bit-gamer.net

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Comments 26 to 50 of 69

Reply
Kaze22 1st April 2006, 08:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehed
I'm going to give it a spin set to 1680 with my 6800gt just to see how it scales and what framerates are looking like. The 24" 1920 has 30% more pixels to draw, but the display handles non-native resolutions pretty well, and I definately want something widescreen.

You're joking right? Even on my ATI X1800 I could barely play at 1680 res, and you wanna do it on a 6800.
Honestly I have yet to see a rig do bareable framerates at 1680 and you're talking about 1980 res. :(
Well if you don't mind playing the a game as a slide show LOL
Quote:
I don't know whether thats because 2GB of ram, an high-end storage array, more tolerance for loading screens or a combination of the 3

Yes it's the RAM, anything above 1.5 gigs of RAM will virtually eliminate all world expanding load times, you'll still get loading in between rooms and what not but all real world loading is pretty much buffered into RAM.
I noticed that even at 1 gig of RAM you'll noticed a second delay on some places, but as soon as you hit 1.5 gigs loading becomes seemless.
I've heard that this massive ram buffering is one of biggest benefits of the PC version on Xbox sometimes the load can become quite annoying.
speedfreek 1st April 2006, 08:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pope
I don't know, personally, though it's a fair question. Ask yourself what you would do with either a super-fast PC or an Xbox 360 *after* you've finished playing ES4... Also, keyboard & mouse + desk vs wireless controller + sofa?
You should really see how Im set up right now, computer in front of the sofa and the only problem is that I get a sore neck by 3 or 4am.

I dont like rpgs but I do enjoy this game, Im running fine at 1600x1200 with med settings and havent had any framerate dips yet. I think its a decent game but havent gotten addicted yet.
automagsrock 1st April 2006, 10:02 Quote
So when I play this my character moves at a snails pace compared to everything else. WTF??
Mister_Tad 1st April 2006, 10:04 Quote
ok, for a giggle, try 'caps lock'
DougEdey 1st April 2006, 11:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by automagsrock
So when I play this my character moves at a snails pace compared to everything else. WTF??

Also, take off crouch/sneak (ctrl) and sheath your weapon.
EK-MDi 1st April 2006, 13:06 Quote
If you're able to play the game at high resolutions, 1280x1024 and above, you don't really need Anti-Aliasing so much. So deciding between either AA or HDR, is an easy choice. You can just choose HDR, which will have the most useful benefits.
specofdust 1st April 2006, 13:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by EK-MDi
If you're able to play the game at high resolutions, 1280x1024 and above, you don't really need Anti-Aliasing so much. So deciding between either AA or HDR, is an easy choice. You can just choose HDR, which will have the most useful benefits.

You can't really say that for all cases. I mean, with a 21" monitor if I run anything in 1024x768 it looks horrifically jaggy, and I have to remind myself I've not gone back to 1997 and 640x480. For those with big monitors, this game is going to hurt.
Tim S 1st April 2006, 14:09 Quote
I agree, the game looks fabulous at 1920x1200, but I don't have the hardware to run the game acceptably with maximum detail at that res. :(
Da Dego 1st April 2006, 14:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by specofdust
You can't really say that for all cases. I mean, with a 21" monitor if I run anything in 1024x768 it looks horrifically jaggy, and I have to remind myself I've not gone back to 1997 and 640x480. For those with big monitors, this game is going to hurt.
What's funny is the weird looks I got from one of our other staff members when I said I bought a 7900gt...as I only have a nice Philips 15" LCD monitor (1024x768). So whilst y'all are talking about these huge screens and mammoth resolutions, I'm enjoying maximum settings ;) w00t old technology!

