----------



## Master__Shake

a good reason why demos were the best thing ever...

you can sample the graphics and the gameplay before dropping 50-60 dollars on a product you won't like.

typical bait and switch...


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Yeah I see your point....
> Yeah we weren't lied to, but they weren't overly forth coming either.
> But to be fair, I don't personally have a beef with it. But it would of been nice as an addition to the PC version. What I was getting at was we as a gamer whole have been to accepting as a community to much crud from AAA devs.


But there were a couple of videos since the E3... They were forthcoming.


----------



## gtarmanrob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> a good reason why demos were the best thing ever...
> you can sample the graphics and the gameplay before dropping 50-60 dollars on a product you won't like.


agreed, definitely miss the days of demos. and even when they do give a demo these days, it doesnt really show you anything.

remember when Doom shareware came out, or Duke Nukem 3D? you didnt get a level as a demo, you got the first bloody episode. minus a couple levels i think but still, more than enogh to sample the game, see SEVERAL different key aspects of the gameplay and decide for yourself. and look how successful they are.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> But there were a couple of videos since the E3... They were forthcoming.


Yeah that is true.........But just remember I am not reeling on this game as a singular..I am talking as a whole.

I am buying this game, not on reviews because I don't like review sites...They may be paid to slant the results. However I will be buying this because as a whole I loved the farcry series.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Yeah that is true.........But just remember I am not reeling on this game as a singular..I am talking as a whole.
> I am buying this game, not on reviews because I don't like review sites...They may be paid to slant the results. However I will be buying this because as a whole I loved the farcry series.


It's a great game







It's not often I game but I find myself making time to play this


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> *Honestly who the heck cares? Graphics are not what matters.* STORYLINE and PLAYABILITY matters......Graphics are a moot point.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digikid*
> 
> No I am speaking for a lot of people....most of which know that I am correct on this issue and you are not. Gameplay and Storyline and far more important than graphics. Shooting a tree and having it fall on someone is NOT graphical....it is Physics and can be done even without all these fancy USELESS graphics that you are foolishly drooling over.


In your first post that I replied to your gave your opinion, you have the right to your own opinion because it is neither correct or incorrect. You ask who the heck cares, I do as do others or I wouldn't be here! Oh and I'm NOT foolish for stating my opinion!

*Graphics are not what matters* = opinion

*STORYLINE and PLAYABILITY matters* = opinion

*I am correct on this issue and you are not* = opinion
Quote:


> *"In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective."*


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Yeah that is true.........But just remember I am not reeling on this game as a singular..I am talking as a whole.
> I am buying this game, not on reviews because I don't like review sites...They may be paid to slant the results. However I will be buying this because as a whole I loved the farcry series.


People actually follow reviews! If i see a lot of positive comments about the game, i will always watch a few Game play videos, and then i make my choice. Have never regretted a game due to doing this.


----------



## SkyNetSTI

Crap! There is no decent pc around me for now and I picked up fc3 for 360 yesterday and I have to say... Damn current gen is so freaking old and slow... Picture is ugly and 20 fps max made me to shut down console in a 10 minutes.... For sure I going to build a nice rig soon...


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SkyNetSTI*
> 
> Crap! There is no decent pc around me for now and I picked up fc3 for 360 yesterday and I have to say... Damn current gen is so freaking old and slow... Picture is ugly and 20 fps max made me to shut down console in a 10 minutes.... For sure I going to build a nice rig soon...


What were you expecting on console? Also its 30FPS minimum on console.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> What were you expecting on console? Also its 30FPS minimum on console.


lots of console games dip below 30fps.


----------



## formula m

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zcypot*
> 
> I am not mad about the graphics I think they look okay. The game play is amazing! I am a little upset about performance though.. barely keeping 60fps on medium with my rig is sad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Edit:The acting is in this is actually really good O.O, I am trying to imagine the voice actors they went all out... at least on the main bad dude.
> Possible spoilers


I don't need a time-line narration, for something as hilarious as that^.

It's 20 seconds of BF3, fighting real people.. not some campy cut-scene play story.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

http://www.overclock.net/t/1340722/are-we-getting-taken-for-a-ride-by-ubisoft-on-far-cry-3-directx-visuals/20#post_18885732


----------



## jordanecmusic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kane2207*
> 
> Because there would have been uproar when it ran at 10-15fps at 1080p


Simple fix. Lower the graphics settings. *sigh* you people!


----------



## Kane2207

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jordanecmusic*
> 
> Simple fix. Lower the graphics settings. *sigh* you people!


Not necessary, the whole discussion is about how Ubisoft have already done this for you.

I also think you may have missed the point of my previous post, I wasn't complaining about the game, I actually really enjoyed it although SLI is still a little ropey.

It would have still been nice to actually get the eye candy advertised from E3 though, even if I did then struggle to run it


----------



## MDUK

Running into a game-breaking bug in FC2 3 years after release was enough to put me off this game.


----------



## Kvjavs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBlindDeafMute*
> 
> Mods to the rescue.


This. It will only be a matter of time when someone fixes this.

Either way, the game looks great.


----------



## .nikon

I will admit deep down inside I feel like they did this just to make crysis 3 look better.

Aren't they both on the new cryengine? I actually don't know for sure but that is just the feeling I get from all this.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *.nikon*
> 
> I will admit deep down inside I feel like they did this just to make crysis 3 look better.
> Aren't they both on the new cryengine? I actually don't know for sure but that is just the feeling I get from all this.


Different game studios and different publishers so it doesn't matter what it looks like compared to crysis. It would actually be in ubi's best interests to make it as good looking as possible.


----------



## TFL Replica

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *.nikon*
> 
> I will admit deep down inside I feel like they did this just to make crysis 3 look better.
> Aren't they both on the new cryengine? I actually don't know for sure but that is just the feeling I get from all this.


Far Cry 3 is on the Dunia 2 engine which can be traced all the way back to the first Far Cry game.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TFL Replica*
> 
> Far Cry 3 is on the Dunia 2 engine which can be traced all the way back to the first Far Cry game.


...The first game used the Cryengine...


----------



## TFL Replica

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> ...The first game used the Cryengine...


Which was heavily modified and called the Dunia Engine (used in FC2).


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TFL Replica*
> 
> Which was heavily modified and called the Dunia Engine (used in FC2).


Ye,s but they're still very different egines, even if one was the base for the other. For instance, Call of Duty is based on the Quake 3 engine... but they're so different now they're very easy to tell apart.


----------



## kx11

Dunia in arabic means " world "


----------



## SheepMoose

.....nice


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Meh.

Outraged? Furious?

I doubt the vast majority even noticed.


----------



## [email protected]

Instead of raging the fact we got screwed over due to half the texture of graphics. Isn't there an mod out there yet? ENB mods or graphic mods made yet for FC3 yet?


----------



## Rains

furious? No. I've got enough good games I need to actually play now that I have some free time ... I'll simply wait and watch what happens with Far Cry 3. Be it a third party mod, or a later patch ... I can afford to be patient


----------



## benfica101

Yeah i thought something was off when i played retail


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TFL Replica*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> ...The first game used the Cryengine...
> 
> 
> 
> Which was heavily modified and called the Dunia Engine (used in FC2).
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TFL Replica*
> 
> Which was heavily modified and called the Dunia Engine (used in FC2).
> 
> 
> 
> Ye,s but they're still very different egines, even if one was the base for the other. For instance, Call of Duty is based on the Quake 3 engine... but they're so different now they're very easy to tell apart.
Click to expand...

Dunia is a proprietary engine made by ubisoft to make fc2. Far cry 1 was made using cryengine 1 which is a standalone game engine made by crytek. Dunia, however, has borrowed the source code from Cryengine 1 though.

*Source 1* *Source 2*


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> It's a great game
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not often I game but I find myself making time to play this


Yeah cobber, I may have to take a leaf out of your book......I'll grab it when it drops a little in price.. Also I have to stop playing Planetside 2 so much, not that I play that a huge amount.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> People actually follow reviews! If i see a lot of positive comments about the game, i will always watch a few Game play videos, and then i make my choice.
> Have never regretted a game due to doing this.


Yeah I have never really held reviewers with high regard because to me there would be a lot of bias in a way. I do read a few but I talk to my mates that play games, but to me the sure fired way to find out is to just buy it. I mean it's only you that is going to know what you like.

For an example I said that I loved Farcry 2, but a lot of people where trashing it out and reviewers. That is why listen to what they say but I only hear 50% of what they are saying. I have to admit it has blown up in my face once or twice, but that is more in the movie thing "The Devil Inside" movie. Now I felt ripped off even though it was tight ass tuesday.


----------



## driftingforlife

Im going down tesco in a bit to buy it and the first thing i will do is put the texture pack on.


----------



## CallAMedic4U

Well I just bought FC3 last night and was getting ready to play this morning. Then I do my morning OCN check and find this, I guess I'll have to do some research on this myself and see what I think about the whole "less vegetation and lights" thing


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

I still think it looks awesome despite the the downgraded graphics from the tech demo and is definitely one of the best looking games.

The storyline and gameplay are also great, which is what matters to me.


----------



## knd775

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bloitz*
> 
> Why do they play it with a controller? Anyone knows?
> Pretty much everyone knows most presentations / demos are run on a PC so what's the point in keeping up appearances. Mouse and KB are also far more entertaining to watch.


It's most likely because it is a lot harder to know where every key on a keyboard is without looking than it is to know where all the buttons are on a controller. It just simplifies things. Also, they don't need anything up there to put a keyboard and mouse on like they would have to.


----------



## Kazumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> Honestly, you sound like you want a benchmark more than a game. I guess tight gameplay, an engaging story, and an innovative progression system take a back seat to pretty graphics (which this game still has...).
> I could understand the griping if the game was a crappy port that looked horrible, but it's one of the best looking games of all time. People boycotting it because if a few missing shrubs _really_ need to get a grip.


Apparently you don't read anything that people post. I enjoy the game greatly. But when I see that they CAN do something, but choose not to because it's a "little" more taxing on systems I feel they should stick with their guns. Don't show gamers something, if you don't plan to keep it. What type was innovating about the progression system? You skinned a tiger..Made a pouch...You leveled up so choose a skill? Innovation? Where? How? It's the same basic system we've been using for years. Maybe skinning a animal is innovating on your 360..But I've skinned animals on my PC before..lol


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *knd775*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bloitz*
> 
> Why do they play it with a controller? Anyone knows?
> Pretty much everyone knows most presentations / demos are run on a PC so what's the point in keeping up appearances. Mouse and KB are also far more entertaining to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> It's most likely because it is a lot harder to know where every key on a keyboard is without looking than it is to know where all the buttons are on a controller. It just simplifies things. Also, they don't need anything up there to put a keyboard and mouse on like they would have to.
Click to expand...

And they can smoothly view the game environment. Instead of the quick jerkiness of mouse movements. They always take a few seconds every once in a while to stop and turn around slowly or something like that to show off something.


----------



## 222Panther222

Lend it on ps3 got at least 35ish hours of game-play, and still having a blast. Completed main story, radio-tower, outposts, path of the hunters, wanted dead and there is still a lot more to do. There is one negative point i dont like and it's the forced stealth missions and strongly encouraged stealth game-play.

Quick tips for those who started.

Best plants.

Green
At the beginning you are not rich so grab the green plants they are very useful, especially when fighting enemies or animals, because they
heal way quicker and you don't to pay 100$ for each one of them.

Blue
Second useful plan is the blue one, get as many as possible because mixed with the green one you can craft stronger health syringe that will give you more health bar.

Yellow
Next one is the yellow plant because when it's mixed with the blue one you can craft the second hunting syringe that will help you a lot to see animals and hunt them to upgrade your equipment.

Get a bulletproof vest and the skill to wear it at 100% effectiveness.

Here's some of my favorites weapons early and later in the game.

I usually got two types of weapons

(when you are undetected)
[shot/mid/ range stealth weapons] MS16 with suppressor or Signature assault rifle.
[Long range stealth weapons] M-700 with suppressor or Z93 with the suppressor.

(when you are detected)
[Short range heavy fire weapons]. U-100 or MKG
[Long range heavy fire weapons.]Rpg or Signature sniper.


----------



## Tempey

The game runs really bad for me even after playing with Radeon Pro settings. Feels like 20fps









Edit: Running in DX9 reduces me to 5fps and my input lag is off the charts lol


----------



## modinn

Edit: messed up. Thought I was in a different thread lol


----------



## wallyworld96

@modinn what? skyrim? huh?
anyways....
The bait and switch is always a poor decision....steam sale is the only way i will be buying.


----------



## Rubers

^There was no bait and switch. ALL videos in the last 4 months (or so) have been with recent graphics. ALL videogames show off their best videos at E3.


----------



## marduke83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallAMedic4U*
> 
> Well I just bought FC3 last night and was getting ready to play this morning. Then I do my morning OCN check and find this, I guess I'll have to do some research on this myself and see what I think about the whole "less vegetation and lights" thing


If you have already purchased it just play it! It is a great game, and the graphics still look great. You are missing out if you aren't going to play it because of a lack of foliage/lighting. I have put in over 20 hours sofar and am still loving it, and am probably only halfway through (I like doing everything I can before finishing the main story). Enjoy it.


