MasterSasuke Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 still a nice score.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Dude, it's not poor game design, in fact, it's what makes Resident Evil different and better than many of the other FPSs.However I look at it? I'm looking at it from a professional stand-point. I'm certain they've tested each of the resident evil games trying to see if it would be anywhere near as good if one was able to move around and shoot at the same time, it does make sense when they are runing at you because exactly that. Of course they're going to make the enemies faster, why would they keep the same slow enemies game after game after game? they're going to make changes that'll make the game better, harder, and scarier than the ones before. They are running at you full speed, and you're there scared out of your mind with your weapon pulled and slowly backing up, trying to shoot them before they get to you, I'd call that extremely good design for a horror game, wouldn't you think? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 18, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 18, 2009 I averaged 50.0 FPS at 1680x1050, 4xAA, and everything maxed out in DX10 mode. I have a Core2Duo E6750 @ 3.2 GHz, Radeon HD 4870 512MB, 8GB DDR2-800 RAM, and Windows Vista Ultimate x64 w/ SP2. Area 3 seems to perform poorly with ATI video cards. I had about 25-30 FPS in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Saying it adds to the tension is just a cop out, there is no reason to make the player stuck to the spot when aiming when a big group of fast moving zombies are running towards you, it worked well when the zombies were slow shambling beasts, its just an excuse for poor game design.No this isnt my first resident evil, ive played and finished all Resident Evil games bar Resident Evil 4, ive read all the books, watched all the films, etc.. etc.. etc.. Just tried the benchmark: 70.5FPS Average hardly ever dipped below 60 but i would probably put Vsync on as there was lots of screen tearing. 1920x1200, 4xAA everything else on max/high. Shotgun + head shots makes your world wonderful. If it doesn't kill a lot of them out right with some nice head explosions it'll knock them to the ground where you can pull out your pistol and open fire on their heads that way. Anyways, it's been a while since I played RE4..I thought you could walk and aim at the same time, I don't remember. In any case, it's just the Resident Evil style. If they made it where you could run and gun it would just be like any other fps game out there. Believe it or not it does add some amount of tactical decision making to the game. But I have no idea how that'll work in RE5 where you have another person tagging along with you most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted July 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 18, 2009 I'm not an avid Resident Evil fan but I played a few of the older games on the consoles, so I might have missed a few of the 'newer' games. One thing that annoys me to no end, playing the Xbox 360 Demo and watching the variable benchmark is the way the zombies take the hit. That static, forced animation that looks like something out of Time Crisis - It looks horrible! Shooting a zombie on a ladder and it goes into a major spasm, warps off the ladder and hits the ground at 200 mph. Shooting a zombie on the ground 'resets' the animation, making it stand up again, just to fall to the ground, again! Blood sprays look totally out of place and everything seems so "overacted". Perhaps it isn't a major issue for some but it looks so god damn awful it completely destroys that "I want this game" feeling. What happened to decent static animations or physics for that matter? Yeah, perhaps I'm too picky :laugh: Nope you're right, the shooting in RE5 feels horrible. If you haven't played RE4 I'd recommend it instead, it's really good on the Wii, but we all know Sethos doesn't have a Wii :p Although the crappy forced Co-Op is the worst part of RE5 for me, not the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterSasuke Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 No. lmao, you're one funny loser but yeah, trag3dy has a point, if you do not like the stand-still shooting, then the game was made easier for you kids by giving you a partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+longgonebn Subscriber² Posted July 20, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 20, 2009 Remind me about FPS, what are movies? What should it be? I see some people hitting 100, most people say 30FPS is normal, but then some say 60FPS? Very confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Generally in games people consider anything over 30fps as 'playable'. But there is no 'normal' fps because every persons computer has different hardware and software configurations that affect your fps. I'm sure someone else can answer your question better than I can, though. Have a read through the wiki article about it, if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+longgonebn Subscriber² Posted July 20, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 20, 2009 Just did mine. It's really only the videocard (8800GT) causing problems, last upgrade needed. Though by the time I can get a new one, I'll be getting a i7 system and all that. But for some reason my printscreen only got a black image. I got an average of 28.8FPS with everything maxed out possible, 1680x1050, DX10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slammers Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Remind me about FPS, what are movies? What should it be? I see some people hitting 100, most people say 30FPS is normal, but then some say 60FPS? Very confusing. I believe most movies are 24-30 fps depending on the region etc, and yeh, most people consider 30+ to be playable. Obviously you notice a lower framerate much more in games with more movement and camera panning. Some people can't live with under 60+ me personally I find anything over 25+ solid without skipping to be playable with anything over 40 being really nice and smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 21, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2009 I re-ran the benchmark and averaged 60.0 FPS in DX9 mode. I can't notice any differences between DX9 and DX10 mode. I'll wait for some side-by-side screenshots to showcase the 'hard to see' differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I re-ran the benchmark and averaged 60.0 FPS in DX9 mode. I can't notice any differences between DX9 and DX10 mode. I'll wait for some side-by-side screenshots to showcase the 'hard to see' differences. I didn't notice any difference between DX9 and DX10 either. But one thing I have noticed is that the person who played through that to demo the game for the benchmark sucks. :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 22, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 22, 2009 I didn't notice any difference between DX9 and DX10 either. But one thing I have noticed is that the person who played through that to demo the game for the benchmark sucks. :rofl: It seemed as though it was a bot that played. The way the character looked around seemed so artificial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindTrickz Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 It seemed as though it was a bot that played. The way the character looked around seemed so artificial. It must have been because he/she was just running past the zombies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svnO.o Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I wasn't able to take a screenshot since I ran it in full screen mode and it came out blank/black but I managed to get an average of 65 FPS in variable mode (8xAA, DirectX 9.0C, 1680x1050 resolution, and all other settings maxed out). This is with 2x Radeon HD 4770s in CF overclocked from default 750/800MHz to 850/940MHz (core/mem) and CPU @ 3.70GHz. The first 2 scenes ran at ~100FPS while the last 2 ran at ~30FPS if I recall (not sure why exactly). In DX10 mode I was getting around 10FPS less on average (maybe even a bit less). I didn't notice much difference in quality between DX10 mode and DX9 so I think I'll probably use DX9 instead once I get the game (did the same thing with Crysis). Tested the benchmark under Windows 7 x64 using ATI Catalyst 9.8. It seemed as though it was a bot that played. The way the character looked around seemed so artificial. I figured it was a person was using an xbox 360 controller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts