13812 réponses à ce sujet

[Wyndham711]

Mihura wrote...

You are talking about the Pelit mag right? well I think this is the second mag that says that the game is better or equal good if you compared it to ME 2 and I didn't like ME 2 that must :/

I didn't either. :/ But let's face it: basically almost everyone else did. And my understanding is that many/most of the Pelit writers still prefer ME1 over ME2 storywise, and think it was the more striking experience when it came out. They also weren't all that pleased with all the streamlining that ME2 went through.

[clst]

slimgrin wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

Wasn't there some talk of many if not all of the Witcher 2's (and Witcher 1's) writers leaving CD Project after they had finished writing Witcher 2?

There was. Maybe some of our Polish friends can give details. I hate to think the same talent isn't there anymore. 

r

only andreij sapowski leave the team xd  before and another one a t the end becvause he want to write a book xd

[clst]

Ringo12 wrote...

Damariel wrote...

www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/thewitcher2/video/6313852#toggle_video

in 0:15 I see an owl... for this one who read books...You know what it mean? ( I know )

What does it mean?!

the  owl is a sorceress name fillipa the head of the council of the 12

Modifié par clst, 14 mai 2011 - 08:37 .

[orbit991]

Wyndham711 wrote...

I think I'm definitely on low-medium. I have a radeon 4670. Though I'm under the impression that my processor should be good enough (a quad core intel 2.40GHz) for medium-high, so perhaps that helps a bit. Medium should be easily good enough for my eyes (at least until I'm able to upgrade), so I'd be quite satisfied if my computer can be beaten into dealing with that much.

And as regards to the Pelit review, I've read it also and that small summary certainly misrepresents it. The reviewer was overall very enthusiastic in and made it clear that he had had to review the game under sub-standard circumstances (= in a hurry). That summary basically lists and I'd say to a degree overblows all the niggles the reviewer had with the game.

4670 is actually a tad slower then the minimum requirment 3850 they recommend. However that card always impressed me and outperformed what it was supposed to do. It does overclock very well, so you may be able to squeeze medium out of it, but hmm, who knows, looks like lots of settings to play with.

[Wyndham711]

orbit991 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

I think I'm definitely on low-medium. I have a radeon 4670. Though I'm under the impression that my processor should be good enough (a quad core intel 2.40GHz) for medium-high, so perhaps that helps a bit. Medium should be easily good enough for my eyes (at least until I'm able to upgrade), so I'd be quite satisfied if my computer can be beaten into dealing with that much.

And as regards to the Pelit review, I've read it also and that small summary certainly misrepresents it. The reviewer was overall very enthusiastic in and made it clear that he had had to review the game under sub-standard circumstances (= in a hurry). That summary basically lists and I'd say to a degree overblows all the niggles the reviewer had with the game.

4670 is actually a tad slower then the minimum requirment 3850 they recommend. However that card always impressed me and outperformed what it was supposed to do. It does overclock very well, so you may be able to squeeze medium out of it, but hmm, who knows, looks like lots of settings to play with.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've been under a similar impression (that 4670 is capable of some nice streching if required). Mine also has a full gig of designated memory, so I suppose that should help a bit as well.

[slimgrin]

4670 is a damn good low-end card. I can play Arkham Asylum, ME2, ME1, DA and Fallout 3 on high settings. However...I can't play SC2, SF4, or X3 on anything but med settings. I'm a little anxious about this part, but I hope this card will pull through for me till I upgrade.

Modifié par slimgrin, 14 mai 2011 - 08:43 .

[ErichHartmann]

I'm setting the graphics as high as they'll go. I'm not expecting any major issues. Whose with me?!

[Wyndham711]

Oh, you have a 4670 too, slimgrin? I've had similar experiences with it. Been able to run most games on high settings until basically StarCraft 2 (it still runs over medium, but there's no chance on running it on maxed settings) and Civ 5. Though Civ 5 is a power hog anyway.

[orbit991]

Wyndham711 wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

I think I'm definitely on low-medium. I have a radeon 4670. Though I'm under the impression that my processor should be good enough (a quad core intel 2.40GHz) for medium-high, so perhaps that helps a bit. Medium should be easily good enough for my eyes (at least until I'm able to upgrade), so I'd be quite satisfied if my computer can be beaten into dealing with that much.

And as regards to the Pelit review, I've read it also and that small summary certainly misrepresents it. The reviewer was overall very enthusiastic in and made it clear that he had had to review the game under sub-standard circumstances (= in a hurry). That summary basically lists and I'd say to a degree overblows all the niggles the reviewer had with the game.

4670 is actually a tad slower then the minimum requirment 3850 they recommend. However that card always impressed me and outperformed what it was supposed to do. It does overclock very well, so you may be able to squeeze medium out of it, but hmm, who knows, looks like lots of settings to play with.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've been under a similar impression (that 4670 is capable of some nice streching if required). Mine also has a full gig of designated memory, so I suppose that should help a bit as well.

Quad core wont hurt either. Good luck!

[Khayness]

I don't trust these system specifications since I've rocked a Radeon x1950 for ME2 and DA2 on medium.

Was a bit laggy, but hey, my standards are low.

[slimgrin]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I'm setting the graphics as high as they'll go. I'm not expecting any major issues. Whose with me?!

Why you son of a....<_<

[orbit991]

Just so you guys know, you can get a recommended 4850 for around a 100 bucks these days.

[Romantiq]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I'm setting the graphics as high as they'll go. I'm not expecting any major issues. Whose with me?!

I'll fire it up as high as I possibly can

Modifié par Romantiq, 14 mai 2011 - 09:03 .

[Wyndham711]

orbit991 wrote...