----------



## pepejovi

I guess I'm not a PC gamer, since I'm not furious?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

^^^^ same here.


----------



## pepejovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> ^^^^ same here.


The game still looked better than any game I've ever played, and it didn't need mods like Skyrim did to make it look great.


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pepejovi*
> 
> I guess I'm not a PC gamer, since I'm not furious?


Same here.

I actually played the game, liked the visuals (not texture quality, the visual art) and enjoyed it.

The real shame is that PC gamers who weren't actually outraged before they read this, become outraged because they were basically told to be.


----------



## pepejovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pepejovi*
> 
> I guess I'm not a PC gamer, since I'm not furious?
> 
> 
> 
> Same here.
> 
> I actually played the game, liked the visuals (not texture quality, the visual art) and enjoyed it.
> 
> The real shame is that PC gamers who weren't actually outraged before they read this, become outraged because they were basically told to be.
Click to expand...

I loved the game, too, and the only thing that upset me a little about the graphics was the amount of blur when coming out of a cave. But not even that got me to stop playing for long enough to check out the settings for a blur option


----------



## Triniboi82

Game is going great so far, looks really nice in surround. A few textures isn't a big deal to me either. Just enjoy it


----------



## xXlAinXx

LoL the E3 is a single map obviously made with Crytek engine while the retail version is on Dunia.


----------



## di inferi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xXlAinXx*
> 
> LoL the E3 is a single map obviously made with Crytek engine while the retail version is on Dunia.


Ya, OBVIOUSLY.


----------



## 8800GT

People are such whiners. Its a great game. If you can't look past a tiny shortcoming, then I feel sorry for all the great games you've missed.


----------



## Otterclock

I was disappointed with the visuals, but not enough to hold it against the game.


----------



## Strider_2001

Everything looks great in 1600p.....


----------



## Dirkonis

World problem #72, Far Cry 3 graphics.


----------



## Slap Dash

The game is pretty Good. Quite thoroughly enjoyed it myself.
However after viewing that Video from E3 Demo next to actual Game-play. Kinda makes me feel disappointed of how they took a step backwards.


----------



## Tatakai All

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Well, I was looking forward to playing this, but seeing as Ubi has horrible business practices, I guess I'll wait for it to go to the bargain bin.


This.

Although I've been hearing positive feedback from review sites and people who have played it first hand I'll just wait. It'll be just as good if not a little better since it'll be cheaper and on sale. I'm not one to boycott games when I disagree with how the studio/publisher handles its product, instead I just wait it out until it's on sale even if it means waiting for while.


----------



## driftingforlife

Well since I bought it the other day I haven't been able to stop playing it.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tatakai All*
> 
> This.
> Although I've been hearing positive feedback from review sites and people who have played it first hand I'll just wait. It'll be just as good if not a little better since it'll be cheaper and on sale. I'm not one to boycott games when I disagree with how the studio/publisher handles its product, instead I just wait it out until it's on sale even if it means waiting for while.


They handled it like EVERY other game in the business. Nothing shady has happened. People are just being whingebags and blowing this out of proportion.


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

I'll say it again... All this whining really disappoints me. It goes to show how easily influenced some people on this forum are. Everyone was RAVING that Far Cry 3's graphics are absolutely beautiful and that the gameplay is nothing short of amazing. Then all of a sudden an article comes out saying "PC gamers FURIOUS" and people get up in arms complaining that the graphics where better in an E3 DEMO. Half of the people complaining probably don't even own the damn game because it's nothing short of amazing.


----------



## L D4WG

Dam thats pretty bad, I was going to buy it but watching the video i think ill pass this is cheap...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3T4LM4N222*
> 
> I'll say it again... All this whining really disappoints me. It goes to show how easily influenced some people on this forum are. Everyone was RAVING that Far Cry 3's graphics are absolutely beautiful and that the gameplay is nothing short of amazing. Then all of a sudden an article comes out saying "PC gamers FURIOUS" and people get up in arms complaining that the graphics where better in an E3 DEMO. Half of the people complaining probably don't even own the damn game because it's nothing short of amazing.


Perhaps because they didn't know what it could have been...


----------



## 98uk

Hi,

I'm a PC gamer and i'm not furious.

Regards,

98uk.


----------



## Sgtbash

Yeah, this IMO is the best game I have ever played.

The graphics are some of the best I have ever seen, and i dont like the way this article insinuates that all PC Gamers are furious because of something that most people did not even notice.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> Dam thats pretty bad, I was going to buy it but watching the video i think ill pass this is cheap...
> Perhaps because they didn't know what it could have been...


No. Just no, for the love of god. No.


----------



## 8800GT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> Dam thats pretty bad, I was going to buy it but watching the video i think ill pass this is cheap...
> Perhaps because they didn't know what it could have been...


Who cares about what could have been? Maybe we should all love Hitler because he could have been a veterinarian....


----------



## Kane2207

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> Who cares about what could have been? Maybe we should all love Hitler because he could have been a veterinarian....


Wut?


----------



## doomlord52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> They handled it like EVERY other game in the business. Nothing shady has happened. People are just being whingebags and blowing this out of proportion.


Not really. The game was very clearly modified from the E3 footage to REDUCE the amount of foliage. The area/level wasn't redesigned or scrapped, it was very clearly nerfed. Why? I have no idea. However, its evident that they did it for a reason (likely performance). OTHER games usually either have special E3 levels that never get released (Crysis 1's GDC 2006 trailer, for example), which while somewhat lame, are at least clearly used for promotional use. Other games, like Metro 2033, actually INCREASE in quality from pre-relase to launch.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doomlord52*
> 
> Not really. The game was very clearly modified from the E3 footage to REDUCE the amount of foliage. The area/level wasn't redesigned or scrapped, it was very clearly nerfed. Why? I have no idea. However, its evident that they did it for a reason (likely performance). OTHER games usually either have special E3 levels that never get released (Crysis 1's GDC 2006 trailer, for example), which while somewhat lame, are at least clearly used for promotional use. Other games, like Metro 2033, actually INCREASE in quality from pre-relase to launch.


Find me any footage of the game from the last 6 months that isn't exactly what we got.

Are we going to ahve any Crysis 3 whigne threads about the missing SUPER TESSELATED TOAD technology? No. There's ZERO reason why these threads should be here except to perhaps complain, in general, about this and not target FarCry 3 specifically and unfairly.


----------



## burticus

Eh just wait a couple more months and a hi-rez mega texture pack 3gb download patch will appear.... ala Crysis 2.

But yeah I have not felt the PC love from Ubi for a while.


----------



## doomlord52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Find me any footage of the game from the last 6 months that isn't exactly what we got.
> 
> Are we going to ahve any Crysis 3 whigne threads about the missing SUPER TESSELATED TOAD technology? No. There's ZERO reason why these threads should be here except to perhaps complain, in general, about this and not target FarCry 3 specifically and unfairly.


I think you mixed that up. What we usually get IS what they show. The issue is, what we got here is WORSE than what they showed.

Here's an example from Crysis 2:


Spoiler: Videos







(@ 0:26)



(@6:10)


There they DID show a final-game level, but it actually looks better in the final release, not worse.

Also, I think you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is expecting the super tesselated toad to be in-game. Firstly, it was clearly a joke, but secondly, it's not an actual level. NOTHING in that trailer is likely to actually be in-game. However, the FC3 level is actually in game. It's not some special trailer level they made - it's a section of the final map they then made WORSE for no real reason. This is why people ARE targeting FC3 for this. They explicitly showed a section of the game, and on release, it looks far worse. That means that either they enhanced the existing level for false-advertising, or they intentionally made it worse after the trailer. Other game studios don't do this. They either show special levels in trailers that AREN'T in the final game, or show the level in a 95% complete state, where it's only going to get better.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Ugh [email protected] those graphics.


----------



## Rainstar

This happens all the time, buy a burger and it looks nothing like the picture the store has up, same thing for most "cheap/convenient" fast food

E3 = looks great
Release on pc = console port

Make me a FC3 that will melt my computer ill personally pay $100 retail for it.
Oh ubisoft not impressed.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rainstar*
> 
> This happens all the time, buy a burger and it looks nothing like the picture the store has up, same thing for most "cheap/convenient" fast food
> E3 = looks great
> Release on pc = console port
> Make me a FC3 that will melt my computer ill personally pay $100 retail for it.
> Oh ubisoft not impressed.


Seeing you don't have anything up on your rig, can I have that $100.


----------



## Rainstar

Oh i never made a sig because im not sure how,

I have evga x79 classified + E5 2687w ( traded my 3930k c2+ 500 cash for the xeon)
16gb corsair dominator platinum
3x hitachi 7k4000 ultrastar ( looking to buy bulk maybe set up cloud)
Crucial m4 512gb
Ax 1200 with sleeved cables
Noctua nh d14 ( xspc raystorm on standby when i WC)
1 gtx 670 dcii top @1225mhz might add more
3 zr30w ( going portrait mode vega style in the near future)
Caselabs m10 with extended top and pedestal


----------



## tubnotub1

Pretty amazing looking (and playing) game despite the discrepancies between the E3 Demo and the final delivered product. Someone commented that the E3 demo might have been running on CryEngine and after watching it a few times it would not surprise me in the least if that was the case. Having said that, retail Far Cry 3 has moments that took my breath away, below are two of my favorite screen shots so far.


----------



## H_C_L

Thanks to what they did I am able to play this on my rather weak rig.

Maybe


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The game still looks great. I just think its unfortunate that they obviously could have made it even better looking for those of us with hideously over powered rigs to enjoy but decided not to. Always on the look out for a true graphics successor to the original Crysis...


----------



## K2mil

Maybe we should have someone to do an on line petition demanding ubisoft to deliver the E3 experience to pc gamers via patch or something. The more things like that we do the more they will listen to us. And I'm not saying its a bad game or anything but I would like to have my rig pushed to the limit and apparently they have a way to do it . So come on Ubi and give us some LUV


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *K2mil*
> 
> Maybe we should have someone to do an on line petition demanding ubisoft to deliver the E3 experience to pc gamers via patch or something. The more things like that we do the more they will listen to us. And I'm not saying its a bad game or anything but I would like to have my rig pushed to the limit and apparently they have a way to do it . So come on Ubi and give us some LUV


As if FC3 in it's current state doesn't push systems enough as it is.

If they did what people asked nobody could play it with any kind of ingame IQ at all. Who wants to play a top tier title on low details? Although, i agree it's not right that the E3 experience was not the delivered product. But lets be honest for a moment, the majority of PC gamers aren't sporting $6000+ rigs, most are systems that are 2 to 3 years old.

It's alright for us on OCN to demand this and that, but the systems around here aren't an indication of the typical PC gamer. We are far too spoilt and need to remember that we are a very niche market.


----------



## Dromihetes

PC gamers should be happy that Ubisoft launched this game.

I wouldn t of had what to play personally this days .
THQ dead ,EA making MOH/BF failures ,etc , not to many games for PC-s this days.
Few games impressed me this year and FC 3 is one of them among Max Payne 3 and Hitman.

Maybe FC 4 will have better graphics.Last FC 3 reviews i red showed graphic cards struggling with the actual graphics level.

I am not sure but this negativity may come form some EA people to divert attention to the Crysis 3 future EA failure.

If you have not yet played FC 3 buy it and play it ,it has everything as it should.


----------



## marduke83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *K2mil*
> 
> Maybe we should have someone to do an on line petition demanding ubisoft to deliver the E3 experience to pc gamers via patch or something. The more things like that we do the more they will listen to us. And I'm not saying its a bad game or anything but I would like to have my rig pushed to the limit and apparently they have a way to do it . So come on Ubi and give us some LUV


They kind-of have been listening to the community with this game, the last patch allows you to turn off most notifications which would hinder vision at times. That only came about after the community asked for it. Hopefully they do release a higher texture/foliage patch, but honestly I don't see the point, the game still looks great and is one of the best games to come to PC in a long time. If they don't I'm sure the modding community will do something, there already is a higher quality texture pack. Would be nice to tone down some of the colours aswell, some seem rather saturated.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The game still looks great. I just think its unfortunate that they obviously could have made it even better looking for those of us with hideously over powered rigs to enjoy but decided not to. Always on the look out for a true graphics successor to the original Crysis...


would that be crysis 3







For the graphics horsepower this game uses the developers could definitely have done better. i mean they have not pushed the envelope as far as Crytek did with the original crysis

but seriously i have been playing the game and close to the end i guess (finished off vaas). its one of the best open world shooters. but i think the developers over did the role playing elements with all those animal hides required for various ammo packs, syringe packs, weapon holsters and what not. i was shocked that the developers included nudity in the game.


