Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Demo

Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by 1ncr3du10u5, Sep 16, 2007.

  1. 1ncr3du10u5 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #1
  2. Dyuta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    #2
    Just installed it on my XP partition and it is fantastic. All the warm and fuzzy goodness of Enemy Territory with a snazzy sci-fi coating.

    The asymmetrical teams are also excellent.

    Sadly, it didn't run amazingly on my 2.16Ghz 17"... anyone running it on a 2.2Ghz 15"? That's what I'm probably going to get one I sell this 17", so I'm curious how performance is.
     
  3. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #3
    I've got this running very well on my iMac. Video card is o/c though!

    Having a good time with this. I don't like the controls though, not as as fluid or fast as HL2. The huge scale map is very impressive. If the full game has maps this big :eek:

    I like! I might buy this.
     
  4. Dyuta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    #4
    Which video card are you running on your iMac? Could you give me some idea about your graphics settings and the framerates you're getting?

    Oh, my only real complaint is that the radial menu stinks - far more clunky than BF2.
     
  5. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #5
    X1600, 1680*1050 (I'm trying to set it lower but it keeps putting the game in a window, even with fullscreen ticked). Settings at medium. It freezes up for a few seconds when it spectates at the start for a moment and then runs at 25-30fps (low when near foilage).

    Cards running 100mhz faster than original speed. 450mhz core & memory. Not as smooth as HL2 but a lot faster than previous Doom 3 engine games.
     
  6. 1ncr3du10u5 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #6
    I'm running it on a 2.2, 15" Macbook Pro and I run it on the 2nd from highest resolution selectable at 16:10 aspect ratio and with the graphics set to 'high'. It runs great, which was a surprise as I found BioShock a bit sluggish even with the latest Bootcamp. :)
     
  7. Dyuta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    #7
    That's definitely good to hear. About how many FPS are you averaging?

    Also, 2nd from highest resolution is what exactly?
     
  8. Will_reed macrumors 6502

    Will_reed

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    #8
    Thumbs down to this demo I want native quake wars.
     
  9. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Other
    #9
    Running at High at 1920x1200 on my mac pro with X1900 vista.

    Looks great but not totally blown away.
     
  10. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #10
    I was never a big fan of the original enemy territory but I just tried the demo last night and thought that it was pretty darned fun! I just hope they hurry up with a Mac port!
     
  11. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #11
    Why is it with giant games like this they don't look into the details? I was in the river, saw one of them rockets come flying over and it smashed into one of them planes, throwing debris everywhere. I thought ¨yey! splashes and waves!¨, the pieces just went through the land. :confused: and when you call in an NPC plane to drop something it just appears, drops, then disappears.
    Planted a bomb on the sewer gate only to have the gate destroyed without an explosion :(

    Details people!
     
  12. overcast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #12
    You just can't get ridiculous with details on large multiplayer games. The same reason you don't see Bioshock level of detail with 64 players. Framerates and lag would be punished severely. Granted the ones you mentioned are not that big of a deal, but it plays into it. Debris physics and all that stuff, eats GPU/CPU time.
     
  13. displaced macrumors 65816

    displaced

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Gravesend, United Kingdom
    #13
    Myself and 3 mates had a damn fine session playing the ET:QW demo the other night (LAN game, not internet). It was great fun! The changes of character class required during the game to achieve the objectives made things interesting. It removed that temptation just to stick with one class.

    Even the demo is infinitely more solid than Battlefield 2/2142. Those games just feel unbelievably flaky in comparison.

    Still, no recent game's ever matched the raw fun of Quake III Arena for me. Everything's so focused on realism these days, which is great if you're essentially after a platoon simulator. But Q3 takes the FPS idea and makes a game of it!
     
  14. 1ncr3du10u5 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    #14
    I was getting 25-35fps which isn't brilliant but was enough and that is on the 'high' setting. The resolution I am using is 1280x800 which is fine in my book. :)
     
  15. giganten macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
  16. displaced macrumors 65816

    displaced

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Gravesend, United Kingdom
    #16
    Likewise, it ran very nicely on my MBP Core (1) Duo, 2.0GHz (X1600).

    I was playing with the machine plugged into my HDTV at the panel's native resolution (1366x768 or something). Detail was set to High (that's what the game auto-detected) and it ran absolutely fine.

    Note that I do overclock my graphics processor using ATI-Tool when gaming in Boot Camp. It's not really an overclock, since I'm only running at the X1600 Mobility's rated clock speed -- mobile GPUs are routinely down-clocked in laptops by the manufacturer (be they Apple or Dell) to save battery. Gives quite a significant FPS increase. I'm not a habitual FPS-counter -- a game's either nice to play or it isn't - don't care if it's 35FPS or 1 gajillion FPS :)

    Depends on your preference :)

    I find ET:QW more fun, purely because the objectives you need to achieve to win are way more varied than any BF game. BF2142's Titan mode was nice, but it gets pretty repetitive. ET:QW involves destroying targets, or hacking them with a Special Ops character or getting a vehicle to a particular position.

