Far Cry 3 benchmarks coming in

  • 196 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by Cranler (8705 posts) -

[QUOTE="attirex"]OK, all this geeky hardware talk is peachy, but.........IS THE GAME GOOD? (for those of you lucky enough to have it already) :-)seanmcloughlin

Yes, the game is excellent. Great gunplay and really good stealth. responsive controls. Story isn't all that bad either and some characters are great. Main character is kinda lame but I get what they were going for and the game escalates a bit too fast for a proper narrative but it just means you can start killing things faster.

Does the cover system work well? Does it work against any object or does it only work in certain locations like Crysis 2?
#102 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="attirex"]OK, all this geeky hardware talk is peachy, but.........IS THE GAME GOOD? (for those of you lucky enough to have it already) :-)Cranler

Yes, the game is excellent. Great gunplay and really good stealth. responsive controls. Story isn't all that bad either and some characters are great. Main character is kinda lame but I get what they were going for and the game escalates a bit too fast for a proper narrative but it just means you can start killing things faster.

Does the cover system work well? Does it work against any object or does it only work in certain locations like Crysis 2?

Seems to be any object he can crouch and lean over. Like fences or low rocks. It works pretty well and it's dynamic so you don't have to hold a button to do it like Crysis 2. Just hide and when you aim he comes out of the cover automatically to shoot and when you stop aiaming he goes back down.

#103 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

[QUOTE="SPBoss"]That must be wrong, i've maxed everything out including 4aa @1080p and it doesnt dip below 50fps on my overlcocked gtx 580seanmcloughlin

The game isn't actually all that taxing now that I've played it. Everything maxed except MSAA (cos it's not needed IMO and runs like ass) but everything else at absolute max at 1080p I stay in the 50s most times on my 670. Only times I dip to 30 are in that main hub village you start in, but there's a tonne of detail in that place. In the wilderness it's butter smooth almost constant.

Good to hear. Is your GPU OC'd and is your game patched (if the patch is even available for you yet)?

#104 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -
Alright Ubi, This is the height of BS. I cant connect to servers so a whole host of single player features are broken. No crafting, no skills, no rucksack. Not only that it seems to effect performance too. Yesterday I had 70fps. today, 40fps. WTH is this sh!t!
#105 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

This is one of the worst AO implementations I've ever seen, it's like an early gen effort:lol: Those poor console players are stuck with SSAO!

Pro-tip: go to Documents/My Games/ Far Cry 3, open GamerProfile with Notepad and set SSAO to 0. It gets rid of any AO, looks better and runs better.

#106 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

This is one of the worst AO implementations I've ever seen, it's like an early gen effort:lol: Those poor console players are stuck with SSAO!

Pro-tip: go to Documents/My Games/ Far Cry 3, open GamerProfile with Notepad and set SSAO to 0. It gets rid of any AO, looks better and runs better.

Baranga
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind whenever I get the game.
#107 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

Yeah well make sure that's the last option you change. The graphics menu doesn't allow you to turn it off, just to switch between three modes. If you change another setting and apply, it will enable AO again.

The frames lost on AO are better spent on Alpha to Coverage (foliage AA).

#108 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

This is one of the worst AO implementations I've ever seen, it's like an early gen effort:lol: Those poor console players are stuck with SSAO!

Pro-tip: go to Documents/My Games/ Far Cry 3, open GamerProfile with Notepad and set SSAO to 0. It gets rid of any AO, looks better and runs better.

Baranga
My hero. THanks! I'll notepad this.
#109 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
[QUOTE="SPBoss"]That must be wrong, i've maxed everything out including 4aa @1080p and it doesnt dip below 50fps on my overlcocked gtx 580mitu123
Is your copy patched?

Good question, and please include drivers when speaking of performance! Thanks!
#110 Posted by Riadon2 (1609 posts) -

Yeah well make sure that's the last option you change. The graphics menu doesn't allow you to turn it off, just to switch between three modes. If you change another setting and apply, it will enable AO again.

The frames lost on AO are better spent on Alpha to Coverage (foliage AA).

Baranga

Can you give a screenshot example of the bad AO?

#111 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -
[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="SPBoss"]That must be wrong, i've maxed everything out including 4aa @1080p and it doesnt dip below 50fps on my overlcocked gtx 580Elann2008
Is your copy patched?