----------



## james8

guys, the game is published by UBISOFT, the worst publisher for PC besides EA. what did you guys expect? seriously


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *james8*
> 
> guys, the game is published by UBISOFT, the worst publisher for PC besides EA. what did you guys expect? seriously


The game is fine. It is way better than average. So because ubisoft and ea are the worst publisher that means they cant release a good game? Play the game


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> The game is fine. It is way better than average. So because ubisoft and ea are the worst publisher that means they cant release a good game? Play the game


Agreed, i think FC3 is one of the best titles on the PC we've seen in a long time and it's thoroughly enjoyable. Sure they showed a better version during the E3 presentation. But who cares? I've 100% completed the game and no amount of fancy textures or mods will get me to continue playing since.....erm i've done everything.


----------



## 666lbs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *james8*
> 
> guys, the game is published by UBISOFT, the worst publisher for PC besides EA. what did you guys expect? seriously


Activision is mad that you're stripping them of their title. Even EA can't compete with the onion-like layers of consumer abuse that are built into the Activi$ion business model.


----------



## Rubers

Ubisoft are fine. They listen to gamers. They stopped all intrusive DRM.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Ubisoft are fine. They listen to gamers. They stopped all intrusive DRM.


LOL, go onto there forum and tell me they listen. Me and thousands can't even play this game. Constant crashes, BSODS etc... lol


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> LOL, go onto there forum and tell me they listen. Me and thousands can't even play this game. Constant crashes, BSODS etc... lol


LOL then your PC has a problem, because me and thousands can play this game. Your PC having an issue isn't Ubisofts problem. However, to think they won't be working on a patch for whatever problems might be wrong with the game is just plain ignorant.

Except, I'm not over-exaggerating when I say "thousands".


----------



## sugarhell

What problems. Even on windows 8 is fine


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> What problems. Even on windows 8 is fine


No no, bazzilions of people are having bluescreens and the game is even insulting their mothers. Don't believe me? Listen to the guy who was complaining about this game's graphics and how we've been having the wool pulled over our eyes because the game doesn't look like the show off footage. Totally a legitimate, reliable, source of information.

But no, really, I haven't had issues and neither have any of my Steam list. All of whom have quite different systems (two of them having a HD7970 like this guy). All of them playing it, loving it and not having an issue. Imho, their PC's are unstable and have a problem.


----------



## iMica

Just beat the game, got to say it was fun and graphics were still above average lol. Would have LOVED the other graphics and all the more bushes I could have hid in when sneaking ; - ;


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

This game really reminds me of Crysis, but without the cool suit I don't think I'd like it as much. Love using stealth and strength modes to own some Koreans!


----------



## 8800GT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> As if FC3 in it's current state doesn't push systems enough as it is.
> If they did what people asked nobody could play it with any kind of ingame IQ at all. Who wants to play a top tier title on low details? Although, i agree it's not right that the E3 experience was not the delivered product. But lets be honest for a moment, the majority of PC gamers aren't sporting $6000+ rigs, most are systems that are 2 to 3 years old.
> It's alright for us on OCN to demand this and that, but the systems around here aren't an indication of the typical PC gamer. We are far too spoilt and need to remember that we are a very niche market.


Although i agree with you strongly, i think you are overestimating Far Cry 3's requirements. With my single GTX 460 (OC'd to 825/1950) i can max it out with 4xaa @ 1080, well above 30fps. This is with only a 2500k as well. I can't even begin to imagine how little this dents a gtx 680 overclocked or a 7970.


----------



## Mhill2029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> Although i agree with you strongly, i think you are overestimating Far Cry 3's requirements. With my single GTX 460 (OC'd to 825/1950) i can max it out with 4xaa @ 1080, well above 30fps. This is with only a 2500k as well. I can't even begin to imagine how little this dents a gtx 680 overclocked or a 7970.


Heh sure it's nowhere near as bad as the original Crysis, but it really does need SLI or Crossfire to truly get that 60FPS+ fluidity with any kind of AA even @ 1080p (Ultra Everything + DOF 100+) in it's current state. Playing well above 30FPS as you say wouldn't be my idea of smooth at all. For an FPS shooter you should be looking at a 60FPS average to get the best experience in my opinion. But some people can deal with less i guess....

Half the issue with this game is the way it utlises CPU cores or the lack of it. It's baaaaad.....and results in a starved GPU(s).

EDIT: Ignore the above, something must of changed in the recent 1.4 patch as it seems to be using them reasonably well, although not ideal. As you can see with 1 core compared to the others.


----------



## pepejovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mhill2029*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> Although i agree with you strongly, i think you are overestimating Far Cry 3's requirements. With my single GTX 460 (OC'd to 825/1950) i can max it out with 4xaa @ 1080, well above 30fps. This is with only a 2500k as well. I can't even begin to imagine how little this dents a gtx 680 overclocked or a 7970.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh sure it's nowhere near as bad as the original Crysis, but it really does need SLI or Crossfire to truly get that 60FPS+ fluidity with any kind of AA even @ 1080p (Ultra Everything + DOF 100+) in it's current state. Playing well above 30FPS as you say wouldn't be my idea of smooth at all. For an FPS shooter you should be looking at a 60FPS average to get the best experience in my opinion. But some people can deal with less i guess....
> 
> Half the issue with this game is the way it utlises CPU cores or the lack of it. It's baaaaad.....and results in a starved GPU(s).
> 
> EDIT: Ignore the above, something must of changed in the recent 1.4 patch as it seems to be using them reasonably well, although not ideal. As you can see with 1 core compared to the others.
Click to expand...

You're kidding me, right?


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> No no, bazzilions of people are having bluescreens and the game is even insulting their mothers. Don't believe me? Listen to the guy who was complaining about this game's graphics and how we've been having the wool pulled over our eyes because the game doesn't look like the show off footage. Totally a legitimate, reliable, source of information.
> But no, really, I haven't had issues and neither have any of my Steam list. All of whom have quite different systems (two of them having a HD7970 like this guy). All of them playing it, loving it and not having an issue. Imho, their PC's are unstable and have a problem.


Ok, My PC is crashing on stock and overclocked on this game. Tried a reinstall of windows and all possible fixes.
This game was rushed for xmas shopping and was not tested on a wide array of systems.
I have literally tried everything.


----------



## 98uk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> Ok, My PC is crashing on stock and overclocked on this game. Tried a reinstall of windows and all possible fixes.
> This game was rushed for xmas shopping and was not tested on a wide array of systems.
> I have literally tried everything.


I'm afraid they cannot account for everything. It could conflict with some other software, it could be a obscure hardware/driver issue. Whatever the case, if you read forums you get a biased opinion, 95% of people on them are there to get something fixed or complain... for the vast majority of people (like myself), it works fine with no issue...


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> Ok, My PC is crashing on stock and overclocked on this game. Tried a reinstall of windows and all possible fixes.
> This game was rushed for xmas shopping and was not tested on a wide array of systems.
> I have literally tried everything.


No. It's fine on the majority of peoples systems.

As with ANY software deployment there are unforeseen problems.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

1.03 was perfection! 1.04 has been crashing non stop.
Even now when i reinstall the game and reformat it crashes. I don't know how that works.
I just now had to crack Max Payne 3 cause it has the infamous "forever Loading" and now i can't play online. That's why i love that i bought an xbox 360. I put $6k into this rig and half the games i cant play. Amazing


----------



## GreenNeon

As per usual with these tech demos and E3 gameplays, they usually have some sort of tri/quad SLI/Crossfire system lurking under the table ready to crunch the frames. Similar to the Samaritan video for the Unreal 4 engine...

While it's all good and well, when it comes to the nitty gritty sales portion of the development I'm almost certain they opted for the more simplified version purely to increase their sales market and system compatibility... I mean, very few of us run quad/tri card setups.

Nevertheless, with games such as Assassin's Creed 3 sporting 20Gb of content on installation and Far Cry 3 only breaking in at 11-12Gb, I don't see why they couldn't have added in an optional system to launch an 'Extended' version of the game with extra graphical content. It seems there is a larger variety of vegetation and ground textures in the E3 demo.

I have an overclocked 680 in my system running at 1245Mhz on the GPU and an overclocked 3770k, however I almost _just_ break even in fps to make it enjoyable. The game is definately not fully optimized and this is something that's becoming something of a trend with Ubisoft games as of late...

Sadly it all boils down to the console side of the table, it's the current gen consoles that are causing this lack luster advancement in development resulting in unoptimized or last-gen gfx games.
And people can hate all you want but until those POS 360's and PS3's get upgraded, I really can't take all these PhysX, particle effect eye wizardry and trillion polygon tessellation tech demos seriously...
They're only a figure of showroom flabagastery and game engine showcasing, nothing else.

Far Cry 3 is STILL a brilliant game that needs some extra TLC from the developers, I'd love to see some DLC packs released for PC or some extra vehicles, weapons or animals to hunt...
How about some anteaters or jaguars... you get my point...

Wall of text is eye sore, lol.


----------



## Rainstar

agreed demos are just sparkly show off as much as possible to get buyers.

the average console user probably has a crappier comp than their console. the casuals are a problem but most revenue comes from them, its 2013 almost WHY DX9 WHY does it still exist.


----------



## 98uk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rainstar*
> 
> agreed demos are just sparkly show off as much as possible to get buyers.
> the average console user probably has a crappier comp than their console. the casuals are a problem but most revenue comes from them, its 2013 almost WHY DX9 WHY does it still exist.


Legacy. Not everyone lives in USA or UK where parts are relatively cheap. Think about all those gamers around Eastern Europe still rocking late DX9 cards or early DX10 cards (which incidentally couldn't play any DX10 games







)


----------



## MDalton10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> 1.03 was perfection! 1.04 has been crashing non stop.
> Even now when i reinstall the game and reformat it crashes. I don't know how that works.
> I just now had to crack Max Payne 3 cause it has the infamous "forever Loading" and now i can't play online. That's why i love that i bought an xbox 360. I put $6k into this rig and half the games i cant play. Amazing


6k?







I Rarely have gaming issues on the PC but it does happen every once in awhile.


----------



## amputate

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> 1.03 was perfection! 1.04 has been crashing non stop.
> Even now when i reinstall the game and reformat it crashes. I don't know how that works.
> I just now had to crack Max Payne 3 cause it has the infamous "forever Loading" and now i can't play online. That's why i love that i bought an xbox 360. I put $6k into this rig and half the games i cant play. Amazing


Hey I've been playing Far Cry 3 for wel over an hour now without a problem.
Only thing I did was relocate my mouse to a USB 2.0 slot.
It sounds weird but it kinda makes sense considering that in my case, after restarting the computer the mouse would never work.
After I unplugged it and replugged it would work again though.

Anyway that did get me to think.
I've had a whole washlist of problems with the Asrock Etron USB3 drivers and it may just be responsible for the far cry 3 bluescreens.
I'll just continue to play far cry 3 for a bit and if it doesn't crash in the next few hours i'm blaming Asrock


----------



## Johnny Utah

Fired up FC3 for the first time. Ultra @ 1440p and I'm not impressed in the slightest. I think BF3, Crysis 2 and modded Skyrim look much better. Animation all around is jerky and character models and vegetation just looks blocky. Don't quite understand what all the fuss was about.


----------



## Sgtbash

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Johnny Utah*
> 
> Fired up FC3 for the first time. Ultra @ 1440p and I'm not impressed in the slightest. I think BF3, Crysis 2 and modded Skyrim look much better. Animation all around is jerky and character models and vegetation just looks blocky. Don't quite understand what all the fuss was about.


I think FC3 is the best looking game out of all recent games, including BF3, Crysis etc. I dont understand how people can think otherwise :/


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgtbash*
> 
> I think FC3 is the best looking game out of all recent games, including BF3, Crysis etc. I dont understand how people can think otherwise :/


Yeah especially the tropic art style is amazing like crysis 1


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sgtbash*
> 
> I think FC3 is the best looking game out of all recent games, including BF3, Crysis etc. I dont understand how people can think otherwise :/


BF3 is still the best looking game . Farcry 3 does not even beat the legendary Crysis .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8


----------



## Kasp1js

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> BF3 is still the best looking game . Farcry 3 does not even beat the legendary Crysis .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8


Explains why I played it and though ''hmm...I think crysis looked better'' + I really disliked that there was no interactivity with the environment (shooting trees and destructibility)

It's a good game overall, but not because it's visuals.

Edit. unskippable cut scenes aaargh


----------



## jbobb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> BF3 is still the best looking game . Farcry 3 does not even beat the legendary Crysis .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8


It would be cool if they had the destructable buildings and trees, but I still don't like it when people keep comparing graphics of games to Crysis loaded with mods. If you are going to compare, it should be apples to apples. Crysis with no graphic mods does not look as good as a lot of games. It did at the time it came out, but not anymore.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jbobb*
> 
> It would be cool if they had the destructable buildings and trees, but I still don't like it when people keep comparing graphics of games to Crysis loaded with mods. If you are going to compare, it should be apples to apples. Crysis with no graphic mods does not look as good as a lot of games. It did at the time it came out, but not anymore.


