:slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by NuggetWarmer
Printable View
:slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by NuggetWarmer
sdghasdgkdjhasdfjhasdkjfsadf
GOD DAMN IT
:suicide:
So, I'm guessing it takes a computer that can run Crysis (at 1920x1200, full DX10 effects) to run Halo 3 7/Vista at 1024x768 at "medium" graphical settings?
:allears:Quote:
Originally Posted by Varmint260
Crysis has higher graphical abilities than Halo 3.
If that happens they better damn well give H3 a real graphical makeover to make up for it. I have the 360 version, and tbh it looks good, but in terms of how revolutionary it is, it looks like the highest-end DX9 cards of yesterday (e.g. Geforce 7950) could easily handle it on full with no lag. I'm just hoping no one makes the same mistakes that plagued Halo 2 - that game required DX9(sm2.0) just to run in the first place, yet its graphics hardly took any advantage of it - just plain laughable, and much worse than the Vista-only requirement. Today, Halo 2's vista-only thing isn't as bad as before since most of us here have Vista installed, but its graphics look like something that even the Intel GMA 950 could handle on low or medium at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varmint260
If H3 doesn't get a graphical makeover on the PC I won't complain...as long as they make the requirements around that of COD4 or lower (fairly high, but justified - my laptop can nearly max it out at 1280x800).
Runs fine on GTX 260...
I have one of those in my desktop! Hahaha. I actually do...Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerGoat
I would trust Goatron with anything, he has herpes and AIDS
I don't know about anybody else but I'm more curious about that background
wow you guys are dumb you can just rename any steam game to whatever you want (EG: Gaylo: the third) and it will tell anybody who checks your profile that you're playing that game.
LOL