I have the seamless loads, too. I think the biggest factor to that is your storage array, as I only have 1gb of ram and never have a problem...but the game is running on a dedicated sata2 400gb hard drive with a 16mb buffer and NCQ. I should really put those two drives in Raid...mmm, 800gb of stripey goodness.
Firehed 1st April 2006, 21:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
You're joking right? Even on my ATI X1800 I could barely play at 1680 res, and you wanna do it on a 6800.
Honestly I have yet to see a rig do bareable framerates at 1680 and you're talking about 1980 res. :(
Well if you don't mind playing the a game as a slide show LOL
No, I'm not joking, but that's not what I said. I tried it at 1680 with my 6800gt, plays worse than it does now after turning down details and HDR off. I just wanted to get an idea of what I'd be looking at in terms of detail if I were able to get a card with twice the power of what I have now. It wouldn't be unreasonable at 1680 with a 7900gt I don't think if I tweak it a bit, or so my gut tells me (anyone with a 7900gt and a screen that can do 1680x1050, feel free to confirm or reject that)

Yeah, 2 gigs of ram helps a lot though. I get no load pauses going between the different areas of land, and pretty minimal between full areas (entering cities or rooms). The first load definately takes the longtest, and that's not a big deal since it's still only a few seconds (less than any other game I've played recently). FWIW, it's installed to a Raptor, but the old 36GB ones aren't notably faster than a decent sized 7.2k drive, especially when they're both well-defragged (as mine are).

Spent about 6hrs playing yesterday... oh dear. This of course being before I realized that my custom class selections were undeniably horrible and that I should really start over. But more playtime would be good.... it looks suhweet! I'm tempted to try dropping to 1024x768 just to see if max details is playable. I'll have to try smuggling a projector from my dad's office just to see
CowBlazed 1st April 2006, 22:32 Quote
Graphics card is the biggest concern with this game, you don't even need a high end CPU or more then 1 gig of memory, if you looked at their usage. It uses the graphics memory for all the textures, and the my CPU is hardly over 50% usage while playing. The game has optimizations for multi-threads but its hardly needed, its all about the graphics card.

That being said, the game runs sweet on my X850 Pro @ X850 XT with 1gig memory and a A64 3500+ on 1280x1024 resolution. I thinned out the grass a bit and now I can set it to max draw distance and the frame rate is perfectly smooth, this and the outdoor shadow options were causing slow downs. Once I turned off the outdoor shadow options (grass shadow, canopy shadows etc) and thinned the grass, everything else is maxed and I only get slow downs with more then 5 or so enemies on screen at once, in an outdoor enviroment, which is fairly rare.

Last thing I want to add are load times. I am completly impressed with the load times in this game. The actual loads (save games, entering a city or cave etc) are very short, some of the shortest out of any game I have ever played, I hardly have time to read the quire important tool tip before it dissapears. The load times when running through the world are even more impressive! All I get is a split second drop in FPS and the word Loading on the screen and thats it, its really amazing how a game with this level of detail and this epic size can load so fluidly, and I'm on whats considered "mid range" PC, higher end PCs must load even faster (if possible).

The game is completly awesome as most people know by now, so I won't go into any detail but you have to try it.

Also, though the game looks extremely nice with the distant lands, maxed out trees and draw distance etc, the game is still highly enjoyable on lower settings.

My friend plays on a 9600xt, 512mb RAM and a 2.6ghz P4 at 800x600 low/medium settings, and hes just as caught into this great game as I am.

However if you have an FX card (someone mentioned their friend on an FX5200) your a bit out of luck. Its been known for a while that the FX series has bad DX9 and Shader Model 2.0 support, and it shows in this game. Performance is horrid, and lots of crashes. Best thing you can do is tweak the .ini to resort to 1.1 shaders and DX8.1, then you can proceed to turning everything to low, and then you can start playing. I've seen screenshots like this and the graphics look kinda like Morrowind actually, I'm sure theres still alot of enjoyment to be had out of it, but don't expect any visually stunning vistas like I get to enjoy on top of the game experience.
Fr4nk 1st April 2006, 23:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by specofdust
You can't really say that for all cases. I mean, with a 21" monitor if I run anything in 1024x768 it looks horrifically jaggy, and I have to remind myself I've not gone back to 1997 and 640x480. For those with big monitors, this game is going to hurt.
:( Hope fully I'll be able to get this to 1280*1024 on my 21" CRT with decents details. but thean again, do I really want to start playing? I probably won't stop :/ (on a 21" CRT too btw)