I've never used any mods for Crysis and it still ranks as one of the best looking games on my computer. Was just playing it yesterday and still can't believe how good it looks. I think Crytek could release Crysis this year and it would still be hailed as one of the best looking games of 2013 (and it was released in 2007)!


----------



## WolfssFang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> BF3 is still the best looking game . Farcry 3 does not even beat the legendary Crysis .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8


to bad crysis runs like ass on new systems.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WolfssFang*
> 
> to bad crysis runs like ass on new systems.


Runs great on mine...


----------



## GreenNeon

Also, just a little tip. Changing to DX11 mode within the game options doesn't fully enable it. To fully launch the game in DX11, navigate to your installation directory and run the 'farcry3_dx11' executable. (I think that's what it's called)
Also make sure you select HDAO for AMD cards and HBAO shading for Nvidia cards. HDAO isn't supported by Nvidia cards so you will get that ugly DX9 look if you enable it.

Also, I think many people have overlooked a major fact with the Far Cry 3 graphics. Doesn't an FPS game revolve around the guns? Well I think the weapons in FC3 are by far the most detailed both mesh and texture wise in any game I've played. Take BF3 for example, the weapons all have that same sharp edged and flat textured look to them as well as the guns taking advantage of normal mapping to fake many of the details.
However, in FC3 the guns all have the details modelled in with the exception of some of the screws. The picatinny rails and iron sights are all very well modelled, something BF3 doesn't do. True, it has more guns - but still...

*SPOILER*
Also, when you enter that Aztec styled temple on one of the FC3 missions, the lighting and effects are really astonishing. I remember spamming the screenshot button in awe at the birds and god rays hovering around the top of the cave. So cool...


----------



## Rockin Z28

I always find it moderately amusing when people keep saying "crysis still looks good for when it came out but not comapred to today's games" they say that as if crysis 1 still isn't the best looking game possible (with no mods to boot). It's like some big conspiracy of denial that crysis is still better looking than even DX11 games, and it was released in 2007 for DX9 hardware lol.


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> BF3 is still the best looking game . Farcry 3 does not even beat the legendary Crysis .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8


I don't think it was trying to beat crysis, the game still after all has to run on consoles. The fact of the matter its still a great looking game one of the best out there, pc gamers whine and complain thats it graphics are not as good as crysis then go on to play valve games, blizzard games and LOL in mass. Ubisoft wants their game to look great and not be limited to people with 500$ graphics cards. Creating a technical achievement that can run well on 1% of systems is not a good idea for sales. I do not recall ubisoft saying this game would be the crysis killer or even that it would push the graphics of the latest pc games. OCN automatically expects it from publishers like EA and Ubisoft but always give valve and blizzard a free pass for their mediocre looking games, despite them being more invested in the PC platform than either EA or Ubisoft. Also crysis may look pretty but it doesn't stop it from being the most boring game ever, crap story, crap gameplay, not much content to offer but hey it has the GRAPHICS!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> 1.03 was perfection! 1.04 has been crashing non stop.
> Even now when i reinstall the game and reformat it crashes. I don't know how that works.
> I just now had to crack Max Payne 3 cause it has the infamous "forever Loading" and now i can't play online. That's why i love that i bought an xbox 360. *I put $6k into this rig and half the games i cant play*. Amazing


In your previous post you blamed ubisoft for creating a buggy, unstable game; and now you say half the games you bought you can't even play? Yup its totally ubisoft's fault and not your rig at all.


----------



## Antipathy

$37.49 on steam yesterday, and so far, worth every penny plus some.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Just picked this game up from Amazon as a d/l for $35 but its running like crap. FRAPS says I'm getting 30-40 fps (which seems low in and of itself) but it FEELS like about 15 fps! Plus there is God-almighty-awful input lag from the mouse even on the title screen. I wonder what the hell is up with my system and this game? My other games work fine...


----------



## GreenNeon

If you're getting mouse lag trying playing around with the pre-rendered frames in the options.


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreenNeon*
> 
> Also, when you enter that Aztec styled temple on one of the FC3 missions, the lighting and effects are really astonishing. I remember spamming the screenshot button in awe at the birds and god rays hovering around the top of the cave. So cool...


Hmmmmmmmmm, Aztec?

I thought they were modeled after South East Asian temples like...


----------



## WolfssFang

Bought this game full price when it first came out and I think the game is worth every penny.


----------



## WolfssFang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GreenNeon*
> 
> Also, just a little tip. Changing to DX11 mode within the game options doesn't fully enable it. To fully launch the game in DX11, navigate to your installation directory and run the 'farcry3_dx11' executable. (I think that's what it's called)
> Also make sure you select HDAO for AMD cards and HBAO shading for Nvidia cards. HDAO isn't supported by Nvidia cards so you will get that ugly DX9 look if you enable it.
> Also, I think many people have overlooked a major fact with the Far Cry 3 graphics. Doesn't an FPS game revolve around the guns? Well I think the weapons in FC3 are by far the most detailed both mesh and texture wise in any game I've played. Take BF3 for example, the weapons all have that same sharp edged and flat textured look to them as well as the guns taking advantage of normal mapping to fake many of the details.
> However, in FC3 the guns all have the details modelled in with the exception of some of the screws. The picatinny rails and iron sights are all very well modelled, something BF3 doesn't do. True, it has more guns - but still...
> *SPOILER*
> Also, when you enter that Aztec styled temple on one of the FC3 missions, the lighting and effects are really astonishing. I remember spamming the screenshot button in awe at the birds and god rays hovering around the top of the cave. So cool...


Well i tried to do the DX11 .exe and i need to input a CD key. Tried the one i got but it says it does not work, did you get this issue?


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Just picked this game up from Amazon as a d/l for $35 but its running like crap. FRAPS says I'm getting 30-40 fps (which seems low in and of itself) but it FEELS like about 15 fps! Plus there is God-almighty-awful input lag from the mouse even on the title screen. I wonder what the hell is up with my system and this game? My other games work fine...


Might have to wait for the next driver to come out, I've seen a lot of AMD owners having problems. Well, a lot of owners of both sides, but definitely more-so on AMD cards. Mine runs at a smooth 120fps 90% of the time, so hopefully next driver helps.


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> BF3 is still the best looking game . Farcry 3 does not even beat the legendary Crysis .
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ohqbEn1v8


FC3 looks like a typical console game when compared with Crysis1, look for yourself and then tell me that FC3 looks good compared to Crysis!


----------



## alancsalt

On topic, i don't believe gamers are "furious" that the E3 preview was better than the released game. That's just provocative hype. If gamers are "furious" about anything, it's the choppy framerate or bluescreens or whatever other faults different people are experiencing.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amputate*
> 
> Hey I've been playing Far Cry 3 for wel over an hour now without a problem.
> Only thing I did was relocate my mouse to a USB 2.0 slot.
> It sounds weird but it kinda makes sense considering that in my case, after restarting the computer the mouse would never work.
> After I unplugged it and replugged it would work again though.
> Anyway that did get me to think.
> I've had a whole washlist of problems with the Asrock Etron USB3 drivers and it may just be responsible for the far cry 3 bluescreens.
> I'll just continue to play far cry 3 for a bit and if it doesn't crash in the next few hours i'm blaming Asrock


Ok, i have the same problem/ with 0.115 ETRONXHCI.sys BSOD on shutdown. Hmm?


----------



## GreenNeon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WolfssFang*
> 
> Well i tried to do the DX11 .exe and i need to input a CD key. Tried the one i got but it says it does not work, did you get this issue?


Nope, I didn't get that issue? It just launched into Uplay and I was able to start the game.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Johnny Utah*
> 
> Fired up FC3 for the first time. Ultra @ 1440p and I'm not impressed in the slightest. I think BF3, Crysis 2 and modded Skyrim look much better. Animation all around is jerky and character models and vegetation just looks blocky. Don't quite understand what all the fuss was about.


?????


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

Well I have an issue. I tried playing Far Cry 3 on all low settings @ 1920 x 1080 with my setup (I can play Warhead on medium settings flawlessly and on high with very minimal dips) and fraps says i'm getting around 45FPS but it feels like I am getting about 20 FPS. What's going on here? I have even turned it down to DX9 but to no avail.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3T4LM4N222*
> 
> Well I have an issue. I tried playing Far Cry 3 on all low settings @ 1920 x 1080 with my setup (I can play Warhead on medium settings flawlessly) and fraps says i'm getting around 45FPS but it feels like I am getting about 20 FPS. What's going on here? I have even turned it down to DX9 but to no avail.


Codings crap. Disable MSAA, nice increase in FPS.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> Codings crap. Disable MSAA, nice increase in FPS.


I bet your code is superior huh? Any game that runs deferred with msaa is going to drop like rocks.


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

Well i'm frustrated because I am currently unemployed and I spent $40 on this game and I cannot even play it. Even if when I decrease my resolution to 1280 x 720 *cringe* it's still practically unplayable. Not to mention this game looks really really bad on low settings. That's why I am surprised that I am having so many issues. Using 12.11 BETA drivers + AMD Dual Graphics enabled.


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WolfssFang*
> 
> Well i tried to do the DX11 .exe and i need to input a CD key. Tried the one i got but it says it does not work, did you get this issue?


Yes, people have had this issue.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> I got a problem. I wanted to run FC3 manually by clicking the farcry3_d3d11.exe folder application and it launched Ubisoft. Upon logging in my Ubisoft account. It asked me for the CD key? I already entered that the week i purchased this last week? What gives? I put in the cd key and it says invalid?
> Am i not supposed to manually launch *farcry3_d3d11*?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> WOW now Ubisoft account is temp banned upon trying to add my stupid cd key? What the hell is going on? I bought this game a week ago!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already added the cd key the day i bought this a week ago. What gives?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Still can't believe two 7970's are getting less than 45 fps in this game. It's also choppier than I remember any game ever being on my system. Installed the latest CAP and it seems to have helped a bit but no where near enough. The lag is so bad on the options screen that I can barely get the pointer to point to the option I want! Maybe its a driver issue, I dunno, but this sucks because I'm already kinda hooked into the story. Maybe I should install it on my folding rig and see if that works better?


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Still can't believe two 7970's are getting less than 45 fps in this game. It's also choppier than I remember any game ever being on my system. Installed the latest CAP and it seems to have helped a bit but no where near enough. The lag is so bad on the options screen that I can barely get the pointer to point to the option I want! Maybe its a driver issue, I dunno, but this sucks because I'm already kinda hooked into the story. Maybe I should install it on my folding rig and see if that works better?


Have you tried with just one card? msaa in this game destroy's. Amd cards seem to really take a performance hit with this game, and xfire seems to have a lot of issues as well.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Still can't believe two 7970's are getting less than 45 fps in this game. It's also choppier than I remember any game ever being on my system. Installed the latest CAP and it seems to have helped a bit but no where near enough. The lag is so bad on the options screen that I can barely get the pointer to point to the option I want! Maybe its a driver issue, I dunno, but this sucks because I'm already kinda hooked into the story. Maybe I should install it on my folding rig and see if that works better?


It's not a driver issue i believe. It's just this game is poorly optimized for Xfire. People have reported higher frame rates with 1 GPU.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'll try disabling CF and see if that helps...


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

I disabled XFire and it became more playable - but it's still somewhat choppy.


----------



## sumitlian

My 5770 is still rocking this game at 1366x768 with ultra settings with no MSAA, minimum fps is 26 and average seems to be 29-31 fps all the time. I am using third party FXAA injector, though it may not be as effective as MSAA is, but this is really helping to reduce alias without any fps loss. I never face any stuttering. This game looks really smooth even at 29 fps. I can bet Crysis at 29 fps wasn't as smooth as FC3 looks (at least with my GPU and this resolution).


----------



## Mattbag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3T4LM4N222*
> 
> Well i'm frustrated because I am currently unemployed and I spent $40 on this game and I cannot even play it. Even if when I decrease my resolution to 1280 x 720 *cringe* it's still practically unplayable. Not to mention this game looks really really bad on low settings. That's why I am surprised that I am having so many issues. Using 12.11 BETA drivers + AMD Dual Graphics enabled.


I don't think this game looks bad at low settings at all! Im currently playing on ultra with either 2msaa or none on my 7970 and I get about 40 to 50 frames but on low settings at 1440 it really doesn't look all that bad either (obviously I'm gonna play with the higher settings). Sorry that you're unemployed though that's rough I always feel cheated when I have to pay full price for a PC game and it let's me down, I wouldn't have bought this game at all since I hated the first two but it came free with my 7970 so I said why not...

Try it without the dual graphics enabled I hear the crossfire scaling is pretty bad I'm sure it probably even worse with hybrid crossfire...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Really hope I don't have to disable CF to get it to work as I want to run it on Ultra at 1440P which probably ain't gonna happen on one 7970...


----------



## My Desired Display Name

I find the game to be very fun, can't think of the last sp fps game I've said that about


----------



## Mattbag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Really hope I don't have to disable CF to get it to work as I want to run it on Ultra at 1440P which probably ain't gonna happen on one 7970...