    I also find BF games to be frustratingly buggy. It just doesn't feel as solid as ET:QW. Even the 'feel' of the weapons and the character designs seem far more solid. Perhaps that's due to the BF's series' determination to capture an almost simulation-like experience rather than making play fun.
     
  17. Dyuta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    #17
    I haven't gotten around to overclocking my GPU to the "proper" speeds. What speeds do you bump them up to? Because running it on high was pretty rough on the framerate for me. Granted, I ran it at the native resolution for the 17"...
     
  18. displaced macrumors 65816

    displaced

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Gravesend, United Kingdom
    #18
    Can't remember off the top of my head, but it's approx 430MHz Core/470MHz Memory. The standard underclocked speeds are something like 313/340... so it's quite a significant boost!

    Those figures are slightly under the rated max speeds for the X1600, but I found that I was seeing artefacts after an hour or so of play and the occasional unexplained bluescreen/lockup. Dropping back slightly from the max has given me excellent stability whilst still speeding up framerates.

    ATI Tool includes a method of discovering the highest stable core/mem clock speeds automatically, so you're pretty safe.

    I also use standard drivers from the ATI website. Ordinarily, drivers from ATI's site will only install on ATI retail hardware, not that which is built-in to laptops (so-called OEM hardware). The Mobility Modder utility automatically tweaks ATI driver packages to recognise OEM chipsets such as that in Apple machines.

    So, with a combination of the latest ATI standard drivers, Mobility Modder and ATI Tool, it's possible to get the best performance out of the hardware, without really pushing it beyond what it was designed for.
     
  19. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #19
    Still not out, so much for that 17th Beta launch...
     
  20. giganten macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    #20
    Okay, would you wait for ET:QW or buy BF2142 for the mac now?

    And will ET:QW be realeased for the mac?
     
  21. Dyuta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    #21
    Even though it wasn't directed at me, I thought I'd chime in. :)

    Honestly, BF2142 is so marginal an improvement over BF2 that it's not worth it. That's even before factoring the issues I heard about the Mac version's performance issues, crashes and inability to run in widescreen.

    ET:QW has superior gameplay and will be truly native - not some iffy Cider port. The most recent update is that Aspyr intends to release the Mac version shortly after the PC one.
     
  22. fblack macrumors 6502a

    fblack

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    Any first impressions? Favorite class so far, weapons etc?

    Loads a bit slow...
     
  23. displaced macrumors 65816

    displaced

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Gravesend, United Kingdom
    #23
    Totally agree. EA are pretty much treading water with the BF franchise. The 2142 game engine is the same as the BF2 one (to the point that it even identifies itself as Battlefield 2 when the Windows Firewall detects it!).

    Widescreen's a nightmare in all BF games. No native support, and if you edit the config manually to give a 16:10 or 16:9 resolution, it crops vertically.

    ET:QW however gives real widescreen support. It's also based on id Software's game engine (not sure if it's the Doom 3 or Quake 4 engine). This uses OpenGL graphics right from the get-go, and is already cross-platform, so the OS X version's likely to be very good.

    Loads slow? Seems pretty good to me :) Much quicker than any BF game I've played (especially when it decides to once again 'optimise shaders' for 10 minutes even though the display settings haven't changed!)

    I've played Spec. Ops and Engineer a lot, since those classes are vital to the demo campaign. It's handy to have engineers and some soldiers with rocket launchers working as a team, since the soldiers provide good cover against enemy vehicles when attempting to fix stuff. Plus, engineers can set up the anti-personnel auto-guns which are scattered around the map, which really helps to hold off enemy units.
     
  24. fblack macrumors 6502a

    fblack

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #24
    Never cared for the BF franchise, it just annoyed me in so many different ways. I prefered COD when it came to WW2 FPS. But then again maybe I'm spoiled...:)

    I only had time to monkey around a little with ET:QW last night and found myself gravitating to the rocket launcher in order to move things along.;)
     
  25. Dyuta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    #25
    Hm... I downloaded the newest Catalyst drivers, extracted and modified using Mobility Modder. But ATI Tool won't apply higher clock speeds when I adjust the slider. Moreover, when I tried to launch QW, it just bumped me back to the desktop with an error.

    Yep, I'm stumped.

    Are you using .24 or .26? Could you explain how you got ATI Tool to change the clock speeds?
     

Share This Page