Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Video leaked

[bhlaab]

I'm playing it at 1680x1050 windows xp. But I can set it to 640x480 and it runs about the same.

 

[dragonfk]

I'm playing it at 1680x1050 windows xp. But I can set it to 640x480 and it runs about the same.

Proof that's not hardware related. Is it a clean install of win xp?

 

[bhlaab]

I'm playing it at 1680x1050 windows xp. But I can set it to 640x480 and it runs about the same.

Proof that's not hardware related. Is it a clean install of win xp?

Fairly clean. I had to do a complete format of my c: drive last month because of some hard drive issues.

 

[Gerrard]

20 is decent FPS

Stop being stupid. 20 is "Still playable. Somewhat.".

 

[Licaon_Kter]

I'm playing it at 1680x1050 windows xp. But I can set it to 640x480 and it runs about the same.

oops, my mistake, that was another user
anyway, get the latest DirectX from August 2009: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... 712d553#tm

any antivirus running? game patched to 1.5? TAGES removed?

oh, but my previous statement is correct, that CPU kills your video card, can you do a 3DMark2006 test on default so we can compare your results ? ( post the general score and the 3 separate SM2/SM3/CPU scores )

 

[DraQ]

20 is decent FPS

Stop being stupid. 20 is "Still playable. Somewhat.".

15 is, you bourgeois faggot.

 

[Gerrard]

20 is decent FPS

Stop being stupid. 20 is "Still playable. Somewhat.".

15 is, you bourgeois faggot.

If you're playing a turn based game.

 

[DraQ]

I have played first person shooters at 12, sonny.

 

[Gerrard]

I have played first person shooters at 12, sonny.

Then you should know what a pain in the ass it is.

 

[DraQ]

I have played first person shooters at 12, sonny.

Then you should know what a pain in the ass it is.

Yes, 15 is minimum for a game to be fully playable.

 

[Gerrard]

You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?

 

[DraQ]

You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?

No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.

 

[Berekän]

I'm with DraQ here, if it doesn't drop from 20 fps it's perfectly playable, more FPS makes it smoother but it doesn't really makes a difference in gameplay.

 

[Licaon_Kter]

FAQ: http://www.gry-online.pl/S018.asp?id=547

 

[Darth Roxor]

The game does not use the Aurora Engine anymore.

\o/

 

[Satori (original)]

\o/

Kinda, but at least the Aurora Engine was a known quantity.

 

[treave]

So CDProjekt RED are using an in-house engine now? I wonder if their team have had any prior experience in developing one. Hope it won't be horribly buggy.

 

[Lesifoere]

I maintain that it can be no worse than Aurora.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?

No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.

Yes, I'm happy when my games get 20-30 FPS because they're fully playable. Anything above that is obviously welcome, but not necessary.

 

[1eyedking]

You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?

No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.

Fuck you. I like playing games, not fucking slideshows.

 

[DraQ]

You're one of those "human eye can't see above 25FPS" people, huh?

No. But 25 FPS is perfectly good for any decent entertainment. It takes about 60 for a game to be ultra smooth, but complaining about not having this 60FPS is like complaining that Fallout sucks because it doesn't have bloom.

Fuck you. I like playing games, not fucking slideshows.

FPS whore.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

I wonder if their team have had any prior experience in developing one.

They like totally didn't rewritten Aurora so it worked properly.

 

[treave]

I maintain that it can be no worse than Aurora.

They like totally didn't rewritten Aurora so it worked properly.

I'm ashamed to admit that I did not play Neverwinter Nights 1.

Were the improvements just graphical or did they, like, totally rework almost everything in the engine until only the name was left, or, should I, like, just go check out those old developer diaries instead of sitting here like the fat scum that I am waiting for people to feed me answers?

 

[Lesifoere]

Were the improvements just graphical or did they, like, totally rework almost everything in the engine until only the name was left, or, should I, like, just go check out those old developer diaries instead of sitting here like the fat scum that I am waiting for people to feed me answers?

The UI was completely changed, the graphics were thoroughly revamped. So were the camera, controls, and D&D rules and basically almost nothing recognizable of Aurora was left.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It still "feels" like Aurora to me, does it count