With no msaa it runs great on ultra with a single 7970 at 1440p just turn off fraps and you'll never notice. Apperntly it may even run better then in crossfire


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Still can't believe two 7970's are getting less than 45 fps in this game. It's also choppier than I remember any game ever being on my system. Installed the latest CAP and it seems to have helped a bit but no where near enough. The lag is so bad on the options screen that I can barely get the pointer to point to the option I want! Maybe its a driver issue, I dunno, but this sucks because I'm already kinda hooked into the story. Maybe I should install it on my folding rig and see if that works better?


Console optimized, a dirty port at best!


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> I don't think this game looks bad at low settings at all! Im currently playing on ultra with either 2msaa or none on my 7970 and I get about 40 to 50 frames but on low settings at 1440 it really doesn't look all that bad either (obviously I'm gonna play with the higher settings). Sorry that you're unemployed though that's rough I always feel cheated when I have to pay full price for a PC game and it let's me down, I wouldn't have bought this game at all since I hated the first two but it came free with my 7970 so I said why not...
> Try it without the dual graphics enabled I hear the crossfire scaling is pretty bad I'm sure it probably even worse with hybrid crossfire...


Low settings @ 1440p is the key.


----------



## bumsoil

I am not having any issues with performance. All maxed aside form msaa. Only issue I am having is resolution settings resetting.


----------



## jordanecmusic

There is one spot in the game that seems wonky. When you get to the mansion and you stare on into the left side towards an island, the framerate drops to the floor.


----------



## Rubers

LOL, I played the console version last night (PS3) and it pales in comparison to the PC. Seriously.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Installing on my folding rig at the moment. We'll see how well a single GTX 580 Lightning can run this game....


----------



## biltong

Has anyone else noticed there's nearly no difference in graphical quality (aside from shadows) between low and ultra settings? And yet on low I get like 70fps+ whereas on ultra I get max 40fps, probably about 25 average.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biltong*
> 
> Has anyone else noticed there's nearly no difference in graphical quality (aside from shadows) between low and ultra settings? And yet on low I get like 70fps+ whereas on ultra I get max 40fps, probably about 25 average.


It's all in the resolution in this crappy port.
There is a difference, the grass changes, shadows etc.. but nothing big.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> It's all in the resolution in this crappy port.
> There is a difference, the grass changes, shadows etc.. but nothing big.


poor guy not having any fun? not sure why you say this game looks like crap, i think you are just trying to act cool to be honest. It is clearly one of the best looking games to come out in a long while, plenty of screens here on ocn to prove as so. I think you are just mad you cannot play at the highest settings.


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwnzilla61*
> 
> poor guy not having any fun? not sure why you say this game looks like crap, i think you are just trying to act cool to be honest. It is clearly one of the best looking games to come out in a long while, plenty of screens here on ocn to prove as so. I think you are just mad you cannot play at the highest settings.


I never said i couldn't play at the highest settings? People on this forum still amaze me sometimes how they jump to conclusions.
I can play this game maxed out at 1920x1080, except for MSAA/ POSTFX:High
I said this game is a crappy port as it crashes constantly and has not been tested on a wide array of systems for stability.

EDIT:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1340722/are-we-getting-taken-for-a-ride-by-ubisoft-on-far-cry-3-directx-visuals/40#post_18947018

This is the thread i started a while back, people have now been noticing what i mean.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> I never said i couldn't play at the highest settings? People on this forum still amaze me sometimes how they jump to conclusions.
> I can play this game maxed out at 1920x1080, except for MSAA/ POSTFX:High
> I said this game is a crappy port as it crashes constantly and has not been tested on a wide array of systems for stability.
> EDIT:
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1340722/are-we-getting-taken-for-a-ride-by-ubisoft-on-far-cry-3-directx-visuals/40#post_18947018
> This is the thread i started a while back, people have now been noticing what i mean.


ive played on 3 diff. rigs no issue. Jumping to conclusions, haven't you been doing that this whole thread? A few pics of dx9vsdx11 really proves a lot. We already now that it uses very little features that dx11 provides, the developer made this clear before launch even. Game looks amazing, feels good, and is a joy to play.


----------



## $ilent

Eh im confused, what did Far-Cry 3 makers do here? Im guessing the game looked amazing at E3, then when ti got released on pc it looked not so great?


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> Eh im confused, what did Far-Cry 3 makers do here? Im guessing the game looked amazing at E3, then when ti got released on pc it looked not so great?


They looked top notch Crysis quality at E3. Now it looks like a different game.


----------



## $ilent

Lol hasnt game makers been using this tactic for donkeys years?


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> Lol hasnt game makers been using this tactic for donkeys years?


No not most game makers have at least not this bad. Our systems can handle but it's as if they think we are stupid.


----------



## flyingsaucers

I've spent about 60+ hours with Far Cry 3 as of now and I'm done with it. It's a sub-par game that could have been great but ultimately falls flat because of bafflingly terrible design decisions. This latest debacle is just another slap in the butt-cheek.

If you didn't already waste $60 on this game, take my advice and save your money. The story is mind-numbingly banal & full of holes (it's honestly insulting to any thinking man's intelligence), the UI is intrusive and unintuitive, the MultiPlayer is a CoD-clone piece of generic rubbish, and for some reason the game is incredibly taxing on high-end systems without having visuals commensurate to the resources it hogs. The only thing this game has going for it is nice graphics & the fleeting joy of taking over enemy outposts. After you've won the 20ish outposts on the Island and upgraded all of your wallets, there is literally nothing of interest to do.


----------



## joeykrug

I honestly don't see how people think these graphics are so bad.. One of the most gorgeous games I've ever seen, looks awesome imo. Bought it on the steam sale


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> I never said i couldn't play at the highest settings? People on this forum still amaze me sometimes how they jump to conclusions.
> I can play this game maxed out at 1920x1080, except for MSAA/ POSTFX:High
> I said this game is a crappy port as it crashes constantly and has not been tested on a wide array of systems for stability.
> EDIT:
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1340722/are-we-getting-taken-for-a-ride-by-ubisoft-on-far-cry-3-directx-visuals/40#post_18947018
> This is the thread i started a while back, people have now been noticing what i mean.


Didn't you say in a previous post your system has trouble running half the games you bought? maybe you should look into your own pc problems and stop blaming the devs.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Been playing most of the day today (had to install on my folding rig just to play it as my sig rig turns into a lagging pile of crap as soon as the title screen comes up) and have to say that I'm underwhelmed by the graphics. I do notice that my 7970's make the game look much better than the 580 does (in terms of IQ) but that's probably just the graphical settings. Interestingly the 580 gets around 20-25fps on ultra at 1080p but it feels totally playable while my 7970's get around 40fps at 1440p but are so choppy that its literally unplayable. The game is definitely broken on AMD gpu's or at least on mine.

After being frustrated trying to run this game I loaded up Crysis 2 and it looks and runs about 100x better than FC3. 90-110fps at all times even with full DX11 and hi-res at 1440p. I really wish FC3 looked and ran anything like Crysis 2 because the storyline is so good I'm switching to my folding rig just to keep playing it!


----------



## omni_vision

i played it but i rather play Red Dead Redemption

and ya the PC gfx of FC3 was eh


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joeykrug*
> 
> I honestly don't see how people think these graphics are so bad.. One of the most gorgeous games I've ever scene, looks awesome imo. Bought it on the steam sale


You played Hitman Abso? That game my god.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The graphics are not bad. Never said that. They just don't measure up to the screenshots if you know what I mean. In screenshots FC3 looks God-Almighty amazing but in action, I dunno, it just doesn't. Still, the story and the gameplay are pretty awesome and I've spent hours on it today on a different computer just because I wanted to keep playing...


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Been playing most of the day today (had to install on my folding rig just to play it as my sig rig turns into a lagging pile of crap as soon as the title screen comes up) and have to say that I'm underwhelmed by the graphics. I do notice that my 7970's make the game look much better than the 580 does (in terms of IQ) but that's probably just the graphical settings. Interestingly the 580 gets around 20-25fps on ultra at 1080p but it feels totally playable while my 7970's get around 40fps at 1440p but are so choppy that its literally unplayable. The game is definitely broken on AMD gpu's or at least on mine.
> After being frustrated trying to run this game I loaded up Crysis 2 and it looks and runs about 100x better than FC3. 90-110fps at all times even with full DX11 and hi-res at 1440p. I really wish FC3 looked and ran anything like Crysis 2 because the storyline is so good I'm switching to my folding rig just to keep playing it!


That's what i mean by a crappy port. They upped the reso and... i don't know.
This game HAS not been tested on a lot of GPU and CPU combinations. The game is poor.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I wouldn't say that. It runs great on my folding rig with a 2600K and a GTX 580 Lightning....


----------



## 8800GT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Socks keep you warm*
> 
> 1.03 was perfection! 1.04 has been crashing non stop.
> Even now when i reinstall the game and reformat it crashes. I don't know how that works.
> I just now had to crack Max Payne 3 cause it has the infamous "forever Loading" and now i can't play online. That's why i love that i bought an xbox 360. I put $6k into this rig and half the games i cant play. Amazing


6k? did you buy from a India, have the parts shipped to Zimbabwe and then back to India before being shipped to you?


----------



## Socks keep you warm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> 6k? did you buy from a India, have the parts shipped to Zimbabwe and then back to India before being shipped to you?


Nope, just the water cooling itself costed 1k.


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

On all low settings I manage to get about 40FPS w/ my AMD GPU but it's practically unplayable. Really disappointing.


----------



## Johnny Utah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joeykrug*
> 
> I honestly don't see how people think these graphics are so bad.. One of the most gorgeous games I've ever seen, looks awesome imo. Bought it on the steam sale


the graphics aren't bad by any means. Some of us just prefer the look of other games. Also it's pretty clear the e3 demo target graphics didn't end up being the final product which is disappointing.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2


----------



## GreenNeon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ3cisZyb98


----------



## Johnny Utah

Both are good-looking games, but honestly FC3 isn't earth-shattering.


----------



## pepejovi

Neither is Crysis.


----------



## kenpachiroks

Has anyone else noticed how it shares quite a few concepts with assassins creed?


----------



## pepejovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kenpachiroks*
> 
> Has anyone else noticed how it shares quite a few concepts with assassins creed?


What, collecting relics and whatnot? GTA has that too, so do countless other games..


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Even after seeing this I'm still going to buy it eventually. Graphics don't ever put me off from playing a game.


----------



## joeykrug

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pepejovi*
> 
> What, collecting relics and whatnot? GTA has that too, so do countless other games..


It also has the viewpoint system, but just with comm towers


----------



## pepejovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joeykrug*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pepejovi*
> 
> What, collecting relics and whatnot? GTA has that too, so do countless other games..
> 
> 
> 
> It also has the viewpoint system, but just with comm towers
Click to expand...

That's true. Fits the story though.


----------



## Antipathy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kenpachiroks*
> 
> Has anyone else noticed how it shares quite a few concepts with assassins creed?


Yes, and it annoys me just a little bit. I'm really enjoying the game, and I really enjoy the Assassin's Creed series - I just really enjoy straight up shooters, too. Far Cry 1 is one of my favorite games of all time, and there are really very few elements that the two have in common. But it is a beautiful game that has been a lot of fun so far, and overall, I am happy with it.


----------



## flyingsaucers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joeykrug*
> 
> It also has the viewpoint system, but just with comm towers


It also has a beastiary/landmark/character guide written in the "voice" of a supposedly witty & sarcastic character, except that AC did it right and FC3 did it so, so wrong. It hurts my brain to even read the descriptions of plants and animals in this game because every blurb is injected with some lame quip (supposedly in the persona of the CIA agent) that's so bad it has to be read to be believed.


----------



## pepejovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flyingsaucers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *joeykrug*
> 
> It also has the viewpoint system, but just with comm towers
> 
> 
> 
> It also has a beastiary/landmark/character guide written in the "voice" of a supposedly witty & sarcastic character, except that AC did it right and FC3 did it so, so wrong. It hurts my brain to even read the descriptions of plants and animals in this game because every blurb is injected with some lame quip (supposedly in the persona of the CIA agent) that's so bad it has to be read to be believed.
Click to expand...

I liked them.


----------



## Rubers

There are some Asscreed easter eggs in the game


----------



## noahhova

Crashes? Played through the entire game without a single crash on my less then stellar rig? Whats the deal?


----------



## Mattbag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biltong*
> 
> Has anyone else noticed there's nearly no difference in graphical quality (aside from shadows) between low and ultra settings? And yet on low I get like 70fps+ whereas on ultra I get max 40fps, probably about 25 average.


Yes I completely agree I noticed that before the only differences is a lot more jaggies on low however low with AA isn't as good as ultra with no AA


----------



## Phoenixlight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"*
> \/[EGADET]-[" url="/t/1340188/muro-pc-gamers-furious-what-happened-to-far-cry-3s-graphics/0_100#post_18867326"]ya it's not worth it to stay bleeding edge anymore. piss poor


It never was.


