Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Perf & IQ @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,724
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Performance and IQ - The long waited multiplayer game Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is here. How well does it play on current hardware and how good does it look. You may be surprised at some of the OpenGL performance results!

We are thrilled to see a new game that supports some of the latest technologies with detailed graphics that runs so well on current hardware. We have run into more than a few games that seem to be bottlenecking on the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS in DirectX 10. This is not the case here, despite the heavy use of detailed textures it runs just as fast on the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS as it does on the 640 MB 8800 GTS.
Click to expand...
 
Great review!
I'm a fan of the ET series and Quake Wars quickly suckered me in and it's the only game I play regularly, right now.
I run the game @ 1280x1024, with almost everything set to max and 2xAA, 16xAF, on my "not so high-end" system (with a 7800 GTX 256) and it's very smooth, so no wonder it does so well, in the latest greatest graphics cards.
 
I have to admit... I absolutely love this game! From gameplay to graphics it has it all!

Thanks for confirming what my friends and I suspected: that even though this game uses some very advanced technology and graphics.... it runs superbly on all of our systems. I personally marvel at the graphics and how smooth everything is every time I play the game... and all I have is a 4400+ and an 8800GTS-320.

If you are looking for goal oriented multi-player fun... go grab this game! You won't be disappointed!

I'll be on tonight in fact.... look me up if you're on (username is friedmud of course).

Friedmud
 
Great review Kyle/BJ :D. The only question I have is aren't both the 8800GTS' (probabaly 8xCSAA) and 2900XT playable at 4xAA? You listed 2xAA as the "maximum playable settings", but with 4xAA neither dipped below 30fps.
 
You guys are pumping out the articles now. Great job in showing every detail in the game though. Makes me want to go buy the game now, I only played the demo for about an hour, it was pretty fun. But again, very nice review.
 
Miscommunication said:
Great review Kyle/BJ :D. The only question I have is aren't both the 8800GTS' (probabaly 8xCSAA) and 2900XT playable at 4xAA? You listed 2xAA as the "maximum playable settings", but with 4xAA neither dipped below 30fps.
Click to expand...

In the AP2AP test that was with no action going on, basically. In the Highest Playable I played through several large multiplayer games and found that 4X just dropped below playability to much, for a game like this you want fast performance, and so 2X is great at 16x12 with max settings on the GTS and 2900 XT. If you wanted to lower some of the in-game quality settings you could increase to 4X.
 
Makes me also want to go buy the game now. The side by side comparisons really help me understand the importance of getting the correct AA setting, and what soft particals do.

Thanks!
 
Nice write-up! How does the MegaTexture technology look? It seems like a fairly interesting technique.

That picture of the low detail four-wheeler made me think I was loking at a PS1 game form the late '90's :p
 
I picked it up recently and yes, it is alot of fun. Hurry up everyone, there are plenty of servers and in fact not enough players yet. Last night was the first night i got a server that had absolutely no bots

Its BF2 with cooler weapons and better game code lol
 
Brent_Justice said:
In the AP2AP test that was with no action going on, basically. In the Highest Playable I played through several large multiplayer games and found that 4X just dropped below playability to much, for a game like this you want fast performance, and so 2X is great at 16x12 with max settings on the GTS and 2900 XT. If you wanted to lower some of the in-game quality settings you could increase to 4X.
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad if I didn't see where you listed it was tested during MP maps/rounds etc. Good performance at 16x12 regadless though. Personally I think QW is mud, being a long-time Wolf: ET player, the gamer "community" for it is almost as bad as CS'. If they would've kept the classes how they were or similar from Wolf: ET, I think more people might pick it up. Maybe they did that to be different from BF -_- ? As it stands right now, there aren't any full servers etc. Yeah it's too early to say for sure, but I don't think the game is going to do so well unlike UT3 or BF.
 
MH Knights said:
Nice write-up! How does the MegaTexture technology look? It seems like a fairly interesting technique.
Click to expand...
The first-gen MegaTexture is okay. It looks great from a distance (as is obvious from some of the screenshots), but there's often a lack of detail up close. MegaTexture 2.0 should do away with this issue pretty much entirely, with support for 128kx128k textures, but we won't see that until Rage. Tech 5's new development studio should make building with MT easier too, so there should be more variation in Rage.
 