Good question, and please include drivers when speaking of performance! Thanks!

. most will be using the latest beta drivers. Im not sure if there was another patch since yesterday. Does uPlay update automatically like steam? SLI worked brilliantly yesterday, and today, with the servers offline my framerate tanked. I had to go and use another SLI bit which fixed it up again. All I can think of was that there was a patch, but I never saw it patch, at all, since the original first patch yesterday.
#112 Posted by Chris_53 (5105 posts) -
My system: AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.7GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX570, could I run this game well at 1200p (yes I know i have a 1080p monitor in my sig, but im getting a 16:10 monitor next year)
#113 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -
Less then 30 with max everything no AA @ 1200p
#114 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
Less then 30 with max everything no AA @ 1200pdarksusperia
....holy hell....
#115 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -
[QUOTE="darksusperia"]Less then 30 with max everything no AA @ 1200pElann2008
....holy hell....

I get ~34 settings as above @ 1080 single 570. 70+ with both 570s.
#116 Posted by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="darksusperia"]Less then 30 with max everything no AA @ 1200pdarksusperia
....holy hell....

I get ~34 settings as above @ 1080 single 570. 70+ with both 570s.

I'm getting ~34 at minimum settings @ 720p.:P

Still fun though. And doesn't look so bad that it distracts from the fun.

Does look bad.

#117 Posted by DevilMightCry (3476 posts) -
It would be great if ypu can mod this game to fix some thingd like animations, UI, map, etc. Ubisoft games have not been mod friendly recently.
#118 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

I'm getting 60+ fps with all settings on high with 2 aa, and with only around 70 percent used of the 7970. Was a 1080p.

It does drop when i look over a long distance though

#119 Posted by PetJel (3722 posts) -
I'm playing maxed / high except lighting on medium, 4xAA @1080p on a 6950 with phenom 3.4 ghz,patched but without beta drivers, plays smooth. I'll toy around with the settings later, game is great.
#121 Posted by AzatiS (7250 posts) -

Yikes, I certainly hope not.

My 5870 Vapor-X is still going strong with almost all games released, but if that chart is to be believed, I will be in serious trouble.

Far Cry 3 has been my most anticipated FPS this year, so it would really suck if I can only get around 20 frames.

Having said that, I'm having trouble believing that the top cards are only getting low to mid 30's. If that's the case, it looks like we are dealing with another "Crysis".

JohnFifteen12
I dont think FC3 will be another crysis game. Crysis really pushed graphix on another level where FC3 seems as good as FC2. Maybe a little better... Not THAT good to consider it next-gen graphix game. Not even close ( like Crysis was ) . If FC3 gets so low FPS on Mid-range PCs i think games graphix engine is NOT THAT optimized and im blaming that and that alone.
#122 Posted by sew333 (41 posts) -

[QUOTE="sew333"]

Hey. To enable Dx11 i must install the newest BETA drivers, or only patch?


And last question. Can somebody play that game on Gtx 680 with 3770k? How details can i use? Ultra with or without MSAA?

seanmcloughlin

To enable Dx11 you just run thefarcry3_d3d11.exe, or maybe you can just choose in the game menu anyway, but you don't need new drivers for Dx11 at all. The new drivers just help performance (which they really do) You will need to patch the game though as it further increases performance.

With a 680 and 3770k you should be able to max it at 1080p and have very high frames. My system is worse and I get high frames maxed out. Although that's without MSAA.

So i am using now 306.97 WHQL . Performance will be ok, without that BETA drivers?





Or i will be have low performance and i must install necessary that beta drivers:? Simply i want to ask, that somebody played FAR CRY 3 on Gtx 680 on 306.97 WHQL with good framerates?

#123 Posted by RyviusARC (4270 posts) -

I dont think FC3 will be another crysis game. Crysis really pushed graphix on another level where FC3 seems as good as FC2. Maybe a little better... Not THAT good to consider it next-gen graphix game. Not even close ( like Crysis was ) . If FC3 gets so low FPS on Mid-range PCs i think games graphix engine is NOT THAT optimized and im blaming that and that alone.AzatiS

The game looks quite a bit better than FC2.

Without MSAA it runs very well maxed out.

But with MSAA the fps will tank.

Still runs smoothly for me when using max settings and 4xmsaa with a single GTX 570.

