Hi mates!

[Adib]

I'm new to the forum and somewhat new to the Ys series. I've just finished Napishtim on the psp and the game really caught me, it's simple amazing, I've done everything in the game in less than a week, and started to look for information about the other games, them I got here.

Well, I really liked the comunity, and some of your ideals, like, suporting Falcom by not allowing piracy and other things, so I decided to register. I don't think that I will be posting here too often, because my graduation in computer science still takes nearly all of my time, but I will try to help on what I can.

So.. I Just wanted to say hello to all ^^

(sorry for my lack of english skills)

[MonoTekETeA]

Yeah, darn English is fantastic, just as good as my normal typing.

Welcome to the forums.

[Gamemusicfreak]

Welcome pal!

[Justin]

Welcome aboard to the board.... man how cheesy was that?

Anyways, glad to hear you enjoyed and had the patience for Ys 6 on PSP, now try to replay the game on PS2 or PC. I think you will be very happy with the game then. Ether way this is the best place to get jumpstarted on the rest of the series, or any other Falcom title. Hell we are all major vidiots here and were all pretty "open minded" to everyones stance on many different issues. Its like message board utopia, but without the free beer.

Enjoy your time here.

[Adib]

tnkz everyone =]
Justin, sure i will replay ark on pc. I've downloaded it just to see if it was all that better, and to see if the game would run on my OS without any trouble. And now I can't wait to get money to order Napishtim, Felghana and Ys I and II, and to get the english patchs for those. Napishtim plays really great at 1440x900 16xAA 16xAF at 75hz. it looks beautiful, even for today standards.
It's great that a rpg company still look at the pc as the main plataform to develop.

[Justin]

Falcom is for sure, but try not to forget Ys III, VI, and V as they are really good too. Infact there are two different Ys VI games, both of which are very much worth playing.

[Red Hairdo]

Hey, welcome! A brazillian like me? Bem-vindo! xD

You started playing Ys VI on the PSP? Then you'll love when you try it on the PS2 and PC, they are really improved over the PSP version, which is awesome.

So, you're studying computer science in USP?
Anyway, that course is great! I have a friend who also studies it, in USP, and I'm doing a similar course myself, which is "System Analisys and Information Technology", in FATEC (São Caetano do Sul).

Anyway, the Ys series is big, there are many games to enjoy!
Your best bet is to try other Ys VI versions, then perhaps Ys I and II, like everyone recommended. And if you're into oldschool game,s you can try the older versions of Ys I, II and III.

[Adib]

For sure I will try the other Ys too! tnkz Justin.

Thnkz for the sugestions Red Hairdo, the ps2 version I will pass (I don't like the ps2 too much..), but the Pc version is on top of my "to buy" list.

I study computer science in UFRGS, "sou gaúcho" hehehe.
Well, I can't go for all the games right now, but when I get time (and money) I will be playing them. The first will be Felghana.

[Incog Neato]

Wellllllllllcooooommmmmmmme!!

So many new faces popping up these days! XD But I wonder how many people join after reading our crazy never-on-topic threads? :3

Also! I see you list your PC specs in your sig! How well does that system handle Crysis, I wonder? :O *punches FM-77 before he can say anything*

[Adib]

^^

crysis is a hardware devour. but my system can handle it "ok" with balanced settings.. I customized the game with some high/medium settings (shader at high, so it pretty much looks like high) at 1440x900 without AA, and I play it at dx9 for better performance. I get 54fps at the gpu benchmark of the game, and the game plays great.. only in the ice levels i saw the fps goes bellow 30fps.

but, for me, it still isn't ok, I think that crysis only will be fully apreciated when we have hardware enough for play it at 75fps constantly, without any drop. there are games that are ok to be played at 30fps.. quake 3, for example, isn't this kind of game, crysis neither.

even a core i7 and 3 gtx280 aren't enough to play crysis at very high with 75fps constantly.. I think that with crysis, we are a little bus limited.. like the fsb and other things of the x86 arquiteture.. maybe with a raid0 of fast ssds we can have a better crysis experience.

[psybuster]

Personally I think 30fps (hell even 25) is fine for Crysis, if only because the game makes excellent use of motion blur such that it still feels perfectly smooth and playable. By the time the game is steady 60+ all day, nobody's going to give a crap about it anymore. In fact I'd venture to guess nobody really cares about it now as a game, since so many people are using it as little more than a benchmark (and IMO a crappy one at that).

[Incog Neato]

Oct 19, 2008 11:15:27 GMT -5 Adib said:

^^

crysis is a hardware devour. but my system can handle it "ok" with balanced settings.. I customized the game with some high/medium settings (shader at high, so it pretty much looks like high) at 1440x900 without AA, and I play it at dx9 for better performance. I get 54fps at the gpu benchmark of the game, and the game plays great.. only in the ice levels i saw the fps goes bellow 30fps.

