netnerd85 wrote on Dec 18, 2012, 20:43:

cronik wrote on Dec 18, 2012, 19:46:
Does this add the ending?

Apparently so (twitter talk). Nothing clear at this point.

siapnar wrote on Dec 18, 2012, 20:26:
After seeing how the opening sequence played out and how linear, cheesey and poorly scripted the first NPC encounter then first mission setup was, I haven't played RAGE since.

*slow clap* judge a game by a few minutes of gameplay, that's not a real smart thing to do.

Jerykk wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 02:13:
The DS games have great atmosphere but I can't really consider them scary. The fact that I can dismember and kill every enemy I encounter negates any fear that they might otherwise evoke. DS3 looks to be even less scary, as they're adding more traditional weapons and human combat.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 07:25:
OMG, they're actually charging for this? That's just adding insult to injury. They haven't addressed the horrifically low resolution textures that plagued the game, as if you look at the new screenshots they all have high texture detail for the character models and textures from 1994 for the environments. Look at this screenshot to see what I mean - all the environment textures are low resolution, overexposed, incongruent with surrounding textures and it's almost impossible to determine what material they're trying to portray.

The first thing they should have done was to release free DLC that added an actually ending to the game, which was alluded to in conversations with characters but never materialised. The second thing they should have done was to release the high resolution textures that Carmack talked about - even if they weren't much better it would have at least shown they were serious. And finally they should have released the mod tools that they said were going to be released with the game.

This is too little too late.

Optional Nickname! wrote on Dec 14, 2012, 01:08:

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Dec 12, 2012, 21:18:
FPS target is a frame limiter, I thought. You cant set it to 80 fps and magically optimize the game to run at 80FPS, for example. You will need to change graphics options to do that, which is what the nVidia program is designed to assist users to do.

GeForce Optimizer: "Use these settings (in these few games) that others have found acceptable" and "We will lower your IQ to get higher FPS"

Precision X : "Use whatever settings you like including those found above and we will improve your cards performance to reach your desired FPS if possible." and "In any app"

Precision X has greater functionality than a mere 'performance bucket' reference table. Precision X can improve your cards performance, the GeForce Optimizer ironically can not.

Precision X's only limitation is it's EVGA requirement, RivaTuner is the any-nvidia brand equivalent.

Prez wrote on Dec 12, 2012, 07:02:

Well then you learned something valuable from this today, as you can *always* set AF to 16x in any game you play and it will look much better, with little to no performance hit =) Thats not something you even have to think about when you're setting up gfx options. Just set it 16x and forget it =P

I appreciate that, though I WILL forget it in a day or ... erm... what were we talking about again?

PHJF wrote on Dec 10, 2012, 09:28:
The best weapons in Far Cry 3 are Signature Weapons which are unlocked after specific numbers of missions/radio towers/outposts captured/etc.

Also, more weapons are unlocked upon reaching the second island.