>> After another hour of replaying the same few seconds of game, I got 
>> sufficiently lucky with my grenades to kill everybody. But I now have, 
>> like, 2% health left.
>>
>> I sneak into a room and kill Doyal. Fricken' FINALLY the game ends!! >_<
> 
>    You know you can just run past them all and then kill Doyal? Haha... :)

Oh, SURE, because 15 guys with rocket launchers might somehow all 
simultaneously miss me. :-P

>> I BEAT FARCRY, BITCHES!!!
> 
>    LoL! Enjoyable game eh? :o)

It's certainly a lot different to, say HalfLife.

In HalfLife, you methodically worth through a room at a time, killing 
everything inside. (And almost everything killable makes enough racket 
that you can tell when you're alone or not.)

In FarCry, there generally aren't any "rooms". And even if there are, 
people tend to wander around and follow you. The number of times I've 
gone somewhere, killed everything, started looking around for ammo and 
stuff and some guy has crept up from somewhere and frightened the living 
daylights out of me!

Similarly, in many places in FarCry, killing *everything* would be 
absurdly difficult, and your best bet is actually to sneak past without 
firing a shot.

For example, the first time I played it, the second island with the 
radio antenna was really hard. There's snipers and guys with rocket 
launchers and all the rest of it. But then I reinstalled Windoze, and 
had to play again from the beginning. This time, I swam underwater to 
the *back* of the island, killed the three people guarding that end, and 
blew up the radio tower. The snipers and rocket boys never even took a 
shot at me. ;-)

There seems to be quite a few points in the game where you can take... 
obscure routes to improve your odds significantly.

How old is this game BTW? The foliage rendering is quite impressive, but 
many other things about the game look a little low-tech. (E.g., 
character movements, the cutscenes, etc.)

BTW... sticky ladders, much?!

> Now play FarCry 2. Coming your way soon. It's 
> supposed to be superb and made with the new Dunia engine.

Uh... If it's a new game, then I doubt that a puny little GeForce 7900GT 
is sufficiently powerful to run it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Oh, sure. On super-hyper-mega-easy, it only took 4 *months* to complete. 
> On slightly-easy, it'll probably take a year. :-P

I put it on the hardest difficulty level, just to see what it was like.  I 
didn't even get past the first hut down on the beach.  I shot some guy 
repeated in his head and he didn't die, then he took one shot at me and I 
died.  It wasn't very realistic.

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh, sure. On super-hyper-mega-easy, it only took 4 *months* to 
>> complete. On slightly-easy, it'll probably take a year. :-P
> 
> I put it on the hardest difficulty level, just to see what it was like.  
> I didn't even get past the first hut down on the beach.  I shot some guy 
> repeated in his head and he didn't die, then he took one shot at me and 
> I died.  It wasn't very realistic.

Now, see, I hate games like that.

The fact of the matter is, if you were on an island surrounded by highly 
trained mercinaries and you were armed only with a pistol, you wouldn't 
last five seconds. Even if you did kill a few enemies, you'd die within 
minutes. There's really no need for games to make the enemy unkillable 
to make the game hard; you just need to make the player character die 
from a realistic amount of damage. (IRL, 1 bullet can easily be fatal.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> The fact of the matter is, if you were on an island surrounded by highly 
> trained mercinaries and you were armed only with a pistol, you wouldn't 
> last five seconds.

I read where they found the german soldier who was the last soldier on 
Normandy Beach during the invasion. They figured out that between the 
machine guns and the cement bunkers, he managed to kill about 3000 
invaders all by himself after all the other germans were dead.

