@Brad said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Raven10 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@believer258 said:

Watch the Quick Look. That frame rate is kind of gross for most of it. But it still looks playable, an if you're OK with that and you really want the game, then go for it - and if you like it enough, get it on PC when it goes on sale for crazy cheap a few months from now and play it in all its gorgeous 60FPS glory.

Well not Max settings. The most high end cards are getting about 45 at the most with everything maxed out. Makes a 580 look outdated.

Brad looked like he was getting a pretty solid framerate on the quicklook and it looked significantly better than the console version, so even assuming that was not using DX11, I'm sure even a moderate PC can make the game look vastly superior and run far better than a console.

That was in 720p though.

No it wasn't. 1920x1080 with DX11 enabled, most settings at or near max, and vsync off. It's not hard to get this game looking fantastic and running smoothly on a decent machine, I was getting 40-50fps on my 560 at home with above-average quality settings.

Brad, do you know what GPU the office computer you were using has? That performance and image quality were perfectly fine for me so if I at least meet that then I'll be good.

The game will obviously look better on the PC, but Eurogamer's analysis found that the 360 version doesn't fair too badly during actual gameplay.

And can we just take a moment to acknowledge that for a console that came out in 2005, Far Cry 3 looks pretty damn incredible?

I mean, yeah, the performance isn't as good as it would be on a PC, but for its age the 360 is pumping out some impressive stuff between this and Halo 4.

@Raven10 said:

@Brad said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Raven10 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@believer258 said:

Watch the Quick Look. That frame rate is kind of gross for most of it. But it still looks playable, an if you're OK with that and you really want the game, then go for it - and if you like it enough, get it on PC when it goes on sale for crazy cheap a few months from now and play it in all its gorgeous 60FPS glory.

Well not Max settings. The most high end cards are getting about 45 at the most with everything maxed out. Makes a 580 look outdated.

Brad looked like he was getting a pretty solid framerate on the quicklook and it looked significantly better than the console version, so even assuming that was not using DX11, I'm sure even a moderate PC can make the game look vastly superior and run far better than a console.

That was in 720p though.

No it wasn't. 1920x1080 with DX11 enabled, most settings at or near max, and vsync off. It's not hard to get this game looking fantastic and running smoothly on a decent machine, I was getting 40-50fps on my 560 at home with above-average quality settings.

Brad, do you know what GPU the office computer you were using has? That performance and image quality were perfectly fine for me so if I at least meet that then I'll be good.

Core i7 860 and a GTX 670

So I've already been told that my 6900 shouldn't give me too much grief (as long as I'm willing to drop a few settings, which I'm not) but I figured I should pop back in her to check to see if my i5 2500 is gonna give me any issues.

Thanks in advance.

(Bonus Question: Do you guys think it's worth an extra 10 bucks to get all the pre-order packs and a copy of Far Cry 1?)

Every time I see this type of question I just feel its to rip consoles lol.

@PSNgamesun said:

Every time I see this type of question I just feel its to rip consoles lol.

Yeah I know I kind of risked sending the topic there with my over-simplified title but I think the original post painted a pretty fair picture as to where my conflict was coming from.

@deerokus said:

No.

No to me?

And if so, to which question?

@Brad: Thanks!

@ProfessorEss: yeah i get your post but most people will just ignore all that n just straight up diss the consoles and the console gamer; even tho there are positives on both PCs and consoles as well as negatives.

Lots of people are having issues with the PC version but I've had none. Using an i5 2500@4.2ghz and a 6970 the game autodetected (I'm guessing) the optimal config and put everything on high for me. Game looks great and runs smoothly. Reading stuff about people having problems and asking if their PC will run it makes me wonder why they don't bother putting out demos any more. Or at least a benchmark tool or something. Would be infinitely helpful. I guess because Ubisoft don't really care about PC? Is there a demo of any sort on XBLA/PSN?

If you're unsure about your PC specs I'd just go with 360. I can't imagine any fun being taken out of the game because of lower res textures and a slightly lower framerate. If you're the type of person who can't enjoy a game because "uuuuugh they're only rendering this in 630p not true 720p omg" you might want to re-evaluate your life or something.

Neither? This game seems so focused on being "fun" it doesn't give a moments thought to immersion or thoughtful storytelling. Yeah, Vaas seems mad crazy, but if you and your friends are douchebags, who cares? Giant Bomb got this game for free, they can enjoy messing around with it a bit without any real loss. A sixty dollar investment with a likely lame payoff at the end? Nah, don't bother.

@goatmilk said:

Lots of people are having issues with the PC version but I've had none. Using an i5 2500@4.2ghz and a 6970 the game autodetected (I'm guessing) the optimal config and put everything on high for me. Game looks great and runs smoothly. Reading stuff about people having problems and asking if their PC will run it makes me wonder why they don't bother putting out demos any more. Or at least a benchmark tool or something. Would be infinitely helpful. I guess because Ubisoft don't really care about PC? Is there a demo of any sort on XBLA/PSN?

If you're unsure about your PC specs I'd just go with 360. I can't imagine any fun being taken out of the game because of lower res textures and a slightly lower framerate. If you're the type of person who can't enjoy a game because "uuuuugh they're only rendering this in 630p not true 720p omg" you might want to re-evaluate your life or something.

I personally care about this stuff because performance matters to me. It's not 'slightly' lower framerate. We're talking dips down to less than 20fps on the PS3, which is just disgusting. Plus screen tearing pisses me off.

Anyway, I'm gonna buy it on 360, because according to Eurogamer, it's the one to get as far as the console versions go. My computer can only run it at around 20fps on low @1080p.

I'll probably end up buying it cheaper on Steam in a year or so anyway, once I get my gaming PC built. (I'm not attacking you or anything, just throwing in my 2cents.)

I'm going PC and expecting good results with 6950 2gb X2 in Crossfire...evidently there is a new CAP that provides some good crossfire scaling in Far Cry 3, so we'll see how that goes.

I have the said 6950 2gb X2 in Crossfire and an AMD 8150 at 4.1ghz w/16gb of fast ram and a fast SSD. Should be more than fine.

Also consider faster loading times for pc vs consoles. Especially SSD equipped pcs.

@Bourbon_Warrior: Max settings on a 580 are possible if you tweak DX9 to have HBAO rather than running DX11. Almost a solid 60fps running at Ultra on my 570.

DX11 on Ultra ran at 40-50 most of the time until I switched.

Hands down PC! Here, take a look at the game on ultra settings! :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1TaxydFGt8Y