Miscommunication said:
Oh, my bad if I didn't see where you listed it was tested during MP maps/rounds etc. Good performance at 16x12 regadless though. Personally I think QW is mud, being a long-time Wolf: ET player, the gamer "community" for it is almost as bad as CS'. If they would've kept the classes how they were or similar from Wolf: ET, I think more people might pick it up. Maybe they did that to be different from BF -_- ? As it stands right now, there aren't any full servers etc. Yeah it's too early to say for sure, but I don't think the game is going to do so well unlike UT3 or BF.
Click to expand...

Feel the same way about the game. It just didn't appeal to me either. Have a feeling though I will be playing at least UT3 though and I'm already playing TF2.
 
Im playing with a 7900GS at 1920 x 1200 on my dell 2407 and while i dont have all the settings maxed out it plays pretty decent ...... good enough to kick alot of butt....im SO glad i didnt get an 8800 series card as i was waiting for the new cards that are due out here shortly....
 
Thank you game for proper AA support.

I find myself skipping right to the part about IQ/bugs in these new perf based articles. And every time I see "...bug...ATI..." I'm really curious if it's due to the new 2900XT's design or if they just don't give/get as much love as NV.

Evil said:
...UT3...TF2...
Click to expand...
I really wanted to play this game, the demo proved very entertaining for me. But TF2's just so much damn fun! The UT3 demo's gimped w/ no instagib, but hopefully we'll get a real demo...or retail soon.
 
On the article:

What makes this game unique to the Quake universe is that it is multiplayer only; there is no single-player mode. The last game in the Quake series to be multiplayer only was Quake III.

Well this is kind of a pedantic comment, but these two sentences are in direct conflict with one another. First, Quake III technically DID have a single player component-- it was a simple ladder of levels and enemies with increasing skill. I played it many times before I upgraded to DSL. But even if you stick by the statement that "The last game in the Quake series to be MP only was Q3," you can't say that QW:ET is "unique to the Quake universe" as it is multiplayer only-- unique means one of a kind. If you say something is one of a kind, you can't turn around and say "the last one just like it" was Q3. :)

On the game:

I played the early beta by signing up on FilePlanet and was disappointed. My friends and I play UT2004 and Q3 (Threewave Capturestrike, specifically), and ET:QW seems like more of a bastard child of CoD, BF, and TF as opposed to a multiplayer Quake game. Q4 multiplayer didn't get it done for us either. There are so few decent people playing Q3 Threewave (and a MAJOR scoring bug that has been around for years, which 3wave abandoned), that I have mostly switched to playing Wii. :p

The graphics were great, and gameplay is sure to be great for people who like a certain genre of game... unfortunately I'm not in that group. :(
 
Just a note, like most id games there are bunch of console cvars you can mess with to set things higher or lower quality than available in the menu.

htmlcvars in the console will give you a nice html formated table of the cvars with description in the game directory under "my documents"
 
Am I correct in the understanding you did no Windows XP tests, only Vista? Am I also correct in that no one has made that observation if true?
 
Wingnut420 said:
Am I correct in the understanding you did no Windows XP tests, only Vista? Am I also correct in that no one has made that observation if true?
Click to expand...



[H] switched to all-vista testing for games around mid-summer and the switch was accompanied with an editorial explaining why this is so, pay attention! :p
 
snaggletooth said:
[H] switched to all-vista testing for games around mid-summer and the switch was accompanied with an editorial explaining why this is so, pay attention! :p
Click to expand...

Well then, congratulations are in order then HOCP, you have just made your reviews irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the Windows gaming population.

I now know where to not get my game reviews, it was fun while it lasted. Take care.
 
Wingnut420 said:
Well then, congratulations are in order then HOCP, you have just made your reviews irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the Windows gaming population.

I now know where to not get my game reviews, it was fun while it lasted. Take care.
Click to expand...

Bitch bitch whine, same story every review.
 