#124 Posted by dav2693 (423 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="sew333"]

Hey. To enable Dx11 i must install the newest BETA drivers, or only patch?


And last question. Can somebody play that game on Gtx 680 with 3770k? How details can i use? Ultra with or without MSAA?

sew333

To enable Dx11 you just run thefarcry3_d3d11.exe, or maybe you can just choose in the game menu anyway, but you don't need new drivers for Dx11 at all. The new drivers just help performance (which they really do) You will need to patch the game though as it further increases performance.

With a 680 and 3770k you should be able to max it at 1080p and have very high frames. My system is worse and I get high frames maxed out. Although that's without MSAA.

So i am using now 306.97 WHQL . Performance will be ok, without that BETA drivers?





Or i will be have low performance and i must install necessary that beta drivers:? Simply i want to ask, that somebody played FAR CRY 3 on Gtx 680 on 306.97 WHQL with good framerates?

You should really install the latest beta drivers.

#125 Posted by PetJel (3722 posts) -
Just tried completely maxed + 4x msaa, 1080P, patched but without beta drivers, AMD Phenom 965 3.4 ghz and a 6950, ran decent in open terrain firefights, didn't notice any serious dips yet, but it is more of a console experience and I wouldn't recommend it (20-30 fps). I might lower a few things, try the beta drivers, and see what's optimal for this slightly older build.
#126 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

Don't know how everyone is egtting such bad performance. I have everything maxed to the t!ts except AA is turned off and I get in the 50s constantly. my GPU is slightly overclocked out of the box but not much. And usually my phenom 955 holds me back a bit in other games.Are you guys all running in Dx11 from the Dx11.exe?

Also the AO is only bad on character models with a black glowing edge around them but on stuff like trees and grass it looks better. It's not perfect but it adds a LOT of depth to a grassy scene. With it off everything is just blank and bright looking. There is no shadow depth with it off. I would like to remove the glowing edges but not remove AO completely. I'll get a comparison up later if people wanna see

#127 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

Another GamerProfile tweak, make it look like this in Notepad (can't post the text because Gamespot sucks balls):

ibqyk1G5hUfQpq.png0 tuns the setting off, 1 enables it. GameDepthOfField masks the horrible distance LOD textures, you should keep it. Cinematic is an ugly pixelated bokeh filter, see it in action before you decide what to do with it. FXAA is myopia, get rid of it. id should be set to whatever you post-processing setting is in the menu.

And remember, apply these tweaks after you configure everything in the menus.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Yeah well make sure that's the last option you change. The graphics menu doesn't allow you to turn it off, just to switch between three modes. If you change another setting and apply, it will enable AO again.

The frames lost on AO are better spent on Alpha to Coverage (foliage AA).

Riadon2

Can you give a screenshot example of the bad AO?

Not my pic. This is SSAO. The higher you go the more accurate it is but the framerate tanks. HDAO is the best but it ain't worth it.

#128 Posted by Hydrolex (1454 posts) -

it's the anti aliasing which kills it !

but theres no difference btw on and off... looks the same to me ?

#129 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3642 posts) -
Runs at a smooth 60fps for me :)
#130 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

it's the anti aliasing which kills it !

but theres no difference btw on and off... looks the same to me ?

Hydrolex

Yeah the AA kills everything and when it's off there are hardly any jaggies around anyway. The game doesn't need it. Only time I like MSAA on is when you see trees against a white or bright sky, other than that it's the same

#131 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

Not my pic. This is SSAO. The higher you go the more accurate it is but the framerate tanks. HDAO is the best but it ain't worth it.

Baranga

Yeah on the character it looks bad, but look at the barrels to the side and the depth it gives between them, also the struts on the shack inside have a nice shadow effect beside them and it gives a more 3D effect to everything. If you remove AO the barrels have no shadows between them, same for the shack inside would be very bland. And also the palm trees lose that darkening effect under their leaves too.

AO looks bad on character models but that's it, otherwise it adds a lot of nice shadow detail to a scene. The shadows are dull and lifeless with it completely off. But I will agree on the DOF in the distance, it looks alright sometimes but most times it's very distracting

Also you should be showing comparison shots to people of these things rather than telling them what to change with no clear sign of what it does. Some people haven't played the game at all yet.