Just so you guys know, you can get a recommended 4850 for around a 100 bucks these days.

I'm planning on upgrading my whole machine in a few moths anyway. What kind of stuff would you recommend for a reasonably (mid-)priced, good value gaming machine?

[clst]

guys only 2 days and no life mode 1 weeks xd

and earlier you ask who many we paid our ce = in france i paid 97 euro + shipping

Modifié par clst, 14 mai 2011 - 09:16 .

[Dreadstruck]

slimgrin wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

I'm setting the graphics as high as they'll go. I'm not expecting any major issues. Whose with me?!

Why you son of a....<_<

.....witcher?

[orbit991]

Wyndham711 wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

Just so you guys know, you can get a recommended 4850 for around a 100 bucks these days.

I'm planning on upgrading my whole machine in a few moths anyway. What kind of stuff would you recommend for a reasonably (mid-)priced, good value gaming machine?

Start with this guide, my machine is in the 700 range, but those for 500-600 are perfectly good for just about every game on high settings. Like I said the 4850 runs for as low as 97 bucks and will near double your fps from a 4670(450 watt power required for a 4850). Maybe just up your card as your cpu is not to shabby.

i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png

[Khayness]

Copying my review translation of the PC GURU (first Hungarian review so far) magazine from the Reviews Thread:

Khayness wrote...

Here it is from the PC GURU:

Overall:

CDPR takes its place among the greatests: Everything what made the first installment great is improved, and the new ideas pushed the cart into the right direction (this comes out funny in English, let's just say they work). It's not an exaggeration to say, even in May: This is the Game of the Year!

PRO: The graphic details and the feeling of the story takes you in from the first moment.

CON: Nuisances, which in theory, will be removed in the final product.

92%

Edit: The 92% is the overall mean of Graphics (95), Music (85) and for lack of a better word; Gaming Experience (93), which is 91%, but whatever.

Modifié par Khayness, 14 mai 2011 - 09:25 .

[Wyndham711]

orbit991 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

Just so you guys know, you can get a recommended 4850 for around a 100 bucks these days.

I'm planning on upgrading my whole machine in a few moths anyway. What kind of stuff would you recommend for a reasonably (mid-)priced, good value gaming machine?

Start with this guide, my machine is in the 700 range, but those for 500-600 are perfectly good for just about every game on high settings. Like I said the 4850 runs for as low as 97 bucks and will near double your fps from a 4670(450 watt power required for a 4850). Maybe just up your card as your cpu is not to shabby.

i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png

Huge thanks for your advice!  Normally I would upgrade just the GPU, but I've already upgraded it once, and my rig is getting pretty old in general, even though the CPU is still pretty good. My power source is rather pitiful, motherboard isn't up to snuff so I'm limited to DDR2 memory, and I'll also have to finally get Windows 7 as well (still have Vista...)

[orbit991]

Wyndham711 wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

Just so you guys know, you can get a recommended 4850 for around a 100 bucks these days.

I'm planning on upgrading my whole machine in a few moths anyway. What kind of stuff would you recommend for a reasonably (mid-)priced, good value gaming machine?

Start with this guide, my machine is in the 700 range, but those for 500-600 are perfectly good for just about every game on high settings. Like I said the 4850 runs for as low as 97 bucks and will near double your fps from a 4670(450 watt power required for a 4850). Maybe just up your card as your cpu is not to shabby.

i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af150/The_FalconO6/CurrentLogicalPCBuyingGuide/Guide.png

Huge thanks for your advice!  Normally I would upgrade just the GPU, but I've already upgraded it once, and my rig is getting pretty old in general, even though the CPU is still pretty good. My power source is rather pitiful, motherboard isn't up to snuff so I'm limited to DDR2 memory, and I'll also have to finally get Windows 7 as well (still have Vista...)

Oh so its that time then. I posted the link to that guide since I built my gear in a similar way before seeing that guide, after hours of comparing and looking for benchmark tests, thought it would make it easier.
Btw isnt Vista with all the packs pretty much windows 7 now? Or are there still some performance issues?

Modifié par orbit991, 14 mai 2011 - 09:41 .

[Khayness]

orbit991 wrote...

Btw isnt Vista with all the packs pretty much windows 7 now? Or are there still some performance issues?

It's more user friendly atleast.

And that's a high praise to a Microsoft product.

[DarthCaine]

Dunno why you people are worrying about your specs. I've got:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (3.2GHz) , 4GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 1GB

and I'm expecting to play the game on High (with about 30 FPS). I'll probably trim down only a few options. (I still play most games on high/medium)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 14 mai 2011 - 09:48 .

[Wyndham711]

Yeah, I've used Windows 7 on a laptop I think it is indeed better than Vista. Though don't get me wrong - I've never had any huge problems with the Vista, and never really understood all the hate. Windows 7 just is all in all superior. So now that it's time to upgrade anyway, I think it's time to make that jump as well.

[Khayness]

DarthCaine wrote...

Dunno why you people are worrying about your specs. I've got:

I've upgraded a nearly 7 (GPU nearly 6) years old rig a few months ago, so there are many oldtimer machines around I presume.

I've had no trouble playing the games since the GPU wars aren't that intensive like at the middle of the last decade (I feel old) and it's not driving the game industry anymore, so The Witcher 2 pretty much slapped us in the face.

[orbit991]

DarthCaine wrote...

Dunno why you people are worrying about your specs. I've got:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (3.2GHz) , 4GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 1GB

and I'm expecting to play the game on High (with about 30 FPS). I'll probably trim down only a few options. (I still play most games on high/medium)

Because their specs are lower maybe? Silly question.