-Fr4nk
MastershakeJB 2nd April 2006, 04:40 Quote
I dunno. These scores don't sound quite right to me. I have an AMD 3200 OC'd to 2.7, from 2.0 stock, 1 gig of slightly OC'd, lowered latency ram, and only *ONE* 7900 GT (overclocked and volt modded to past GTX speeds, 730 mghz core, 1800 memory) and mine runs this BEAUTIFULLY~! I have it maxed settings, 16 X 12 and the framerate NEVER drops below 60 FPS (with the exception of the occasional hiccup from my slow HDD caching).......so maybe the testers aren't testing well? I dunno, but bring this system to it's knees? please! If anything, this system brings the game to it's knees. I'd game even higher res, but my screen only supports 16 X 12 max anyway.

P.S. to whoever said controller + couch vs keyboard mouse and desk....i run this from my couch, on my 42 inch plasma, with wireless keyboard and mouse. (and before someone tries to blast me for saying i game at 16 X 12 on a 42 plasma, YES, i realize that 42 inch plasma, can only natively display 12X10 max (as far PIXEL resolution is concerned, so don't ask me how i run it at 16 X 12, i can with a special scaling my screen uses for hd SCAN LINES) and sometimes i run it on my CRT monitor at that res as well.


--PPS, this rig from the ground up, only set me back about 600 bucks ;) , so whoever thinks you need to drop a fortune to have performance is wrong.
1.) 100 dollar CPU overclocked to 1000 dollar cpu performance; (still running stock cooling hehe, could go even higher if i wanted to dish out for a nicer cooler)
2.) 300 dollar video card overclocked PAST 600 dollar performance (DID have to buy better cooler, 30 bucks)
3.) 70 bucks for decent OC'able ram
4.) 70 dollars for great OC'ing mobo

oh yeah, and i'm didn't do any of these "ini mods", didn't have to play with any settings, other than just turning them all the way to max
MastershakeJB 2nd April 2006, 05:10 Quote
Also, I have a question. When i enable HDR from within the game, and AA from my control panel as opposed to in game, it actually works, or looks like it does. So why is it that I keep hearing that this is "impossible" when it's very much running on my comp? Albeit it acts......weird, when i have it enabled. It acts similar to skipping a frame, like it does when it's caching off my HDD, only moreso, but it's not all that noticable, as it happens only slightly more frequently than does the HDD caching skip, which is only every couple of minutes or so. So my question is, am i doing damage by leaving AA running with HDR? Is HDR actually running with AA, or am i just imagining that it is and it's actually bloom? I'm lost, i don't understand why it's "impossible" and yet i'm doing it.
Kaze22 2nd April 2006, 06:52 Quote
Quote:
I dunno. These scores don't sound quite right to me. I have an AMD 3200 OC'd to 2.7, from 2.0 stock, 1 gig of slightly OC'd, lowered latency ram, and only *ONE* 7900 GT (overclocked and volt modded to past GTX speeds, 730 mghz core, 1800 memory) and mine runs this BEAUTIFULLY~! I have it maxed settings, 16 X 12 and the framerate NEVER drops below 60 FPS (with the exception of the occasional hiccup from my slow HDD caching).......so maybe the testers aren't testing well? I dunno, but bring this system to it's knees? please! If anything, this system brings the game to it's knees. I'd game even higher res, but my screen only supports 16 X 12 max anyway.

MastershakeJB how long have you played the game? Don't be quick to judge just yet, when I first started the game I thought man this games nothing, I was running at 60 fps at 1680 res and everything was smooth as butter, but after going deeper into the game I dropped the 1680 res and came down to a 1280. Reason being this game is not very evenly developed like most games, the way the game works is the further you go and more effects you see the more it'll start to kill you GPU until you end up playing a slide show.

Here are a few major framrate killers that you will only run into later on in the game.

Combination FPS Killer = Rain + Horse (fast horse) + Lots of Grass + Long Draw Distance = Slide Show
Effects FPS Killer= 4 or more Badguys + Invisibility Effects + Enchanted Weapon Effects = Semi Slide Show (The Multiple Camelion Effect kills FPS)

Just cause you get 60 FPS in the beginning don't mean you're gonna continue getting it, like I said this game is very poorly written in that the performance is very uneven, but than again Bethesda has never been known for well balanced programming, even Morrow was riddled with uneven performance issues.
Bladestorm 2nd April 2006, 08:46 Quote
I thought self-shadowing looked worse on than off, but I didn't run it for very long I guess.