#132 Posted by with_teeth26 (6055 posts) -

I just played the first hour, the good is that it runs great for me on Ultra with 2xMSAA, HBAO and that other setting on enhanced, using a GTX 670 FTW and i5-2500k at 4.0ghz, so far its been staying between 60-80fps.

The bad is that the HUD is so intrusive its almost unplayable for me. Its not at the edge of the screen for me but almost a third of the way in, just super annoying. when only the mini-map is present its ok, but when the objective list for the first mission to collect leaves and such appeared it was hugely intrusive.

I have the same problem with Assassins Creed 3, but at least you can turn it off in that game. I'm not touching this until they give you an option to turn the HUD off, or at least adjust its size and position on the screen.

here is what I mean:

farcry3d3d1120121130104.jpg

the mini-map and objective list are located too far out from the edges, its incredibly intrusive when you are playing.

#133 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

I just played the first hour, the good is that it runs great for me on Ultra with 2xMSAA, HBAO and that other setting on enhanced, using a GTX 670 FTW and i5-2500k at 4.0ghz, so far its been staying between 60-80fps.

The bad is that the HUD is so intrusive its almost unplayable for me. Its not at the edge of the screen for me but almost a third of the way in, just super annoying. when only the mini-map is present its ok, but when the objective list for the first mission to collect leaves and such appeared it was hugely intrusive.

I have the same problem with Assassins Creed 3, but at least you can turn it off in that game. I'm not touching this until they give you an option to turn the HUD off, or at least adjust its size and position on the screen.

here is what I mean:

the mini-map and objective list are located too far out from the edges, its incredibly intrusive when you are playing.

with_teeth26

The HUD is a bit annoying. Especially when your objective pops up every 5 minutes (literal time) reminding you of where to go. And "A new tutorial" keeps popping up. But to not play a great game because of such a complaint is not the way of a gamer. It's intrusive but after a while you get so immersed that you forget about it

#134 Posted by kozzy1234 (35153 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="sew333"]

Hey. To enable Dx11 i must install the newest BETA drivers, or only patch?


And last question. Can somebody play that game on Gtx 680 with 3770k? How details can i use? Ultra with or without MSAA?

sew333

To enable Dx11 you just run thefarcry3_d3d11.exe, or maybe you can just choose in the game menu anyway, but you don't need new drivers for Dx11 at all. The new drivers just help performance (which they really do) You will need to patch the game though as it further increases performance.

With a 680 and 3770k you should be able to max it at 1080p and have very high frames. My system is worse and I get high frames maxed out. Although that's without MSAA.

So i am using now 306.97 WHQL . Performance will be ok, without that BETA drivers?





Or i will be have low performance and i must install necessary that beta drivers:? Simply i want to ask, that somebody played FAR CRY 3 on Gtx 680 on 306.97 WHQL with good framerates?

Just get the beta drivers already!

#135 Posted by DevilMightCry (3476 posts) -

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

I just played the first hour, the good is that it runs great for me on Ultra with 2xMSAA, HBAO and that other setting on enhanced, using a GTX 670 FTW and i5-2500k at 4.0ghz, so far its been staying between 60-80fps.

The bad is that the HUD is so intrusive its almost unplayable for me. Its not at the edge of the screen for me but almost a third of the way in, just super annoying. when only the mini-map is present its ok, but when the objective list for the first mission to collect leaves and such appeared it was hugely intrusive.

I have the same problem with Assassins Creed 3, but at least you can turn it off in that game. I'm not touching this until they give you an option to turn the HUD off, or at least adjust its size and position on the screen.

here is what I mean:

the mini-map and objective list are located too far out from the edges, its incredibly intrusive when you are playing.

seanmcloughlin

The HUD is a bit annoying. Especially when your objective pops up every 5 minutes (literal time) reminding you of where to go. And "A new tutorial" keeps popping up. But to not play a great game because of such a complaint is not the way of a gamer. It's intrusive but after a while you get so immersed that you forget about it

I am with him on this one. It's the small things that can ruin otherwise great games.
#136 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

I just played the first hour, the good is that it runs great for me on Ultra with 2xMSAA, HBAO and that other setting on enhanced, using a GTX 670 FTW and i5-2500k at 4.0ghz, so far its been staying between 60-80fps.

The bad is that the HUD is so intrusive its almost unplayable for me. Its not at the edge of the screen for me but almost a third of the way in, just super annoying. when only the mini-map is present its ok, but when the objective list for the first mission to collect leaves and such appeared it was hugely intrusive.