*That* is realistic. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:48a940e5$1@news.povray.org...
>>> After another hour of replaying the same few seconds of game, I got 
>>> sufficiently lucky with my grenades to kill everybody. But I now have, 
>>> like, 2% health left.
>>>
>>> I sneak into a room and kill Doyal. Fricken' FINALLY the game ends!! >_<
>>
>>    You know you can just run past them all and then kill Doyal? Haha... 
>> :)
>
> Oh, SURE, because 15 guys with rocket launchers might somehow all 
> simultaneously miss me. :-P

    Oh, SURE, they can shoot your ass off with RL's, no problem. But you 
didn't arrive there with enough ammo to do what I said, so you would have no 
chance really. What you do do is: with your sniper rifle, take out the guy, 
(or there might be two of them, can't remember), to the right on the 
platform, and the guy to the left of you on that small platform, (near the 
mountainside). This will alert all the others because you've fired your 
sniper rifle. The rest all bundle together behind those tanks, and by then, 
you have reached the steps before turning the corner. You then take a deep 
breath and lob a grenade over the top of the tanks, they immediately start 
firing their RL's killing eachother, and to make things worse for them, you 
do a runner through them all. Seriously, I've done it, but that's the harder 
way, it's easier to do just by running through them.


>
>>> I BEAT FARCRY, BITCHES!!!
>>
>>    LoL! Enjoyable game eh? :o)
>
> It's certainly a lot different to, say HalfLife.
>
> In HalfLife, you methodically worth through a room at a time, killing 
> everything inside. (And almost everything killable makes enough racket 
> that you can tell when you're alone or not.)
>
> In FarCry, there generally aren't any "rooms". And even if there are, 
> people tend to wander around and follow you. The number of times I've gone 
> somewhere, killed everything, started looking around for ammo and stuff 
> and some guy has crept up from somewhere and frightened the living 
> daylights out of me!

   Yeah, it has its scary moments, that's true.


>
> Similarly, in many places in FarCry, killing *everything* would be 
> absurdly difficult, and your best bet is actually to sneak past without 
> firing a shot.

     Yep, that's what it's all about. I played stealthily nearly all of the 
time and I've had games where there are no enemies left whatsoever. I felt 
all alone, just like you Andrew.  ;)


>
> For example, the first time I played it, the second island with the radio 
> antenna was really hard. There's snipers and guys with rocket launchers 
> and all the rest of it. But then I reinstalled Windoze, and had to play 
> again from the beginning. This time, I swam underwater to the *back* of 
> the island, killed the three people guarding that end, and blew up the 
> radio tower. The snipers and rocket boys never even took a shot at me. ;-)

    Yes, I did that trick too, but with me, I went back and took 'em out! 
<eg>


>
> There seems to be quite a few points in the game where you can take... 
> obscure routes to improve your odds significantly.

     Yes, FC was good for this with very unlinear game-play, (apart from 
inside buildings, that is). Did you climb mountains? When I first played it, 
I didn't think you could, but if you find the right place, you can. ;)


>
> How old is this game BTW? The foliage rendering is quite impressive, but 
> many other things about the game look a little low-tech. (E.g., character 
> movements, the cutscenes, etc.)

    Four years old now, I think. 3d gaming has moved a notch up since 
though.


>
> BTW... sticky ladders, much?!

   Wuh... ?  O-O


>
>> Now play FarCry 2. Coming your way soon. It's supposed to be superb and 
>> made with the new Dunia engine.
>
> Uh... If it's a new game, then I doubt that a puny little GeForce 7900GT 
> is sufficiently powerful to run it.

     PLEASE SWAP ME YOUR 7900GT FOR MY 6600GT!! Heh... ;)

    I don't know why you keep moaning about this. I'm playing Crysis on mine 
with fairly good settings. Mostly medium, some low, and some high. I get 
around 10 to 18 fps which is 'playable'. Of, course, when I get some 'heavy' 
action, it will slow down even further, but it won't lock up, and I still 
continue.

    You know before playing a game that you can disable all of the services 
running in the background apart fom MS services? I don't normally do this, 
but when I have, I gain about 3-5 fps across the board.

     ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh, SURE, because 15 guys with rocket launchers might somehow all 
>> simultaneously miss me. :-P
> 
>     Oh, SURE, they can shoot your ass off with RL's, no problem. But you 
> didn't arrive there with enough ammo to do what I said, so you would have no 
> chance really. What you do do is: with your sniper rifle, take out the guy, 
> (or there might be two of them, can't remember), to the right on the 
> platform, and the guy to the left of you on that small platform, (near the 
> mountainside). This will alert all the others because you've fired your 
> sniper rifle. The rest all bundle together behind those tanks, and by then, 
> you have reached the steps before turning the corner. You then take a deep 
> breath and lob a grenade over the top of the tanks, they immediately start 
> firing their RL's killing eachother, and to make things worse for them, you 
> do a runner through them all. Seriously, I've done it, but that's the harder 
> way, it's easier to do just by running through them.

I couldn't *see* any of them until I rounded the corner. And then it's 
far too late. In the end, my winning strategy (I use the term "winning" 
very loosely) was to hurl grenades at random until most of them were dead...

>> For example, the first time I played it, the second island with the radio 
>> antenna was really hard. There's snipers and guys with rocket launchers 
>> and all the rest of it. But then I reinstalled Windoze, and had to play 
>> again from the beginning. This time, I swam underwater to the *back* of 
>> the island, killed the three people guarding that end, and blew up the 
>> radio tower. The snipers and rocket boys never even took a shot at me. ;-)
> 
>     Yes, I did that trick too, but with me, I went back and took 'em out! 
> <eg>

o_O

You scary man...

>> There seems to be quite a few points in the game where you can take... 
>> obscure routes to improve your odds significantly.
> 
>      Yes, FC was good for this with very unlinear game-play, (apart from 
> inside buildings, that is). Did you climb mountains? When I first played it, 
> I didn't think you could, but if you find the right place, you can. ;)

It's kind of interesting how the game tends to strongly hint to you that 
you should do one thing, when actually that's the "wrong" thing to do. 
Like on River, where there are spare boats everywhere. Just hop in one 
and watch yourself die repeatedly! :-P

HalfLife likes to use reverse psychology, but generally if there's a 
weapon or a vehicle, you need to use it or you'll fail horribly. FarCry 
isn't like that...

>> How old is this game BTW? The foliage rendering is quite impressive, but 
>> many other things about the game look a little low-tech. (E.g., character 
>> movements, the cutscenes, etc.)
> 
>     Four years old now, I think. 3d gaming has moved a notch up since 
> though.

Really? I thought it was older than that... Oh well!

>> BTW... sticky ladders, much?!
> 
>    Wuh... ?  O-O

That time-honoured tradition that once you're on a ladder, it's almost 
impossible to get off it. As if the ladder were physically "sticky". 
It's very irritating.

You know the end of Boat where you have to climb out the top? Can you 
****ing climb back in again? NO! Even getting out of the top is a 
struggle. The physics is so glitchy...

>> Uh... If it's a new game, then I doubt that a puny little GeForce 7900GT 
>> is sufficiently powerful to run it.
> 
>      PLEASE SWAP ME YOUR 7900GT FOR MY 6600GT!! Heh... ;)

Oh... my God... o_O

>     I don't know why you keep moaning about this. I'm playing Crysis on mine 
> with fairly good settings. Mostly medium, some low, and some high. I get 
> around 10 to 18 fps which is 'playable'. Of, course, when I get some 'heavy' 
> action, it will slow down even further, but it won't lock up, and I still 
> continue.

Wait - you're playing *Crysis*, the most insanely power-hungry computer 
game in history, on a GeForce 6 series? 0_0

My God... you poor, poor human. x_x

>     You know before playing a game that you can disable all of the services 
> running in the background apart fom MS services? I don't normally do this, 
> but when I have, I gain about 3-5 fps across the board.

Uh... that would kind of imply that the game is CPU-bound, which doesn't 
sound right.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Uh... that would kind of imply that the game is CPU-bound, which doesn't 
> sound right.

