| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
Big battles suck. Enough said. The game lags so much it skips every third keystroke (forget doing sword combos, you end up standing with the sword behind your back for five seconds while monsters chop you up). Some monsters become randomly invincible to your attacks, magic or weapons, halfway through the battle. Spells can't lock on - Death to the Undead couldn't for the life of it lock on the skeleton mage. Every time opposition charges you and you want to use a spell, it's coitus interruptus - someone hits you before you can squeeze out an attack.
God damn it developers, fix it in Gothic 2. Stop it from lagging so much in big battles, come up with a better control scheme and FIX THE FARKEN' ATTACK COLLISION DETECTION, IT IS REALLY FRUSTRATING WHEN OUT OF 5 SLASHES ONLY 1 CAUSES DAMAGE! SAME FOR SPELLS! |
Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:47 am |
|
|
AgEnTsMiTh(AWG)
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Feb 2002
Posts: 11
Location: California |
I never at anytime had this issue, sounds like you need a better video card and or more memory, I have a Gforce 3 and the game never did ANYTHING you state. |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:28 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
Hmmm...
Not construktive post.
What about your specs?
If you think that with P250 and Intel 8Mb integrated graphic card you can play this game...
If you have GForce2 adn 1200 MHz proc, then there are other questions: do you have newest DirectX, suitable drivers for you graphic/sound card, defragmented harddisk, not many programs running on background...?
If you want help, then there is not enough info in your post.
If you just want to say thinks like "damn developers, battle sux..." then this is not right place to do it.
|
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:37 am |
|
|
Alistair
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 151
Location: Cambridge, England |
Perhaps the original poster would post his or her specs. I am interested in how this engine performs on different machines.
There haven't been that many threads on performance I could find. (My 1600+, 256 MB, GF2 is fine everywhere. But so was my C500, 128 MB, GF2.)
I'm interested because some of the graphics changes I'm making for my Mod effectively increase the poly count, and I'd like to know to what extent this will rule out lower end machines... |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 8:07 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
I really think, that performance of this game depends on graphic card.
There was post from user with PII 350 Mhz and GForce2 GTS (interesting combination  ) and he reported that game performs good.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Danicek on 2002-03-02 02:11 ] |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 8:10 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
This not-so-anonymous poster delivered far too few details to discuss his problems. |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 8:57 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Hi folks,
If you want some information on performance, there it is. I have a 1GHz Athlon, with 256 Mb RAM and a TNT2Ultra graphic card. I play in 800x600x32, with 100% fog range, and high detail for models and texture (pretty much what the game set by default except the resolution that I increased). The game runs ok most of the time, BUT in certain areas lags quite dramatically.
For instance, in the OC, the region where your assigned hut is (arena sector) seems to be too demanding for my box, the whole thing becomes almost a slide show. Apparently, from the data provided by the FPS meter in marvin-mode, this particular zone has a quite high count of "tridis" (or whatever it is is displayed in addition of the FPS).
Following the advice of this board, I bought an extra 256 Mb of RAM, and I'm sad to say that although this has slightly improved loading times and strain on my swap space, this has had no impact on in-game performance.
Just to be complete, I also tried putting the settings to their worse (i.e "Best performance" presets), and it didn't change much (except the whole thing was uglier).
I plan on upgrading my video card, and hope this will improve the situation. I'm still able to play the game, but in one or two occasions, I had to lure monsters out of a lagging area to be able to fight them without most of my strokes being sent to lagland.
Thanks for reading. |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:40 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
quote:
On 2002-03-02 04:40, Anonymous wrote:
Hi folks,
If you want some information on performance, there it is. I have a 1GHz Athlon, with 256 Mb RAM and a TNT2Ultra graphic card.
I really recommend to upgrade graphic card (if it is possible).
With this box and not expensive graphic card, you should be able to run in higher resulotions. Here is example:
I have 800 MHz TBird, 256 SDRAM 100 MHz, Asus 7700 GForce2 GTS 32 MB graphic card and run at highest details at 1152*864 with visible range 300%. I expirienced only few and really minor slowdowns.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Danicek on 2002-03-02 05:07 ] |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:06 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Itīs obviously the bandwidth impaired graphics card. Have a look at this 8 months old chart. With latest drivers the performance delta should be even bigger.
http://www.rivastation.com/vgacharts_e.htm
If you look at Q3A, as an example of a bandwidth sensitive game, itīs safe to say that (a) a GeForce 3 is most likely a waste of money and (b) an upgrade to a GeForce2 Pro / Ti gives you 3-4 times the 3D-performance you have now.
To measure comparable results to Danicek and me you should download Cacheman (search the forums), to optimize swapping and memory, increase the resolution to 1024*768*32 with max. details and type 'toggle frame' in the console.
I get 19-20 fps normally, 17-19 when I walk to Thorusīs location (castle entrance) and 15-17 fps when hell breaks loose. My system: TB 850, 512MB, Voodoo 5500. On a GeForce2-MX it was considerably slower.
I bet youīll have problems staying above 10 fps on your TNT2-Ultra. |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:47 am |
|
|
Olgerth Heidern
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 20 Feb 2002
Posts: 106
Location: Moscow, Russia / Boston MA, US |
On the subject of the occassional creature invulnerability, I encountered it as well, and had a chance to see an NPC being affected by it.
Remember the templar who guards the Swampcamp against the sharks? Well, I lured one close to him, he started fighting it. He would hit it twice, it would recoil and come right back at him. I watched them go at it for almost ten minutes; I know that even I can kill a swampshark faster with lower strength and worse weapon.
On the subject of spell lock-on problems, yes it happened to me too as described in the original post (skeleton mage). I had to summon a golem to get through there. Additionally, Iceblock could not lock on to the fire golem at X-tower; firing it would create blocks of ice on the landscape and the golem just kept coming.
As for slowdowns, I slow down a hell lot in the New Camp. Not a very well designed area.
My piece of junk box: PII-450, 192MB RAM, VooDoo 5500. Got Cacheman already.
_________________
Our hearts are free of anger,
Our cause we know is just,
Kill not for joy or hatred,
We fight because we must. |
|
Sat Mar 02, 2002 3:56 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:51 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