I have the same problem with Assassins Creed 3, but at least you can turn it off in that game. I'm not touching this until they give you an option to turn the HUD off, or at least adjust its size and position on the screen.

here is what I mean:

the mini-map and objective list are located too far out from the edges, its incredibly intrusive when you are playing.

DevilMightCry

The HUD is a bit annoying. Especially when your objective pops up every 5 minutes (literal time) reminding you of where to go. And "A new tutorial" keeps popping up. But to not play a great game because of such a complaint is not the way of a gamer. It's intrusive but after a while you get so immersed that you forget about it

I am with him on this one. It's the small things that can ruin otherwise great games.

Meh, doesn't stop it being a great game at its core or stop me from having fun.

#137 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

I just played the first hour, the good is that it runs great for me on Ultra with 2xMSAA, HBAO and that other setting on enhanced, using a GTX 670 FTW and i5-2500k at 4.0ghz, so far its been staying between 60-80fps.

The bad is that the HUD is so intrusive its almost unplayable for me. Its not at the edge of the screen for me but almost a third of the way in, just super annoying. when only the mini-map is present its ok, but when the objective list for the first mission to collect leaves and such appeared it was hugely intrusive.

I have the same problem with Assassins Creed 3, but at least you can turn it off in that game. I'm not touching this until they give you an option to turn the HUD off, or at least adjust its size and position on the screen.

here is what I mean:

farcry3d3d1120121130104.jpg

the mini-map and objective list are located too far out from the edges, its incredibly intrusive when you are playing.

with_teeth26
Thank you! This is exactly what I meant by the annoying hud. Breaks immersion, and it gets in your way. A mini-map, seriously? And they're all spaced in terribly. Push it to the edge Ubisoft! I won't be buying it. People might say it's fine and it's a bit annoying. To me, it's very annoying, disruptive, and intrusive to my gaming experience.
#138 Posted by with_teeth26 (6055 posts) -

I tried playing a bit more, at times it feels like trying to watch a movie with ads covering half the screen. Or trying to read a book while wearing glasses that have large scratches on them. Its distracting enough to massively damage the experience.

I'll play the role of a blasphemer and say that so far I think Far Cry 2 is better. Based only on very early impressions of course, but at least that game was immersive.

Apparenlty FC3 has mod support so maybe someone will find a way to remove or at least adjust the HUD.

#139 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

Increasing the FOV helps a bit with the HUD - it won't move closer to the edge but the tunnel effect is reduced.

#140 Posted by rhazzy (1516 posts) -

[QUOTE="AzatiS"]I dont think FC3 will be another crysis game. Crysis really pushed graphix on another level where FC3 seems as good as FC2. Maybe a little better... Not THAT good to consider it next-gen graphix game. Not even close ( like Crysis was ) . If FC3 gets so low FPS on Mid-range PCs i think games graphix engine is NOT THAT optimized and im blaming that and that alone.RyviusARC

The game looks quite a bit better than FC2.

Without MSAA it runs very well maxed out.

But with MSAA the fps will tank.

Still runs smoothly for me when using max settings and 4xmsaa with a single GTX 570.

You are using DX 9...thats why your fps are ok.

Even if you set it to DX11 from the game menu...it still runs in dx9...and all the MSAA you apply wont have any effect!

Run the game from the DX11 .exe...and then tell me how well you run the game with 4xMSAA

#141 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

I tried playing a bit more, at times it feels like trying to watch a movie with ads covering half the screen. Or trying to read a book while wearing glasses that have large scratches on them. Its distracting enough to massively damage the experience.

I'll play the role of a blasphemer and say that so far I think Far Cry 2 is better. Based only on very early impressions of course, but at least that game was immersive.

Apparenlty FC3 has mod support so maybe someone will find a way to remove or at least adjust the HUD.

with_teeth26

From a gameplay and mission standpoint, FC3 is head and shoulders above FC2. It's not even close. Gunplay and enemy AI have been massively reworked to actually play well this time. Stealth is actually a viable option now and the guns feel good to use. Not to mention this game actually has a decent enough story with very memorable characters. I can't even remember half the story or characters in FC2. I have not got bored even once in FC3 yet and that's saying a lot for an ope world game. It just gives you a lot of freedom to play the game however you want which is a mark most open world games miss, and I haven't been forced into a full on gunfight at all yet in the game and that's a really ahrd thing to pull off these days.