Loading times are impressive for sure, but I seem to have similar grunt to mrtad in that respect.

I can tell you now that this has reminded me I never got around to trying that soft volt-mod my card could probably use ;) (first game I've met where I actually needed the grunt to get good performance with maxed settings with a res limit of 1280*1024)

I'm doing 1280*1024, maxed textures and view distance, most of the other distances reasonably high .. I turned off grass after about 30 hours I think, it looks awesome but it causes a big hit to fps with it on a fair enough distance to not pop-up annoyingly. Side-bonus is missing less alchemy components (mushroom, mushroom, mushroom, mushrom, flower)
The clincher for grass distance though was the spider daedra - shorter than the long grass in places and with a penchance for running around a lot in between lightning bolts and spawning even shorter spiderlings that also hide in the long grass while attacking

I read mention of a grass thickness tweak, methinks I might have to try that :)
Muunsyr 2nd April 2006, 13:51 Quote
Soooo many hours wasted....

I preordered. I got the game at 10pm. I was home and had started playing at 11:30pm. I went to bed at 6am.

I got up at 1pm. I played until 6ish, went out for a couple of hours (forced myself to), ate, and continued playing until 5am. Slept alot, my memory is getting a little hazy. Next night I stayed up until 6am ish again.

Late nights got to me. I could only stay up till 3am the following night.

Back to work on monday and then up until 2am playing.

Tuesday I was practically dead (at work - I managed to stay up past midnight playing again).

Anyways, am currently running it on a 4400+ (@stock), 1x xfx 7900gtx 690mhz (@stock 690), 2GB ocz plat, 2,3,2,5 goodness, 2 x WD raptorX. Max settings @16x12 - it only slows down on grassy hillsides with multiple people casting spells. I haven't checked actual framerates, though it only gets as low as 'slight annoyance' as apposed to 'unbearable' or 'me- hmmmmm.. flatmate- where did you take that photo?' :)

have not yet tweaked, but planning on doing so and ocing.
MastershakeJB 2nd April 2006, 18:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaze22
MastershakeJB how long have you played the game?

I'm a level 16 character, so long enough. I had a lot of problems on my 6800GS OC'd, that's why i went to the 7900. The 6800 would let me get as high as 12 X 10 ALMOST totally playable, really I had to have it at 10 X 7 to keep it smooth. So yeah, the game is kinda beastly, but I just think the new flagship cards, ie X1900 and 7900 are more beastly than they're being given credit for here. And instead of playing those weird games of comparing different settings, they should have tested apples to apples.
Mister_Tad 2nd April 2006, 23:06 Quote
friendly advice -

do NOT rely on only autosaves and quicksaves
I just started to the game to find that they had both been corrupted, chucked me out of the game as soon as i went to the "load" screen

I thought I had lost all progress so far (~35 hours) - proper heart-sinking stuff

Luckily, after I manually deleted the autosave and quicksave files from the save folder, i could get to the manual saves

Now all of my saves are automatically backed up every day
Tim S 3rd April 2006, 10:22 Quote
I lost my weekend to this game - I can't believe it's Monday already. I'm already having withdrawal symptons at 10:15am. :'(
Cheese 3rd April 2006, 13:13 Quote
Been playing the 360 version and I have to say I think it's awesome - it's not perfect by any means but if you're an RPG fan you'll love it.

Very happy with the control system on the 360, though the quick slots on the D-pad aren't ideal.
dehx 3rd April 2006, 20:49 Quote
Alot of people don't realize this, but the X1900XTX is the same exact GPU that runs inside the X360, in fact, the X360 has a X1900XT, not the overclocked XTX.

I have a Athlon 64 3500+ running at 2.5 Ghz, mem at 454 Mhz DDR, and an X1900XTX.