Lordy, I don't even think the studio that did Crysis has the system to play the game at max out settings. XD The game is from the future. :(

even a core i7 and 3 gtx280 aren't enough to play crysis at very high with 75fps constantly.. I think that with crysis, we are a little bus limited.. like the fsb and other things of the x86 arquiteture.. maybe with a raid0 of fast ssds we can have a better crysis experience.

Hirm~ I'm still confused a little about the SSDs. I understand they are flash drives but there seems to be concern about their longevity? :O

I have one in my EEE and I read all over the Web of ways to reduce reading and writing on the thing to prolong its life. Is the whole wear and tear bit the same for ALL SSDs?

Also, what sort of specs would you recommend on a mid-range gaming system -- like something that can take on Crysis at global High settings (well, maybe with low AA)? D:

[psybuster]

Crysis is also supposedly terribly optimized based on speculation (no concrete proof, but it doesn't look so much better than other games that it should take such an enormous hit).

As for a gaming system that can play it on all high...that mostly depends on your monitor's resolution. Don't even think about AA - it won't work out at all. 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 and you're looking for a GTX 260 at the least...hardly something I'd call mid-range.

Regarding SSDs: I wouldn't worry about it. 10 years sounds about right on average for the ones that are being used now, and when they become cheap/common enough to be placed into every PC, it should be practically a non-factor compared to the magnetic ones we have now.

[Adib]

For sure for most people, it's ok to play crysis at 30fps (or even less). But for me it's still unaceptable. In the majority of games, even 60fps aren't enough for me. Sure the motion blur in crysis makes the things easier, but it isn't like 75fps constantly. But, like you said psybuster, crysis isn't all that great for us to care too much about it.. there are like 30 first person shooters better than it. But the engine is really great.

I don't think that crysis is terribly optimized.. yes, there are beautiful games that doesn't take all that hit with performance, but, everything in crysis is hardware demanding.. at first place, the game is bright, it doesn't benefit of shadows and dark to be beautiful. the full screen shaders are extremely taxing, and everything has a great number of shaders. the AI is demanding too. the physics is insane, and it can't be acelerated by gpu or ppu. the game loads tons of textures and data on the fly, and needs a fast seek ratio on your hard drive. The characters are highly complex. The lighting, the hdr, the shadows, everything is demanding, and all the things are always "turned on", and in most cases, for the game engine draw a scene, it oftens needs the response of a certain task to begin another one.

I prefer the UE3, or the capcom engine that boosts dmc4/lp/re5 because of their quality/performance ratio. but in terms of complexity, the cryengine2 is more advanced and can do beautiful things. the first crysis has tons of scenes were inumerous bootlenecks apear on our current hardware. warhead is more "constant", the game is still heavy, but the fps flutuates few during the game. and, i've heard that far cry 2 is going to be much less demanding (and still very impressive).

a good midrange pc?
well.. if was going to buy a pc right now, it would be: (price/performance at first place)
an intel core 2 quad q6600 (the best price/performance, principally for being abble to go to 3.0ghz just putting the fsb to 333mhz, without overclocking nothing more on the system, so you don't need a expensive mobo)
a good mobo, with the p35, or p45, that isn't expensive.. (like a gigabyte ds3 series).
2 or even 4 GB of ram (it's really cheap nowadays)
a good psu (always)
and for the vga.. well.. I would pickup a hd4870.. it isn't all that midrange, but for me, it's the board with the best perspective of longetivity today. but, if crysis is all that matters, the gtx260 216 would be best. if you wish to pay less, the hd4850 would be the best choice. or, if you are an nvidia fanboy, the 9800gtx. the minimun would be an 8800gt. (i would not go for the 9600gt.. 64sps isn't enough for the next games)

[User]

I don't understand why people say Crysis is so un-optimized. It's simply not true! It runs well on my "toy computer" (just a toy that I do experiments on, etc. Athlon XP 2500, Radeon 9800, 1 GB DDR-400) on low settings. That's NOT to be expected out of today's games (especially not one like Crysis). I was actually very impressed and pleasantly surprised of how well it ran, when I first tried it. Then I see people saying it's poorly optimized. Obviously those people don't know shit about what they're talking about. Well, the Internet's full of morons. I need to learn to stop reading what others have to say about things.

And I for one will definitely care about Crysis in many years to come. I rank it as one of the best games I've played (top 10, no doubt), and I still play (and love) Far Cry. That game is almost five years old. It should be noted that I have never used a benchmark, and I never play online. I don't understand most pc gamers. It seems they prefer to do boring crap (Benchmarking?!), rather than have fun (i e play single player games).

[psybuster]

The unoptimization comments weren't really so much from the engine itself so much as stemming from Crytek suddenly announcing Warhead, which would be improved and run better on most machines or whatever it is they said. Prior to that they said they'd stop updating Crysis entirely, and I think most people just all of that as Warhead going to be the more "optimized" game with fixes that should've been done to Crysis in the first place. Of course, now we find out it runs about the same so I don't know what the deal is.