From an environment/world standpoint that's entirely up to your tastes. FC3 benefits a bit from more colour and a better version of the engine.

Not saying you're wrong for liking FC2 more (so far), just expressing my thoughts on the matter, then again I hated FC2. It had such wasted potential. FC3 nails things.

#142 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

I disagree with all the above except memorable characters.

Stealth is so overpowered it's not fun at all.

All the Assassin's Creed styIe chores drive me insane. It's a singleplayer MMO!

The fire was nerfed.

I like the new action movie physics applied to vehicles if you shoot the driver.

#143 Posted by PetJel (3722 posts) -

Posting again to share info with people that have similar specs and wondering about performance;

-3.4 ghz quad core, 4gig ram and a 6950

-patched game

-still not using the beta drivers tho

-1080P, 4x MSAA, preset on very high, using DX11 launched from the dx11.exe

-Very playable. Don't expect a solid 60fps but the game won't have any serious dips even in huge firefights with explosions and fire everywhere. Driving through the world at high speeds is fine too.

Here are 3 screenshots so you can see what 'very high' looks like:

[spoiler]

FC31

FC32

FC33

[/spoiler]

Not bad if I say so myself :)

#144 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -

I disagree with all the above except memorable characters.

Stealth is so overpowered it's not fun at all.

All the Assassin's Creed styIe chores drive me insane. It's a singleplayer MMO!

The fire was nerfed.

I like the new action movie physics applied to vehicles if you shoot the driver.

Baranga



put it the difficulty to hard. On normal everything is OP. Theres a big difference between the 2 settings.

Im just hunting, minding my own business on hard and if your weapon isnt silenced the pirates come looking for you cause they heard gunshots. not just where they thought you were, they hopped in cars and started flanking and being very active even though they never saw me.

#145 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

I disagree with all the above except memorable characters.

Stealth is so overpowered it's not fun at all.

All the Assassin's Creed styIe chores drive me insane. It's a singleplayer MMO!

The fire was nerfed.

I like the new action movie physics applied to vehicles if you shoot the driver.

darksusperia



put it the difficulty to hard. On normal everything is OP. Theres a big difference between the 2 settings.

Im just hunting, minding my own business on hard and if your weapon isnt silenced the pirates come looking for you cause they heard gunshots. not just where they thought you were, they hopped in cars and started flanking and being very active even though they never saw me.

infact, I just did an outpost that I sat in the bushes and camped with the silenced M700 (from the insane edt) and on normal I never got seen, this time, without seeing me, they still found me. Its almost similiar to the annoying AI from FC2 where they know exactly where you are (just not quite that bad).
#146 Posted by nutcrackr (12465 posts) -
Runs a heck of a lot better for me in dx9 and looks about the same as dx11. AO technique needs some work but I think I prefer it on because of foliage and environmental objects. Only annoying thing about the HUD for me is the regular popup of the next mission until you actually do it.
#147 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

Turn down MSAA to improve performance. It's the most taxing video quality option in Far Cry 3. Anyone who thinks Far Cry 3 doesn't look that much better than Far Cry 2 are high on shrooms. :lol:

I've been watching some gameplay videos. I take back what I said. The hud interface isn't that intrusive. I'll definitely pick it up on Dec. 4th when it releases in the states.

#148 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -

Turn down MSAA to improve performance. It's the most taxing video quality option in Far Cry 3. Anyone who thinks Far Cry 3 doesn't look that much better than Far Cry 2 are high on shrooms. :lol:

I've been watching some gameplay videos. I take back what I said. The hud interface isn't that intrusive. I'll definitely pick it up on Dec. 4th when it releases in the states.

Elann2008

its only intrusive at the very start when its telling you everything, most of the time its just the minimap on screen.

also play it on warrior (hard) otherwise you'll cake walk it...

#149 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Turn down MSAA to improve performance. It's the most taxing video quality option in Far Cry 3.

Elann2008

But teh jaggies!

#150 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

Turn down MSAA to improve performance. It's the most taxing video quality option in Far Cry 3.

mitu123

But teh jaggies!

I know! Fudgecakes :( MSAA is hella demanding in this game.