Author Topic: Splinter Cell (Read 836 times)

SunKing · « **on:** February 23, 2003, 11:45:19 PM »

Got myself a copy of the retail.

Awesome, best single player game in years.

The shadows and lighting in this game are reason enough to finally buy that 9700pro card you've been contemplating.

Fishu · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2003, 06:09:51 AM »

It's a game which makes my XP1600 + GF4 Ti42 feel tad old :I

vorticon · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2003, 08:55:20 AM »

seems better on x-box...i still think that metal gear solid 2 is better even though the ending kind of puts you off playing anymore...the entire story line is a little errr scarey

Mini D · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:02:13 AM »

Is it 3rd person only, or is there a first person perspective option too?

MiniD

SLO · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:14:23 AM »

nice game from input i had from friends who dnloaded via internet ha**

errr it was free:p

u can play from low end machines very well from what they says....

Fishu · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2003, 12:36:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Nah, it runs great on my old Athlon 1400, Gf-3 in 1024x768. A bit choppy in the big scenes, but ok.

I'm running with 1024x768@32bit :>

32bit might explain alot...

Sometimes it becomes "laggish", noticeable when turning/mouse movement gets slower.

Kirin · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2003, 01:05:46 PM »

Vorticon - why should it be better on the X-Box? Same, if not higher level of detail at higher resolution, refined control (mouse wheel controls pace of movement), save option... hmm

vorticon · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2003, 01:20:31 PM »

i dont know why its better but it is...

moose · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2003, 01:47:45 PM »

i think that witha gf4 or rad 9700 this game would look much better then on xbox. tv's are so horrible for viewing anyway. i'll take a monitor anyday.

narsus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2003, 02:08:23 PM »

but if you are playing it on a 51 inch TV then it is better, I have it on both, and the controls IMO is better on the x-box.

I guess it's the way i view games, driving and flying on the computer, everything else on a console.

Animal · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2003, 03:02:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Is it 3rd person only, or is there a first person perspective option too?

MiniD

Its 3rd person, but not Tomb Raider style.
The camera moves around intelligently. For example, when shooting, you get a pseudo 1st person view that works really well.

When you play it, you'll understand why 1st person wouldnt work, you have to make slow fine movements that will only work if you are watching your character from outside.

The game is really well done. If you try to outfight your enemies, you are dead. This is all about sneaking around to complete the objectives. And the graphics are gorgeous.

vorticon · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2003, 07:23:23 PM »

not to scarey but different...very different...especcially considering he started out as a commando...

its better gameplay wise than metal gear:solid but the story line is a bit odd

of course it was 3 in the morning and i had been drinking the entire time i was playing it so it may be a little different

play it and find out what tis really like

Fishu · « **Reply #12 on:** February 24, 2003, 11:43:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Heh, My GF-3 is running 32 bits too. Think most of the effects would be slower in 16 bit, without hardware opacity/alfa/transparency.

16bit doesn't differ from 32bit in any way what comes to basic 3d functions.
32bit just has more colours, which makes up for smoother colour blending.

16bit should always work with higher FPS than 32bit, or else theres something badly wrong or something revolutionary

Radeons doesn't have so much difference between the two, but 32bit is still tad slower.

Anyway.. might have something to do with the max details I like to use

Octavius · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2003, 11:58:01 PM »

Just download the demo if ya want to try it out.

Ran pretty good on my Geforce3 with 1.2ghz Ahtlon...

I'm sure it'll kick bellybutton with my new Radeon 9500.

Downloading now ...

Vulcan · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2003, 03:40:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
16bit doesn't differ from 32bit in any way what comes to basic 3d functions.
32bit just has more colours, which makes up for smoother colour blending.

16bit should always work with higher FPS than 32bit, or else theres something badly wrong or something revolutionary
Radeons doesn't have so much difference between the two, but 32bit is still tad slower.

Anyway.. might have something to do with the max details I like to use

Except that Geforce cards internally process stuff at 32bit no matter what you select. The only speed difference comes from high resolutions where memory bandwidth may hamper the speed. IE, @ 800 x 600 32 vs 16 is exactly the same. @ 1600 x1200 depending on the card you'll notice a difference.