It really doesn't. Most services in Windows don't run most of the time, 
unless you're actually using them. Why would BITS or clipbook or the 
print spooler or the remote connection manager or anything like that be 
taking any noticable amount of time, unless skipping over blocked tasks 
in the scheduler was enough to cause problems? Even NTP only wakes up 
once a minute.

You might have some pretty aggressive services running - antivirus or 
something poorly written or some such?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:48a9e0ac$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Oh, SURE, because 15 guys with rocket launchers might somehow all 
>>> simultaneously miss me. :-P
>>
>>     Oh, SURE, they can shoot your ass off with RL's, no problem. But you 
>> didn't arrive there with enough ammo to do what I said, so you would have 
>> no chance really. What you do do is: with your sniper rifle, take out the 
>> guy, (or there might be two of them, can't remember), to the right on the 
>> platform, and the guy to the left of you on that small platform, (near 
>> the mountainside). This will alert all the others because you've fired 
>> your sniper rifle. The rest all bundle together behind those tanks, and 
>> by then, you have reached the steps before turning the corner. You then 
>> take a deep breath and lob a grenade over the top of the tanks, they 
>> immediately start firing their RL's killing eachother, and to make things 
>> worse for them, you do a runner through them all. Seriously, I've done 
>> it, but that's the harder way, it's easier to do just by running through 
>> them.
>
> I couldn't *see* any of them until I rounded the corner. And then it's far 
> too late. In the end, my winning strategy (I use the term "winning" very 
> loosely) was to hurl grenades at random until most of them were dead...

   LOL, well, I've done it that way too... :) You've got to have the ammo 
though...


>
>>> For example, the first time I played it, the second island with the 
>>> radio antenna was really hard. There's snipers and guys with rocket 
>>> launchers and all the rest of it. But then I reinstalled Windoze, and 
>>> had to play again from the beginning. This time, I swam underwater to 
>>> the *back* of the island, killed the three people guarding that end, and 
>>> blew up the radio tower. The snipers and rocket boys never even took a 
>>> shot at me. ;-)
>>
>>     Yes, I did that trick too, but with me, I went back and took 'em out! 
>> <eg>
>
> o_O
>
> You scary man...

  It was phun!! ;)


>
>>> There seems to be quite a few points in the game where you can take... 
>>> obscure routes to improve your odds significantly.
>>
>>      Yes, FC was good for this with very unlinear game-play, (apart from 
>> inside buildings, that is). Did you climb mountains? When I first played 
>> it, I didn't think you could, but if you find the right place, you can. 
>> ;)
>
> It's kind of interesting how the game tends to strongly hint to you that 
> you should do one thing, when actually that's the "wrong" thing to do. 
> Like on River, where there are spare boats everywhere. Just hop in one and 
> watch yourself die repeatedly! :-P

    I've NEVER completed River by using boats. I died every time I tried. 
I'm sure it is possible, if you're good enough to control them properly. 
Heck, I got to the last grunts in a boat, and then they killed me!! Hmm... 
If you do the stealth thing along the right-hand side of the river, you can 
take out most of the RL and sniper grunts leaving room to get to your 
destination. Hiding in the big waterfall helps too.



>
> HalfLife likes to use reverse psychology, but generally if there's a 
> weapon or a vehicle, you need to use it or you'll fail horribly. FarCry 
> isn't like that...
>
>>> How old is this game BTW? The foliage rendering is quite impressive, but 
>>> many other things about the game look a little low-tech. (E.g., 
>>> character movements, the cutscenes, etc.)
>>
>>     Four years old now, I think. 3d gaming has moved a notch up since 
>> though.
>
> Really? I thought it was older than that... Oh well!

     Just checked: released '04.


>
>>> BTW... sticky ladders, much?!
>>
>>    Wuh... ?  O-O
>
> That time-honoured tradition that once you're on a ladder, it's almost 
> impossible to get off it. As if the ladder were physically "sticky". It's 
> very irritating.