FWIW, Bioshock crashed 2x in XP and none in Vista for my setup. Also, game performance is so close now it's almost irrelevant. If it runs in Vista, it'll run a bit better in XP. But hey...have fun w/ Crysis in XP ok? :D
 
Just got my free copy of Quake Wars from EVGA in the mail yesterday, thanks for the insight as I didn't know if I was going to be able to play it at 1600x1200 or not.
 
Wingnut420 said:
Well then, congratulations are in order then HOCP, you have just made your reviews irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the Windows gaming population.

I now know where to not get my game reviews, it was fun while it lasted. Take care.
Click to expand...

Your kidding right? lol Your not [H] if your still on XP ;)
 
It'd be better if people simply ignore the "nubs" and their posts/replies, they'll make it look like they're talking to anyone (or the site staff) that cares, and then they'll quietly leave. It is funny though :D.
 
Wingnut420 said:
Well then, congratulations are in order then HOCP, you have just made your reviews irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of the Windows gaming population.

I now know where to not get my game reviews, it was fun while it lasted. Take care.
Click to expand...

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. :rolleyes:

Excellent review as always, though after playing the beta/demo I have no intention of ever getting this game. The original ET was fun and I enjoyed playing it, but this seems to be more of a bunnyhopping spamfest than a sequel to ET.
 
Picked up the game a couple weeks ago, and upgraded to a second 8800 GTX and a 3ghz Core2Duo. Added another 2gb of RAM, because it was cheap.

Pretty impressed with the performance of the graphics engine. I run it at 1680x1050 @ forced 8x SLi FSAA, and smooth foliage. I haven't measured my FPS, but it's good enough to not be of any limitation.

Very fun game. Anyone who drew their opinion of the game based on the early beta should revisit it. I honestly think that beta did the game's target audience more damage than good. The map sucked, and the game engine overall was underdeveloped and performed poorly, on average.
 
BakedA|aska said:
Picked up the game a couple weeks ago, and upgraded to a second 8800 GTX and a 3ghz Core2Duo. Added another 2gb of RAM, because it was cheap.

Pretty impressed with the performance of the graphics engine. I run it at 1680x1050 @ forced 8x SLi FSAA, and smooth foliage. I haven't measured my FPS, but it's good enough to not be of any limitation.

Very fun game. Anyone who drew their opinion of the game based on the early beta should revisit it. I honestly think that beta did the game's target audience more damage than good. The map sucked, and the game engine overall was underdeveloped and performed poorly, on average.
Click to expand...

Am I understanding you right in what you're saying? You picked up a SECOND 8800GTX to run SLI at a resolution of 1680x1050? Seems hugely unnecessary in my opinion...furthermore, wouldn't that bottleneck the hell out of your CPU @ only 3 Ghz?

But back to ET:QW, it's fun as hell...it's all I've played other than Halo 3 lately.
 
Looking at a few [H] benchmarks, it wouldn't bottleneck his CPU (for the most part) even if it was a dual-core and not a quad-core. Besides he'll get a 40% performance boost at best from SLi/Dual GPU config.
 
a 320 MB GTS can own 1680x1050...i don't see how you're getting the 40% performance gain if the CPU can't keep up..maybe I don't understand fully but it seems like if the CPU can't handle the current single GTX, adding another would somehow boost 40%?..when it's already bottlenecked by 1 GTX?
 
This game kicks ass and takes names. Plus it doesn't require a monster rig to run well.
 
They added voip right? That was needed pretty badly for such a team oriented game.
 
nice, thx...at least this game I can run w/ high details @ a good clip. :D
 
jacuzz1 said:
Your kidding right? lol Your not [H] if your still on XP ;)
Click to expand...

I know, I'm just being an ass with this comment, but I don't use XP or Vista to play the game. :p

Actually, I'm low on funds so I don't have the full version anyway. I'm still stuck on the demo. I must say that it's rather easy on the hardware if you look at the rig in my sig but still looks decent. However, I don't actually find it as much fun as Wolf:ET. Then again, I may just have to get the full version to find out for sure. Most of the people playing the demo seem to be idiots which kills a lot of the fun factor of the game.

 
Does the "playable settings" for the 8800ultra @ 2560 x 1600 include shadows ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top