----------



## scyy

Game looks amazing, I want whatever you people are smoking. I couldn't care less about the slightly less foliage, the actual shading and graphics are still among the top 5 on PC EASY. People calling this a bad port are just idiots, sorry there is no other way to put it. The game is extremely well threaded I never dip below 60 which my fps is locked at, max settings with 8msaa at 1920x1080. Everyone here idolizes crysis when it has some of the shoddiest cpu utilization out there. Granted it was right when quads were coming out but crytek even said they would have support up to quad cores prior to release. My gpu usage still drops entering any area with multiple enemies and buildings at 4.8Ghz on a 2500k, that results in 40-50fps in extremely hectic scenes which is just pitiful considering it would be smooth has butter if they actually future proofed quite possibly the most important thing when it comes to allowing video cards to really stretch their legs.


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scyy*
> 
> Game looks amazing, I want whatever you people are smoking. I couldn't care less about the slightly less foliage. The actual shading and graphics are among the top 5 on PC EASY.




such an ugly game


----------



## sugarhell

Dont post pic here. So ugly


----------



## My Desired Display Name

Game looks good, and it's fun, story isnt bad for a fps but could be a lot better, and the multiplayer is eh, but they offer plenty to do, I like the game, I see crysis comparisons, but it's more fun than any crysis game I've played.


----------



## Alatar

I have to admit, when I said the article might be an interesting one to discuss I didn't quite think 50 pages interesting.


----------



## Mattbag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scyy*
> 
> Game looks amazing, I want whatever you people are smoking. I couldn't care less about the slightly less foliage, the actual shading and graphics are still among the top 5 on PC EASY. People calling this a bad port are just idiots, sorry there is no other way to put it. The game is extremely well threaded I never dip below 60 which my fps is locked at, max settings with 8msaa at 1920x1080. Everyone here idolizes crysis when it has some of the shoddiest cpu utilization out there. Granted it was right when quads were coming out but crytek even said they would have support up to quad cores prior to release. My gpu usage still drops entering any area with multiple enemies and buildings at 4.8Ghz on a 2500k, that results in 40-50fps in extremely hectic scenes which is just pitiful considering it would be smooth has butter if they actually future proofed quite possibly the most important thing when it comes to allowing video cards to really stretch their legs.


I wonder whats better playing at 1440p with no AA or at 1080p with AA x 8?


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> I wonder whats better playing at 1440p with no AA or at 1080p with AA x 8?


Its a bit difficult to understand the difference between 4xaa and 8xaa. In most situations dont worth to go with 8xmsaa


----------



## scyy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Its a bit difficult to understand the difference between 4xaa and 8xaa. In most situations dont worth to go with 8xmsaa


I usually don't use 8aa but when I can run it at 60 fps locked I figured why not.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I got up to ~30fps with 4x MSAA rather than 8x but the game is still just barely playable. Will just have to use my folding rig for this one I'm afraid...


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> 
> such an ugly game


Oh, ugly. What a horrible UI... I mean MAP? URGH. Icons?! Disgusting! What were they thinking?

/sarcasm
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I got up to ~30fps with 4x MSAA rather than 8x but the game is still just barely playable. Will just have to use my folding rig for this one I'm afraid...


Or just use 2xMSAA. There's hardly any difference really. I turned it off completely and forced FXAA through the NCP. Instant performance boost.


----------



## Blackops_2

So has there been an official statement from Ubisoft? The game still looks great i would just like to know what they would say about it. The E3 demonstration indeed looks better to me.


----------



## pepejovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> I have to admit, when I said the article might be an interesting one to discuss I didn't quite think 50 pages interesting.


5*


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I got up to ~30fps with 4x MSAA rather than 8x but the game is still just barely playable. Will just have to use my folding rig for this one I'm afraid...


I don't even use any msaa because it is too taxing on my system everything else is on max settings and the game looks great. Animations are top notch; probably the only people complaining are those that have not even played it but saw the title "pc gamers are furious" and became furious.


----------



## Accuracy158

Generally the game looks good but I've also noticed that some points you will walk up to large rocks and such and the textures will be completely awful on max settings. Like Rage when it first came out and had all the texture rendering problems level of bad.


----------



## Antipathy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Or just use 2xMSAA. There's hardly any difference really. I turned it off completely and forced FXAA through the NCP. Instant performance boost.


Same here. Not sure about this locked at 60fps with 8xMSAA stuff. I can hold 60fps fine on Ultra with MSAA off, but at 8x, I'm lucky to get 20fps.

EDIT - Though scyy has 2x670s, looks like.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

On close inspection FC3 leaves a lot to be desired in terms of graphics. Everything looks fine when you are playing the missions or just screwing around. But just walk around and really look at textures and vegetation etc like we all have done in Crysis and you will begin to see some inherent flaws in the game. Just look around in any of the vehicles for instance to see what I mean. Feels very XBOX-ish to me. Anyway, the game still looks fantastic when not nitpicking....


----------



## Mattbag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mattbag*
> 
> I wonder whats better playing at 1440p with no AA or at 1080p with AA x 8?


tried this this last night 1440p with no AA runs and looks much better then 1080p with 8xAA


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> On close inspection FC3 leaves a lot to be desired in terms of graphics. Everything looks fine when you are playing the missions or just screwing around. But just walk around and really look at textures and vegetation etc like we all have done in Crysis and you will begin to see some inherent flaws in the game. Just look around in any of the vehicles for instance to see what I mean. Feels very XBOX-ish to me. Anyway, the game still looks fantastic when not nitpicking....


in farcry 3 the textures look decent in some places and awful in a few places. my guess is the portions that are awful are just the console version textures. i think the developer did not have the motivation to give the PC version the required polish to make it look vastly superior to consoles.


----------



## Blackops_2

From the Ubi thread 2560x1600 8xMSAA maxed on ultra, still impressive despite the difference in foliage, shadows, and other things.


----------



## scyy

Yeah, the textures do leave a bit to be desired in some areas but for the most part most of the other graphical effects are top notch. Some of the areas look absolutely phenomenal though with the shading like the huge room near the end of the tomb when looking for the knife. I really can't think of many games that can surpass scenes like that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Antipathy*
> 
> Same here. Not sure about this locked at 60fps with 8xMSAA stuff. I can hold 60fps fine on Ultra with MSAA off, but at 8x, I'm lucky to get 20fps.
> EDIT - Though scyy has 2x670s, looks like.


Yeah, I have SLI 670's clocked to around 1200mhz each, I will have to try it with one card and see what results I get there. btw what is your card clocked at? It feels like since I get constant 60 fps that you should be getting more than 20 with a single 670.


----------



## GenoOCAU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scyy*
> 
> Some of the areas look absolutely phenomenal though with the shading like the huge room near the end of the tomb when looking for the knife. I really can't think of many games that can surpass scenes like that.


Totally agree, loved the flashback/drugged out scenes. Was seriously upset when the story ended so quickly, though I never do I can see myself replaying the story one more time.

Wow at those pics... 1600p vs 1080p textures... Wonder about 1600p input lag/refresh rate etc though playing a FPS.


----------



## L D4WG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> Who cares about what could have been? Maybe we should all love Hitler because he could have been a veterinarian....


Ahh I care because they advertised it as one thing and it turned out not as good, I ended up buying it and I am really enjoying it, the graphics are nice but not as nice as the video, so I do feel ripped off in a way, perhaps there will be a high res texture pack and update? Or at least some good mods


----------



## biltong

Does anyone else hate the overdone SSAO? This is what I'm talking about:
SSAO on:









SSAO off completely:









It puts such a big black aura around EVERYTHING. On my game it makes grass look half black. So ugly. HDAO leaves me with the bottom half of my screen looking like it has a shadow on it (dark tint) and HBAO looks pretty much identical to SSAO, very ugly.


----------



## Tempey

HDAO looks pretty decent, I think that may be AMD only though. See if you can select it


----------



## biltong

I can select it but as I said it leaves a dark tint on the bottom half of my screen in game. If not for that I would use it all the time because it actually looks half decent.


----------



## Tempey

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biltong*
> 
> I can select it but as I said it leaves a dark tint on the bottom half of my screen in game. If not for that I would use it all the time because it actually looks half decent.


Aah whoops misread.


----------



## Bobobearx

gigabyte 7870
12.11 beta 8 with cap

this game stutters like crazy. i'm using radeon pro preview with dynamic vsync on and it still stutters like mad. feeling like its the game causing the problme right now because in crysis 2 high resolution mod i'm getting smoother gameplay.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bobobearx*
> 
> gigabyte 7870
> 12.11 beta 8 with cap this game stutters like crazy. i'm using radeon pro preview with dynamic vsync on and it still stutters like mad. feeling like its the game causing the problme right now because in crysis 2 high resolution mod i'm getting smoother gameplay.


12.11 beta 11 with 12.11 cap 2 is the best farcry 3 driver. did you try that.


----------



## The-racer

I7-870 and Gigabyte 7970OC version here ,
and no problems whatso-ever...

I dumbled down the settings a bit to get around 80FPS on my 120Hz monitor...
I like a bit more FPS then graphics.


----------



## Antipathy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scyy*
> 
> Yeah, the textures do leave a bit to be desired in some areas but for the most part most of the other graphical effects are top notch. Some of the areas look absolutely phenomenal though with the shading like the huge room near the end of the tomb when looking for the knife. I really can't think of many games that can surpass scenes like that.
> Yeah, I have SLI 670's clocked to around 1200mhz each, I will have to try it with one card and see what results I get there. btw what is your card clocked at? It feels like since I get constant 60 fps that you should be getting more than 20 with a single 670.


Yeah, that was a pretty cool scene. I'm currently running 1176 core and +550 memory, whatever that is (Stock is 6208 effective, so is that 6758?), but I may have been running stock clocks (1137 core) at the time. Honestly, after the opening scene, I turned it off, so I don't really have a good sample size. But with 8xMSAA, HBAO, and Ultra at 1080p, I was getting between 20-25fps for that opening sequence. I may give it another try. I eventually settled on MSAA off, HBAO, Very High, and FXAA, and I get anywhere from 70-100fps. I can't really tell the difference between Ultra and Very High.


----------



## Bobobearx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> 12.11 beta 11 with 12.11 cap 2 is the best farcry 3 driver. did you try that.


[quote name="Bobobearx" url="/t/1340188/muro-pc-gamers-furious-what-happened-to-far-cry-3s-graphics

not yet

i downloaded it and tried installng it but i get nsis error before it makes it into the installation screen


----------



## xentrox

Haha why am I not surprised? It's Ubisoft guys... they've been royally screwing us since StarForce...


----------



## Boydwazup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bobobearx*
> 
> [quote name="Bobobearx" url="/t/1340188/muro-pc-gamers-furious-what-happened-to-far-cry-3s-graphics
> not yet
> i downloaded it and tried installng it but i get nsis error before it makes it into the installation screen


Im running the Beta Drivers 12.11 and i did notice a littel better performance but still i have 7870 1100GPU 1300 ram and it is not as good as i thought it would be really demanding to play on high settings i was shocked with the stutters in the game play i am able to to achive 60 fps but only with aa dialed back to 2 times i think that is weak if ya ask me but the game looks good and vysnc is helping with the stutter when it was not enabled it stuttered like no ones business they need some better CF support on this game that is for sure


----------



## sugarhell

Something interesting


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The-racer*
> 
> I7-870 and Gigabyte 7970OC version here ,
> and no problems whatso-ever...
> I dumbled down the settings a bit to get around 80FPS on my 120Hz monitor...
> I like a bit more FPS then graphics.


You might be the only one. I'm on a 3960X and CF 7970's and I can't get more than 30fps on my system at 1440P and Ultra settings....


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You might be the only one. I'm on a 3960X and CF 7970's and I can't get more than 30fps on my system at 1440P and Ultra settings....


Try setting your 3D application setting for Crossfire to Bioshock.exe in Catalyst Control Center. It may work.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I don't know how. Never have really gotten the hang of CCC having had an Nvidia background...


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I don't know how. Never have really gotten the hang of CCC having had an Nvidia background...


Open CCC

Gaming > 3D application settings > Crossfire Mode for 3D graphics


----------



## dudenell

Great... makes me wonder how watch dogs is going to turn out...


----------



## Formel

The PC version of this game isn't optimized and judging from the that video in the start, we have been given the short end of the stick. I am running and FX6100 and HD 6950 and I have <50 fps sometimes using medium settings. I found that using DX9 with Buffer ahead of 2 helped reduce my problems.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Formel*
> 
> The PC version of this game isn't optimized and judging from the that video in the start, we have been given the short end of the stick. I am running and FX6100 and HD 6950 and I have <50 fps sometimes using medium settings. I found that using DX9 with Buffer ahead of 2 helped reduce my problems.


Yet here's me with an [email protected] and a GTX670, running [email protected] at 60FPS constant.

Very poorly optimised.