     You mean: "to jump off the ladder as and when you want"? Yes, I get it 
now. Unfortunately, that still happens in Crysis too. It's an animation when 
you climb ladders so there's nothing you can do to change that. (Unless you 
create a MOD that is!)  ;)




>
> You know the end of Boat where you have to climb out the top? Can you 
> ****ing climb back in again? NO! Even getting out of the top is a 
> struggle. The physics is so glitchy...

   I can't remember where this is. Are you sure it's at the end of 'Boat'? 
For what it's worth, I don't think I had any problems going back through the 
levels.


>
>>> Uh... If it's a new game, then I doubt that a puny little GeForce 7900GT 
>>> is sufficiently powerful to run it.
>>
>>      PLEASE SWAP ME YOUR 7900GT FOR MY 6600GT!! Heh... ;)
>
> Oh... my God... o_O
>
>>     I don't know why you keep moaning about this. I'm playing Crysis on 
>> mine with fairly good settings. Mostly medium, some low, and some high. I 
>> get around 10 to 18 fps which is 'playable'. Of, course, when I get some 
>> 'heavy' action, it will slow down even further, but it won't lock up, and 
>> I still continue.
>
> Wait - you're playing *Crysis*, the most insanely power-hungry computer 
> game in history, on a GeForce 6 series? 0_0

    Yes, seriously. I've played it *many* times now on this two year old 
6600GT. I can't stress enough that it 'PLAYS'. It plays well enough to enjoy 
it without ripping your GC out and stamping on it. Graphics Cards are weird. 
In the forums over at crymod.com, I've seen guys having trouble playing with 
their 8800GTX's. Why? I have no idea.  :o/

    Most don't, but some have. Go figure. <shrug>




>
> My God... you poor, poor human. x_x

   As I said: SWAP ME!  ;)



>
>>     You know before playing a game that you can disable all of the 
>> services running in the background apart fom MS services? I don't 
>> normally do this, but when I have, I gain about 3-5 fps across the board.
>
> Uh... that would kind of imply that the game is CPU-bound, which doesn't 
> sound right.

    No, it just clears some heavy memory for you as far as I understand it. 
(I might be wrong). Just make sure your internet isn't active though if you 
do it.

   ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>     No, it just clears some heavy memory for you as far as I understand it. 

Virtual memory, much? Maybe Windows' VM algorithm sucks, but I wouldn't 
think it sucks that bad. And you'd need to have a crapload of services 
running before the bookkeeping overhead started to take up noticable 
memory, methinks. On my machine, all the services put together are 100 
meg, which is about 4 times the size of explorer with no windows open. 
Assuming that "mem usage" actually means "in physical memory" and I 
don't have to subtract out the "vm size" to find the working set size. 
Not exactly "heavy memory" either way, methinks. :-)

You should try it and tell us how many FPS it saves you, for real.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:48aa1660@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>     No, it just clears some heavy memory for you as far as I understand 
>> it.
>
> Virtual memory, much? Maybe Windows' VM algorithm sucks, but I wouldn't
> think it sucks that bad. And you'd need to have a crapload of services
> running before the bookkeeping overhead started to take up noticable
> memory, methinks. On my machine, all the services put together are 100
> meg, which is about 4 times the size of explorer with no windows open.
> Assuming that "mem usage" actually means "in physical memory" and I
> don't have to subtract out the "vm size" to find the working set size.
> Not exactly "heavy memory" either way, methinks. :-)

   Well, maybe not, but it does make a difference.

>
> You should try it and tell us how many FPS it saves you, for real.

   Sure. See the attached. This is quite a heavy scene from my map in the 
editor. Screen1_mem is with all services on. Screen2_mem is with only 9 
non-essential services turned off. I more or less managed to get the shots 
in the same position, but notice the difference. Now, when you're running 
along a clear road, I can see that being a good 3 to 5 fps gain, (probably 
more).

    ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'screen2_mem.jpg' (89 KB) Download 'screen1_mem.jpg' (88 KB)

Preview of image 'screen2_mem.jpg'

Preview of image 'screen1_mem.jpg'