The Latest On S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sat May 24, 2003 2:48 am

[ -> N/A]

<html><body>A couple days ago I reported about S.T.A.L.K.E.R.’s release date being pushed back to September 2004. It appears that this is true based on confirmation from <A HREF=http://www.gamestar.de/news/pc-spiele/action/12729/ target=_blank>Gamestar</A>. Such a delay sounds rather extreme to me, but anything could happen.In related news, there’s a handful of new screenshots taken from a Geforce FX powered machine. They display the advanced lighting engine and other crazy details in the game. You can find them over <A HREF=http://content.guru3d.com/article.php?c ... enumber=18 target=_blank>here</A>. Thanks to Stephen for the tip.</body></html>

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:10 am

I don't like those NVIDIA shenanigans at all, especially given the recent tomfoolery NVIDIA has been pulling to make the FX 5900 not look like shit. I've got this crazy idea that a game should be designed to run well on all major hardware. Silly me.

BlackDog · Post by **BlackDog** » Sat May 24, 2003 2:06 pm

Spazmo wrote:I don't like those NVIDIA shenanigans at all, especially given the recent tomfoolery NVIDIA has been pulling to make the FX 5900 not look like shit. I've got this crazy idea that a game should be designed to run well on all major hardware. Silly me.

Apparantly you've not looked at benchmarks. It doesn't look like shit, its neck and neck with the 256 mb Radeon 9800. Give it up, fanboy.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:27 pm

BlackDog: NVIDIA is cheating! They had some hidden code in the drivers they gave Futuremark that boosted their scores by 25%. When Futuremark removed that bit of cheating, the Radeon once again whooped the FX 5900. It's all over the big hardware sites. NVIDIA knows what they're making is garbage and they have to cheat to compensate.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:36 pm

BlackDog wrote:
Spazmo wrote:I don't like those NVIDIA shenanigans at all, especially given the recent tomfoolery NVIDIA has been pulling to make the FX 5900 not look like shit. I've got this crazy idea that a game should be designed to run well on all major hardware. Silly me.
Apparantly you've not looked at benchmarks. It doesn't look like shit, its neck and neck with the 256 mb Radeon 9800. Give it up, fanboy.

n00b 2 th3 m4xX!!

Apparently, you have no f*cking idea of what you're talking about.

http://www.rage3d.com/articles/atidawning/

"It runs 15% faster than NV30 on the 9800pro, and it also runs faster than NV35 (we are unable to personally confirm this but a user with both cards and FRAPS could)."

Pathetic, a visual demo, designed for Nvidia, running better on a
ATI card.

Nvidia is going down, hard. Unfortunately, but true....

NVIDIA is cheating!

Nvidia weren't cheating.. it was an accident afaik...
It was on a danish discussion board few months back,
it was concluded that nvidia wasn't cheating, but if you have
some proof or something, I'd like to see it.

Give it up, fanboy.

How come people insist on using fanboy all the time....?
I'd say you're at least as Fanboy as Spazmo, since you're
defending Nvidia, the way you are...

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat May 24, 2003 3:46 pm

Not a few months ago, Smiley. NVIDIA sent some FX 5900s around to the hardware sites with special custom drivers. These drivers were 'optimized' to cheat in 3DMark 2003.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sat May 24, 2003 4:55 pm

Who gives a shit?

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat May 24, 2003 5:36 pm

Megatron wrote:Who gives a shit?

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sat May 24, 2003 6:04 pm

Megatron wrote:Who gives a shit?

I was about to say the same thing.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat May 24, 2003 7:34 pm

People who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a video card that's nowhere near as good as advertised when a much better card is availible at a much better price.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Sat May 24, 2003 7:45 pm

Spazmo has a point there, but take in to account he is Canadian so he probably has SARs.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sat May 24, 2003 8:01 pm

Spazmo wrote:People who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a video card that's nowhere near as good as advertised when a much better card is availible at a much better price.

You have to be somekinda bumbling dumbass to buy a video card as soon as it comes out. Everybody lies or exaggerates system specs. Wait 3-6 months for some believable reviews and price drops.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat May 24, 2003 8:15 pm

Hammer wrote:Spazmo has a point there, but take in to account he is Canadian so he probably has SARs.

Hammer has a point there, but he's American, so he's probably an inbred, bucktoothed hillbilly.

MadMaxRW wrote:You have to be somekinda bumbling dumbass to buy a video card as soon as it comes out. Everybody lies or exaggerates system specs. Wait 3-6 months for some believable reviews and price drops.

The in-depth reviews usually come before the release of the card to the public. You are right about not being an early adopter, though. It's not really worth the cash. However, I don't think there's ever any excuse for lying about your product.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sat May 24, 2003 9:39 pm

Spazmo wrote:
Hammer wrote:Spazmo has a point there, but take in to account he is Canadian so he probably has SARs.
Hammer has a point there, but he's American, so he's probably an inbred, bucktoothed hillbilly.

TouchÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â©.

Well I bought the 9700 as soon as it came out and I didn't regret it.
I think it's ever bit of its price worth, and I'm sure Hammer agrees.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat May 24, 2003 9:50 pm

Smiley wrote:Well I bought the 9700 as soon as it came out and I didn't regret it.
I think it's ever bit of its price worth, and I'm sure Hammer agrees.

I bet the 9800 is too.. whoops I guess you might have jumped the gun there.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat May 24, 2003 9:56 pm

The 9700 and 9800 were over half a year apart, greese. It's not like the got a 9700 and the 9800 popped up the next day.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat May 24, 2003 9:59 pm

Spazmo wrote:The 9700 and 9800 were over half a year apart, greese. It's not like the got a 9700 and the 9800 popped up the next day.

for $400, half a year is the next day.

Smiley · Post by **Smiley** » Sat May 24, 2003 10:11 pm

axelgreese wrote:
Spazmo wrote:The 9700 and 9800 were over half a year apart, greese. It's not like the got a 9700 and the 9800 popped up the next day.
for $400, half a year is the next day.

I'm sure it is for a poor man like you.

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Sat May 24, 2003 10:13 pm

6 months is nothing. I usually get a new video card every 18 months. It's not like I can't afford a new one each week, but I chose not to throw my money away.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat May 24, 2003 10:14 pm

Smiley wrote:I'm sure it is for a poor man like you.

well for me, $400 is like... 2 years.