----------



## M3T4LM4N222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Yet here's me with an [email protected] and a GTX670, running [email protected] at 60FPS constant.
> Very poorly optimised.


Well just because it runs good on your system doesn't mean it will run well on everyone else's.


----------



## Frazz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Formel*
> 
> The PC version of this game isn't optimized and judging from the that video in the start, we have been given the short end of the stick. I am running and FX6100 and HD 6950 and I have <50 fps sometimes using medium settings. I found that using DX9 with Buffer ahead of 2 helped reduce my problems.


Roughly the same performance here, I don't think I've dropped under 60 on medium though, but I get 30-40 fps on ultra, I can only really game 50fps+


----------



## Rubers

^ Yeah and he probably has MSAA enabled and some other silly settings killing the game. His kit isn't exactly the same as mine, but he could be getting better. Doesn't mean the game is poorly optimised.


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Formel*
> 
> The PC version of this game isn't optimized and judging from the that video in the start, we have been given the short end of the stick. I am running and FX6100 and HD 6950 and I have <50 fps sometimes using medium settings. I found that using DX9 with Buffer ahead of 2 helped reduce my problems.


I am running this on a i52500k and a HD 6950 at 1080p dx11 with all the settings at max except msaa which i turned off. I get around 40fps.


----------



## HardwareDecoder

meh I get 50-60 fps @ ultra w/ 2x msaa postfx disabled in the config file.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HardwareDecoder*
> 
> meh I get 50-60 fps @ ultra w/ 2x msaa postfx disabled in the config file.


swap msaa for fxaa


----------



## HardwareDecoder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> swap msaa for fxaa


why? I said I get 50-60fps and I'm on an hdtv so i'm playing with vsync on anyway to reduce tearing.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HardwareDecoder*
> 
> why? I said I get 50-60fps and I'm on an hdtv so i'm playing with vsync on anyway to reduce tearing.


Yeah, me too







I disable MSAA in game, enable FXAA in the NVidia Control Panel (x2) and set V-sync to 1 and buffering to 3. Constant 60 FPS, dips occasionally to 57. If I have no V-Sync, it's 70FPS~


----------



## HardwareDecoder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Yeah, me too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disable MSAA in game, enable FXAA in the NVidia Control Panel (x2) and set V-sync to 1 and buffering to 3. Constant 60 FPS, dips occasionally to 57. If I have no V-Sync, it's 70FPS~


msaa is much prettier than fxaa though


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Yet here's me with an [email protected] and a GTX670, running [email protected] at 60FPS constant.
> Very poorly optimised.


I get 40-60 with a stock 7970 same settings and a X4 955 @ 3.6. So around in the same boat. I would say it's pretty optimized it just strikes me as a port.


----------



## aweir

LOL. I received this game for Christmas and I didn't even open it. I promptly returned it yesterday unopened. My money better spent on something else. By the time I upgrade my PC the game will be half the price anyways.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dudenell*
> 
> Great... makes me wonder how watch dogs is going to turn out...


Thinking the same man, as good as watch dogs looked at E3 it will probably look like ****


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Thinking the same man, as good as watch dogs looked at E3 it will probably look like ****


why farcry 3 looks great, its just angry people with 500$ videocards are mad it doesn't push the boundaries.


----------



## Blindrage606

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> why farcry 3 looks great, its just angry people with 500$ videocards are mad it doesn't push the boundaries.


As one of these people, spending $500 on a GFX card and KNOWING that I cannot max out this game at 1440p. Totally fine with it.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> why farcry 3 looks great, its just angry people with 500$ videocards are mad it doesn't push the boundaries.


It looks good for the most part there are parts to me that don't look that good, and also to me it does't look near as good as the E3 demonstration. I'm just saying watch dogs isn't going to be what they showed us.

Got my 7970 for 350$







but yeah i know what you mean.


----------



## Boydwazup

I have the 7870 in CF and the game runs alright but you have to play with the settings to get it to run 60fps and not stutter that was the trick for me settings on ultra but dial back the aa it is always the linch pin aa is hard on the cards and always will be and here in canada a gtx 690 is over a grand on new egg so i will be fine with 60fps with mild settings


----------



## 98uk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> I get 40-60 with a stock 7970 same settings and a X4 955 @ 3.6. So around in the same boat. I would say it's pretty optimized it just strikes me as a port.


Why is it a port?

I think 'port' has become another one of those fashionable insult words where people don't really know what it means. Porting refers more the level of configurable settings and interface, as opposed to optimisation. Since the beginning of PC gaming there have been poorly optimised games... but that doesn't mean they're a port.

In my eyes, FC3 offers a really good level of graphics configuration and an efficient interface.


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *98uk*
> 
> Why is it a port?
> I think 'port' has become another one of those fashionable insult words where people don't really know what it means. Porting refers more the level of configurable settings and interface, as opposed to optimisation. Since the beginning of PC gaming there have been poorly optimised games... but that doesn't mean they're a port.
> In my eyes, FC3 offers a really good level of graphics configuration and an efficient interface.


This

Some games that are horribly optimized or were on release; crysis, metro 2033, empire total war, are any of those games ports? nope. Too many people around here like to throw that word around and do not know what it means.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> It looks good for the most part there are parts to me that don't look that good, and also to me it does't look near as good as the E3 demonstration. I'm just saying watch dogs is going to be what they showed us.
> Got my 7970 for 350$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but yeah i know what you mean.


Maybe you should look back on what you said.


----------



## sugarhell

If you play dark soul on pc you will never say again that far cry is a console port


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> Maybe you should look back on what you said.


Meant watch dogs isn't going to be what they showed us that's a typo








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *98uk*
> 
> Why is it a port?
> I think 'port' has become another one of those fashionable insult words where people don't really know what it means. Porting refers more the level of configurable settings and interface, as opposed to optimisation. Since the beginning of PC gaming there have been poorly optimised games... but that doesn't mean they're a port.
> In my eyes, FC3 offers a really good level of graphics configuration and an efficient interface.


The weapon selection interface is setup for a gamepad when you hold down one of the weapon selection keys, no toggle aim (like a left trigger on a controller), and the menus and stuff just feel clunky. Just feels a tad clunky, which strikes me as a port. I don't really know if it is or not that's why i said it strikes me as one.


----------



## 98uk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Meant watch dogs isn't going to be what they showed us that's a typo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The weapon selection interface is setup for a gamepad when you hold down one of the weapon selection keys, no toggle aim (like a left trigger on a controller), and the menus and stuff just feel clunky. Just feels a tad clunky, which strikes me as a port. I don't really know if it is or not that's why i said it strikes me as one.


There is toggle aim, I use it. Enable it in one of the XML files. No idea why it's not in options though.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *98uk*
> 
> There is toggle aim, I use it. Enable it in one of the XML files. No idea why it's not in options though.


Awesome, thanks.


----------



## kx11

it's so silly they are mad about the graphics , we all know all e3 media is not like the retail version


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> it's so silly they are mad about the graphics , we all know all e3 media is not like the retail version


So then we should all look away from the screen the next time there's another E3 video of a game that is not finished?







That would be funny if everyone did exactly that lol!


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Systemlord*
> 
> So then we should all look away from the screen the next time there's another E3 video of a game that is not finished?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be funny if everyone did exactly that lol!


i do that myself for almost 95% of the media coming out of E3


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

E3 footage ought to be representative of the actual game. It's really nothing more than false advertising and it should be stopped. Show the game as it will appear at retail (and if its not impressive enough to show off then fix it!).


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> E3 footage ought to be representative of the actual game. It's really nothing more than false advertising and it should be stopped. Show the game as it will appear at retail (and if its not impressive enough to show off then fix it!).


E3 has always been about showing off new technology. Battlefield 3 looked entirely different to what was released, it even changed during Alpha and Beta dramatically. Games change before release, and in the terms of FarCry 3, it changed LONG before release and was PUBLIC.

The only thing that was changed and was advertised prior to release was split screen multiplayer on the PC. Not the graphics.


----------



## zinfinion

I just want to know why we didn't get this. Because this is a way better looking plot than what we got.






And yes I am totally aware this is a CG render, not gameplay. All I find interesting are the plot/personality differences.


----------



## Rubers

[deleted]ing Vaas was pretty anti-climatic too


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zinfinion*
> 
> I just want to know why we didn't get this. Because this is a way better looking plot than what we got.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes I am totally aware this is a CG render, not gameplay. All I find interesting are the plot/personality differences.


My God that looked amazing! When will we be able to play games that look like that??? Oh, and you're right, that would've been a much more interesting story opening than the actual game...


----------



## moocowman

That video just proves how silly this whole thing is. We're "furious" over some missing foliage, yet no one cares about the massive chunk of missing story. You know why that is? Because someone told you there was missing foliage. Otherwise, most people wouldn't have even noticed or cared. I wonder how many people who are upset about this even saw the original E3 footage when it came out...

Oh interwebz.


----------



## zinfinion

If I even attempted to discuss the plot I'd develop a case of Sudden Onset Tourette's Syndrome and no one wants to see that.


----------



## maple_leafs182

It doesn't look that different to me. The only big difference I saw was the underwater. It still looks good.


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Oh get over it for god sake.
> All of you. It has never been a problem until this point, but people just have to make excuses to have a good whinge.
> E3 has always been about showing off new technology. Battlefield 3 looked entirely different to what was released, it even changed during Alpha and Beta dramatically. Games change before release, and in the terms of FarCry 3, it changed LONG before release and was PUBLIC.
> The only thing that was changed and was advertised prior to release was split screen multiplayer on the PC. Not the graphics.


Don't bother man, these people are letting the article rile them up, I have seen it before. It was around the time E3 footage of skyrim came out, people said the game looked amazing and fun to play, then there was an article titled "Skyrim to not use full dx11 PC gamers shafted" or something like that and people got riled up, some of them even recanted their previous statements, I was shocked because the game still looked great yet they were letting an article rile them up.

Also apparently E3 footage is everything and trailers leading up to the game's release which actually reflect the final product mean nothing.


----------



## zinfinion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sausageson*
> 
> Also apparently E3 footage is everything and trailers leading up to the game's release which actually reflect the final product mean nothing.


Clearly not having everything stamped all over with "Not representative of final product" is license for outrage.









My interest in the Stranded trailer above is more in how the internal machinations went down at Ubi HQ to go from that plot to the one in the game. Not salty about it or anything, just idly curious.


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zinfinion*
> 
> Clearly not having everything stamped all over with "Not representative of final product" is license for outrage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My interest in the Stranded trailer above is more in how the internal machinations went down at Ubi HQ to go from that plot to the one in the game. Not salty about it or anything, just idly curious.


I agree with the plot, they could have done more to flush it out but the plot depicted in the trailer is pretty much the plot in the game is it not?

Vaas personality seems the same and god how is he the coolest, funniest charismatic and sadistic villains ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ8TRrdxb44

The writing and voice acting for him is great and he is one of my favorite villains in a game, but yea the game def needed more vaas


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moocowman*
> 
> That video just proves how silly this whole thing is. We're "furious" over some missing foliage, yet no one cares about the massive chunk of missing story. You know why that is? Because someone told you there was missing foliage. Otherwise, most people wouldn't have even noticed or cared. I wonder how many people who are upset about this even saw the original E3 footage when it came out...
> Oh interwebz.


It's ignorant of you to say we're "furious", who's we? I'm not furious, I am a little disappointed though! It's silly since the OP decided to use his own words that we're "furious", he doesn't speak for every individual. Your statement is very silly if you think about it.

I look at the game and the very first thing I notice is there's no ground cover at all, none! To me that looks a bit unrealistic to have no bushes and only trees. Somebody mowed the lawn in the entire game!


----------



## di inferi

Massive chunk of missing story?

And that would be....

"Oh, interwebz. "


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Systemlord*
> 
> It's ignorant of you to say we're "furious", who's we? I'm not furious, I am a little disappointed though! It's silly since the OP decided to use his own words that we're "furious", he doesn't speak for every individual. Your statement is very silly if you think about it.
> I look at the game and the very first thing I notice is there's no ground cover at all, none! To me that looks a bit unrealistic to have no bushes and only trees. Somebody mowed the lawn in the entire game!


Gears of War? chest high walls?

No thanks.


----------



## sticks435

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Gears of War? chest high walls?
> No thanks.


Good god man, he didn't mean cover as in third person shooter. He meant like branches and bushes and logs and stuff. You know, stuff that covers the dirt that you would find in a jungle or island setting.


----------



## jonivtec

I have this game....it play and look awesome.btw i upgraded my OC 8120 4.5ghz for the the 8350 4.7ghz and in some CPU intensive part i gain as much as 15fps on a single GTX 680......in some area i still think my CPU is holding back my GPU butt stay perfectly playable in any situation. if you are a gamer and exemple sell your bulldozer 100$i would suggest you to upgrade. If you are occasional gamer then dont.


----------



## adridu59

^ Why didn't you go Intel for better gaming performance?


----------



## GrizzleBoy

Why in the world is this thread still going so strong?

Was I wrong in thinking that this article didn't actually stand for every PC gamer everywhere?