I can run the game with every single setting cranked to maximum @ 1280x1024. The only place I notice < 20 fps is when I piss off 20 guards and when I jump off the mountains and the terrian loading before I reach my stony grave below. haha. Oh, and Imperial city runs around 25 fps at these settings.

I tried running it at 1280x720 with all these settings maxed and got about a 10 fps boost everywhere, but I personally like 1280x1024 because at that resultion, the game has very low alaising, which rids the need for Anti Aliasing. And @ 1280x1024 is really does look better than 720 rendering the extra 389,000 Pixels per frame makes a difference.

And the reviewer is right. If you love this game and can't run HDR. Its well worth the money to buy a PS 3.0 ATI X1800 or X1900 or NVidia 7900 to see it.
Kaze22 3rd April 2006, 21:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dehx
Alot of people don't realize this, but the X1900XTX is the same exact GPU that runs inside the X360, in fact, the X360 has a X1900XT, not the overclocked XTX.

I have a Athlon 64 3500+ running at 2.5 Ghz, mem at 454 Mhz DDR, and an X1900XTX.

I can run the game with every single setting cranked to maximum @ 1280x1024. The only place I notice < 20 fps is when I piss off 20 guards and when I jump off the mountains and the terrian loading before I reach my stony grave below. haha. Oh, and Imperial city runs around 25 fps at these settings.

I tried running it at 1280x720 with all these settings maxed and got about a 10 fps boost everywhere, but I personally like 1280x1024 because at that resultion, the game has very low alaising, which rids the need for Anti Aliasing. And @ 1280x1024 is really does look better than 720 rendering the extra 389,000 Pixels per frame makes a difference.

And the reviewer is right. If you love this game and can't run HDR. Its well worth the money to buy a PS 3.0 ATI X1800 or X1900 or NVidia 7900 to see it.

BTW, I would like to see you X360 guys complete an oblivion gate mission in 57 seconds like I did. haha. PC owns and you n00bs can't admit it. lol.

Mouse + KB = skill
Wireless Controller + Couch + Potato Chips = no reflex, tired fat, go to sleep.


Wow you figured out that PC has console plus TGM god mode, you're so cool you finished the first gate in 57 seconds somebody should give you a prize. News flash nobody cares, and the lack of console and TGM Godmode on Xbox 360 is actually a good thing because it's always more fun to play a game without cheating, who the hell wants to complete a Oblivion Gate in 57 seconds anyways might as well just skip the whole game and watch the ending damn Noob.
Another thing as much I don't like to defend the Xbox 360, I'm gonna have tell you to GET YOU'RE FACTS STRAIGHT before you start spreading rubbish.
X1900XT or XTX or XXXXTTTXXXX is a direct X9 card with a overclocked core, the Xbox 360 uses the Xenos a modified DX10 Card with hardware AA and an unified key word "unified" shader architecture, that is not found in "ANY" PC Video Card to date. Although the Xenos GPU has lower clock speed than the X1900 it's architecture is more advanced than any DX9 Card in the market.
Shadowed_fury 3rd April 2006, 21:16 Quote
Guys chill out, its just a game ;)
MastershakeJB 3rd April 2006, 22:07 Quote
well, really the 360 core resembles an X1900 very much, only it has ten megs of SUPER fast ram sitting right on the die, which basically gives it one eye candy for free, be that loads of anti aliasing or antisoptric filtering.
And really, everyone needs to stop talking as though x1900 and 7900 AREN"T DX10, they clearly will be, just like many cards that came out just before DX9 were totally compatable. Also, if you read on the back of a 7900 box, I don't know if the same is true of a X1900, but it says it "Built for Microsoft Windows Vista" and nvidia says this as well about the 7900; ""third generation gpu architecture built for windows vista" "delivers best possible experience when running the Windows Vista 3D graphical user interface." Now, to run that interface, isn't that DX10? Either way, I think it's clear by their wording, that those of us with 79's, and quite possibly X1900 (I have NO idea about X1900's "vista compatability", only the 79's), already have our DX10 cards, we just don't have DX10 yet. I don't really know about X19's compatability, but considering ATI is sleeping with microsoft now and how similar the x19 is to the 360 core, i'm sure that the x19 will be just as, if not moreso compatable with DX10 than the 79.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums