Print

[sxoob9]

Hello there... I have searched all over for an answer to this question about Quake 4 for x360.. Obviously in all of the reviews that the game received they talked about graphical performance issues.  I'm interested in the game because I'm a Quake junkie - and I was just wondering if they have fixed this yet, and whether there is a patch available on xbox live?

Thanks

[Deftech]

a patch fixing graphics issues? Not that Im aware of. Its been out for 7 months, whats done is done.

email Raven Software and tell them they did a shitty job porting it.

[ILLusions0fGrander]

yeah, that sounds like that would be a pretty big patch, with new textures for anything they wanted to improve... not likely.

[Souske]

it looks perfectly sweet anyways.  The only thing is, with the lack of downloadable maps, you're stuck playing the same ones over, and over, and over again.  I was addicted to it for a while, but find it not so fun anymore because of lack of variety.

[georaldc]

I think he's talking about a patch to remedy the fps performance issues. I don't know, I don't have quake 4, let alone an xbox360 to be sure, but I heard quake 4 was a pretty shoddy port and had framerate problems. It is still graphically the same as the highest settings for the pc version I believe.

[langlest]

its about the same as the pc version on high settings but its not a good as the pc on ultra settings

if they patch it to use all 3 cores the slowdown should go away

[paranoia4422]

QUOTE(langlest @ May 21 2006, 12:14 PM)

its about the same as the pc version on high settings but its not a good as the pc on ultra settings

if they patch it to use all 3 cores the slowdown should go away

it has been argued before that differnce between very high and ultra is so negible most people(even game reviewer) cannot tell the differnce, all it is, is as rediculously large texture files that require(not require but work best on) 512mb video cards.

[georaldc]

QUOTE(paranoia4422 @ May 21 2006, 09:15 PM)

it has been argued before that differnce between very high and ultra is so negible most people(even game reviewer) cannot tell the differnce, all it is, is as rediculously large texture files that require(not require but work best on) 512mb video cards.

Lol, I had to do screen grab comparison to see the difference, which kinda made me laugh because it was so minimal that I wondered why they even put the option.

[langlest]

i noticed quite a big difference but it might be because i play my pc games at 1600-1200 rez

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/langlest/compare.jpg)

This post has been edited by langlest: May 21 2006, 10:17 PM

[saunders73]

yea...quite a big difference there

[georaldc]

There's a difference I guess if you use default high and ultra. I use a tweaked cfg to look better than high, but still using compressed textures. Ultra just isn't worth it IMO. As I said, I need to take screen grabs just to see how ultra looks better

[sxoob9]

Georaldc >> You're right, I meant issues with slowdown during gameplay...

I would primarily play the multiplayer and if it's true what they say in the reviews that I've read, then wouldn't it be a huge pain in the ass to play online if it even chugs offline?  You would think that Raven could release an updated version or something to tweak the engine. I know that there have been multiple point releases for the PC Quake games to fix performance issues and such.  But then again maybe I don't understand how that would work on xbox.  You would think Carmack would take offense to the port Raven released as their first venture into the "next generation."

[whiteblur67]

if I remember right
there was a patch released for the pc verison of quake 4
it made the engine take advange of a dual core processor
that results were close to 2 times upgrade in performance
link

it would be amazing if something like this could happen for a console