Am I supposed to be mad? I'm not mad.

I, as a PC gamer, was able to purchase, play and enjoy a game without crying about it for weeks on end.

Do I need to visit the doctors?


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> Why in the world is this thread still going so strong?
> Was I wrong in thinking that this article didn't actually stand for every PC gamer everywhere?
> Am I supposed to be mad? I'm not mad.
> I, as a PC gamer, was able to purchase, play and enjoy a game without crying about it for weeks on end.
> Do I need to visit the doctors?


I haven't read past the first page as this one is arond 570 posts...

frankly FC3 looks amazing, no idea what all the hoopla is about.

The differences between the demo and "Retail" aren't enough to make any kind of impact, especially on a gameplay.

Oh well..

Draconian.

It's even got a DX11 .exe.


----------



## flyingsaucers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrizzleBoy*
> 
> Why in the world is this thread still going so strong?
> Was I wrong in thinking that this article didn't actually stand for every PC gamer everywhere?
> Am I supposed to be mad? I'm not mad.
> I, as a PC gamer, was able to purchase, play and enjoy a game without crying about it for weeks on end.
> Do I need to visit the doctors?


Well, first of all, if you bump a thread with a post that beings "why is this thread still going..." maybe you do need to visit a doctor









But seriously, on topic - you don't have to be mad, & if you're enjoying the game then more power to you. But your enjoyment does *not* negate our criticism.

For example: I teach English language arts for a living & my standards for readable literature are relatively high compared to what I teach to kids on a daily basis, however I would never tell my students that their books suck just because my literary palette is too refined to enjoy them. BUT - if a hypothetical novel was marketed to a mature audience, and I pre-ordered that novel because I was lead to believe by the publishing house that it would appeal to me, and then it turned out to be geared towards 10th graders, I'd be a bit irritated and rightfully so. That's what happened with Far Cry 3. The E3 footage was a major element of this game's marketing campaign, but what was delivered is significantly less than what was promised. I probably watched that demo vid. 20x or more in anticipation of FC3, and when I finally started playing the game, well, it was obviously a major let-down (especially considering that I couldn't even max it out @ 60fps on my sig rig & the visuals were *not* commensurate with the strain it was putting on my GPUs).

So, in short, it's fine that you like the game but there are those of us who expect better, especially when we were *promised* better, and it's important to let dev. studios & publishers know that they can't just lie about their product & get away with it without anybody noticing.


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flyingsaucers*
> 
> Well, first of all, if you bump a thread with a post that beings "why is this thread still going..." maybe you do need to visit a doctor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But seriously, on topic - you don't have to be mad, & if you're enjoying the game then more power to you. But your enjoyment does *not* negate our criticism.
> For example: I teach English language arts for a living & my standards for readable literature are relatively high compared to what I teach to kids on a daily basis, however I would never tell my students that their books suck just because my literary palette is too refined to enjoy them. BUT - if a hypothetical novel was marketed to a mature audience, and I pre-ordered that novel because I was lead to believe by the publishing house that it would appeal to me, and then it turned out to be geared towards 10th graders, I'd be a bit irritated and rightfully so. That's what happened with Far Cry 3. The E3 footage was a major element of this game's marketing campaign, but what was delivered is significantly less than what was promised. I probably watched that demo vid. 20x or more in anticipation of FC3, and when I finally started playing the game, well, it was obviously a major let-down (especially considering that I couldn't even max it out @ 60fps on my sig rig & the visuals were *not* commensurate with the strain it was putting on my GPUs).
> So, in short, it's fine that you like the game but there are those of us who expect better, especially when we were *promised* better, and it's important to let dev. studios & publishers know that they can't just lie about their product & get away with it without anybody noticing.


What negates the complaints is that there were several videos out prior to release that show more realistic (to the final product) videos showing the actual game. Therefore the claims that anyone was misled over the graphics are are wrong.

You were not promised better in any sense at all at any point of the development. Therefore, they're wrong. You're wrong. The complaints are wrong. Everything about the article is wrong.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flyingsaucers*
> 
> ...snip/
> So, in short, it's fine that you like the game but there are those of us who expect better, especially when we were *promised* better, and it's important to let dev. studios & publishers know that they can't just lie about their product & get away with it without anybody noticing.


Like Sim-City or D3?

How about [insert game here that didn't live up to expectations (otherwise known as Crysis 2)]?

Or maybe BF3?

...hell even skyrim didn't live up to expectations!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flyingsaucers*
> 
> Well, first of all, if you bump a thread with a post that beings "why is this thread still going..." maybe you do need to visit a doctor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But seriously, on topic - you don't have to be mad, & if you're enjoying the game then more power to you. But your enjoyment does *not* negate our criticism.
> For example: I teach English language arts for a living & my standards for readable literature are relatively high compared to what I teach to kids on a daily basis, however I would never tell my students that their books suck just because my literary palette is too refined to enjoy them. BUT - if a hypothetical novel was marketed to a mature audience, and I pre-ordered that novel because I was lead to believe by the publishing house that it would appeal to me, and then it turned out to be geared towards 10th graders, I'd be a bit irritated and rightfully so. That's what happened with Far Cry 3. The E3 footage was a major element of this game's marketing campaign, but what was delivered is significantly less than what was promised. I probably watched that demo vid. 20x or more in anticipation of FC3, and when I finally started playing the game, well, it was obviously a major let-down *(especially considering that I couldn't even max it out @ 60fps on my sig rig & the visuals were not* commensurate with the strain it was putting on my GPUs).
> So, in short, it's fine that you like the game but there are those of us who expect better, especially when we were *promised* better, and it's important to let dev. studios & publishers know that they can't just lie about their product & get away with it without anybody noticing.


As far as I can tell FC3 just runs like crap on AMD gpu's. My 7970's get around 25-30fps on ultra yet can average 100+ fps in Crysis 2 on Ultra at 1440p....


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> What negates the complaints is that there were several videos out prior to release that show more realistic (to the final product) videos showing the actual game. Therefore the claims that anyone was misled over the graphics are are wrong.
> You were not promised better in any sense at all at any point of the development*. Therefore, they're wrong. You're wrong. The complaints are wrong. Everything about the article is wrong.*


Yet, somehow, you *never* seem to be wrong, huh?


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Yet, somehow, you *never* seem to be wrong, huh?


Yep! I'm quite rarely wrong and I will admit it when I am! But here, I'm not wrong


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flyingsaucers*
> 
> Well, first of all, if you bump a thread with a post that beings "why is this thread still going..." maybe you do need to visit a doctor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But seriously, on topic - you don't have to be mad, & if you're enjoying the game then more power to you. But your enjoyment does *not* negate our criticism.
> For example: I teach English language arts for a living & my standards for readable literature are relatively high compared to what I teach to kids on a daily basis, however I would never tell my students that their books suck just because my literary palette is too refined to enjoy them. BUT - if a hypothetical novel was marketed to a mature audience, and I pre-ordered that novel because I was lead to believe by the publishing house that it would appeal to me, and then it turned out to be geared towards 10th graders, I'd be a bit irritated and rightfully so. That's what happened with Far Cry 3. The E3 footage was a major element of this game's marketing campaign, but what was delivered is significantly less than what was promised. I probably watched that demo vid. 20x or more in anticipation of FC3, and when I finally started playing the game, well, it was obviously a major let-down (especially considering that I couldn't even max it out @ 60fps on my sig rig & the visuals were *not* commensurate with the strain it was putting on my GPUs).
> So, in short, it's fine that you like the game but there are those of us who expect better, especially when we were *promised* better, and it's important to let dev. studios & publishers know that they can't just lie about their product & get away with it without anybody noticing.


So you watched the e3 demo vid 20x and didn't watch any of the videos leading up to the game and then when you buy it your surprised, honestly who buys a 50$ game based on a six month old e3 video and nothing else, by then most people have forgotten the video. May I know what games out there you think look better than farcry 3? There aren't many, by your logic you would not enjoy any game that looks like farcry 3 or worse, if so I feel sorry for you. You were not promised anything, an e3 video is not a promise; maybe one of the videos leading up to the release or launch trailer but an e3 video?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> As far as I can tell FC3 just runs like crap on AMD gpu's. My 7970's get around 25-30fps on ultra yet can average 100+ fps in Crysis 2 on Ultra at 1440p....


I get 40fps @1080p on my rig at max settings minus FSAA. I think it might be a crossfire problem, lots of games have problems with it. Try with 1 card maybe but im sure you have already tried that.


----------



## Systemlord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> What negates the complaints is that there were several videos out prior to release that show more realistic (to the final product) videos showing the actual game. Therefore the claims that anyone was misled over the graphics are are wrong.
> You were not promised better in any sense at all at any point of the development. Therefore, they're wrong. You're wrong. The complaints are wrong. Everything about the article is wrong.


I don't know if your boarder line trolling or not but my complaints on based on my opinion and I'm entitled to it, there for I'm not wrong nor am I right! You are pretty cocky to come in here and tell the OP and everyone that have stated their opinions are wrong and that you are right, please stop trolling!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> Gears of War? chest high walls?
> No thanks.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sticks435*
> 
> Good god man, he didn't mean cover as in third person shooter. He meant like branches and bushes and logs and stuff. You know, stuff that covers the dirt that you would find in a jungle or island setting.


Whatever Rubers is smoking I want some, does this mean that he will admit he is wrong?


----------



## Rubers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Systemlord*
> 
> I don't know if your boarder line trolling or not but my complaints on based on my opinion and I'm entitled to it, there for I'm not wrong nor am I right! You are pretty cocky to come in here and tell the OP and everyone that have stated their opinions are wrong and that you are right, please stop trolling!
> Whatever Rubers is smoking I want some, does this mean that he will admit he is wrong?


No, because there is plenty of cover









And I'm not wrong and the OP is. The OP (article) states that PC gamers we mislead by the E3 video. It's wrong because there were several videos coming up to the release that showed proper footage of what we're playing now. Therefore, we weren't misled and it's only peoples neglect or not-seeing those videos that is at fault.

It your complaint is "I saw the E3 video and it's nothing like we got, I've been misled" then you're wrong. If it's not, then this is the wrong thread for you.

And no, I'm not cocky, I'm just right. There's a massive difference. And as for opinions not being wrong? Really? Because you can be of the opinion that the sky is purple - you 'd be wrong, or on some super psychedelic drugs.

The game gets flak because:

You apparently aren't told you need UPlay on Steam - *Wrong, you are told. It's on the game page*
It's not like the E3 video and everyone was misled into thinking it would look like that - *Wrong, there were several videos out prior to release showing footage of the final product.*
Steam had "Split-screen multi-player" listed as a feature prior to release and was pulled the day before - *Right, and a valid, legitimate complaint... with Ubisoft or Steam*
Any opinions about the gameplay or content - *Right because they're personal opinions*


----------



## sausageson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rubers*
> 
> No, because there is plenty of cover
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not wrong and the OP is. The OP (article) states that PC gamers we mislead by the E3 video. It's wrong because there were several videos coming up to the release that showed proper footage of what we're playing now. Therefore, we weren't misled and it's only peoples neglect or not-seeing those videos that is at fault.
> It your complaint is "I saw the E3 video and it's nothing like we got, I've been misled" then you're wrong. If it's not, then this is the wrong thread for you.
> And no, I'm not cocky, I'm just right. There's a massive difference. And as for opinions not being wrong? Really? Because you can be of the opinion that the sky is purple - you 'd be wrong, or on some super psychedelic drugs.
> The game gets flak because:
> 
> You apparently aren't told you need UPlay on Steam - *Wrong, you are told. It's on the game page*
> It's not like the E3 video and everyone was misled into thinking it would look like that - *Wrong, there were several videos out prior to release showing footage of the final product.*
> Steam had "Split-screen multi-player" listed as a feature prior to release and was pulled the day before - *Right, and a valid, legitimate complaint... with Ubisoft or Steam*
> Any opinions about the gameplay or content - *Right because they're personal opinions*


This game gets flak because its ubisoft


----------



## mushroomboy

Rubers is right about the graphics fiasco. It's like watching CES now and thinking the products on show are the exact products for release. If you don't understand the ideas of prototype or companies over selling something at a large show, you obviously need some growing up too do. I would believe, hands down, that many companies show stuff at E3 in which never hits game shelves. They aren't their JUST to showcase games, they are also their to showcase the engines and what they can and can not do. So some reporter caught video of them showing off Farcry 3 a lil' too much then later they released what people would call "actual game play" videos. End of story. I'd call it quits with the debate their, as that's prolly about as far as you are going to get.

Oh, and the sky isn't purple Rubers it's red.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I just don't get why its OK to CG a "demo" at E3 that looks much better than you know the real game is going to look? Why is that OK? Just show the game the way it is.


----------



## Skips

I've been playing the game in 1440p, and I think it looks good. The textures in some places are pretty bad, but overall I think it's pretty. I'm looking forward to some mods.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Think this thread has ran it's course. Thanks everyone.


----------

