Culture of deliberate misinformation

Ok it's about time I started a thread like this just to gauge how people about it. I won't be naming any names, it's just a comment in general.

I pointed it out in another thread but it's worth its own one, I think at this stage. Basically, alot, and I mean alot of members on this forum seem to be deliberating over exaggerating and creating downright lies about their hardware. To impress others? To make themselves feel better? I really don't know.

It all started to bug me when I found a thread with a guy telling everyone that BF2 ran on mid-high on his X200, the chip thats well known as barely being able to run the game at lowest possible settings.

Recently, especially, it's gotten a lot worse - people saying that Bioshock runs flawless at max settings at 1440x900 on the 8600MGT, and there is a lot of them making such claims. Wow, when did the 8600GT get this powerful? If it was that good a performer, it'd be vastly more powerful then the desktop 8600GT card, and then my desktop X1800XT and even closing in on my desktop 7950GX2. I don't think so!

This morning was really the last straw when I found someone saying that Medal of Airborne ran only 'slightly' choppy on 1280x800 high textures on an 8400GS (yes, you read that right.) Wow, now even the 8400GS is starting to creep past my X1800XT, too. It seems that the Go7400 replacement is about 350% more powerful then its predecessor going by this!

Mostly it's because I think of all the people who come here looking for advice. Imagine the poor, poor soul who sees that Medal of Honor runs on high-ish settings on the 8400GS and goes and buys one based on such a comment.

Of course there are a lot of good honest posters too, and you have various screenshot threads with accurate descriptions and shots, but amongst a lot of newer members the lie mongering is staggering. What does anyone else think?

 

Bioshock DOES run on ALLL HIGH with 8600mgt, however you do need to set the rez down to 1280x800 and turn off vsync.

And 8600 gt is very powerful especially on bioshock where the game is excellently coded.

And i have the FULL REAL VERSION OF BIOSHOCK

 

Some of the problem is deliberate misinformation, yes, however there's also a problem with various posters using different subjective analysis terms. New posters don't always realize what is meant when you say "max settings" in a game, and to some "slightly choppy" means that it runs at 10fps. Mainly the only thing you can do is ask for screen shots, and look at the results of perhaps more experienced members with a track record of providing accurate information.

 

I think such information can be attributed to 2 separate motivations:

1. People have very different views on what "choppy" or "full settings" are, as others have already noted.
2. Since people have spent quite a bit of money on their laptops and want to promote their own choices, there is a certain amount of fanboyism involved.

As for (1), I avoid ever saying "full settings" if possible. Instead, I usually just like to say that the game works at a playable rate (25-30+ fps). Although, this may not be achievable at the highest of the high settings (AA/AF/Textures/etc).

As for (2), well ... that involves long discussions in psychology best left to college classrooms. Suffice to say, very few people want to admit that their laptop choice sucks. Especially when a third party is asking for advice on games and their laptop is not suited for the purpose.

Anyway, that's my viewpoint.

Regards,

Z.

 

i think that it happens because they want it to be true (even if it isnt true) and they feel fullfilled when they say it and post it.

Deep inside they know its not true, its just a need to say it, its like TOBBACCO

 

not everyone is lying or exagerrating, i can imagine an overclocked 8600gt to run bioshock on high settings at 20-25 FPS with AA or Vsync turned off (whichever is avaliable).

 

Subjective comments are just that ... subjective. I would never buy any PC hardware based on a subjective review without benchmarks. Same way you wouldn't buy a car without getting benchmarks on the performance that is important to you.

As far as Bioshock is concerned, check out my post on Bioshock and you can see that it is playable with "max settings" but averaged 24 FPS @ 1280x800, which can have its "choppy" moments. This was on a stock clocked 8600 GT. Either way, there's some proof to the pudding so to speak.

 

Last I checked it could run at max, you never said how well.

I have a desktop 8600GT in one of my PCs, and it can't run at that res on max, so I see what you mean.

Textures don't impact performance very much, as long as the post processing, and all other FX are down or off, then that doesn't have to be a lie.

I don't think we want just screenshots, we want fraps screenshots with the FPS meter in them.

 

What He said.

 

Well, he said that it ran smoothly at mid-high, sorry, thats what, of course was the annoying factor, of course we all know on a technical basis with fps aside any card can run any game on max settings.

Also an 8400GS cannot run Airborne at 1280x800, regardless of what other settings are used, unless you count about 8-10fps as playable.

And yes I meant the screenshots in those threads which use fraps....screenshots in themselves are pointless I agree.

I wouldn't see that so much as proof that it can as I would proof that it can't. If you're averaging 24fps in a game, you can be sure that thats going to include moment when the game is considerably unplayable, jerky and unresponsive. Usually in any given benchmark an average as low as 24fps would mean a max of about 50-55 and a minimum of 10-15 - very poor. So if it barely manages 1280x800 at max settings (which to be honest for all purposes I would consider it does not, averaging 24fps, but lets assume it does), how do you reckon it'd run on 1440x900 on max settings? Like absolute crap, I'll wager! Yet I see people all the time claiming it runs great on that res and settings (1440x900, Max, not your example).

I'm not saying the 8600MGt isn't a good card, it is; but even when overclocked, it does not come close to the performance of say, powerful desktop cards, but when you take many of the comments people make about it, you'd be forgiven for being suckered into thinking it was some sort of 7950GTX equivilent.

Quote from another thread, and this user has the 512mb 8600mGT - this seems to a more accurate and realistic depiction of the card:

 

BF2 on an x200: lies. The best I have ever seen it run was on an x200 with 'dedicated' ram (i.e. not shared but also not graphics level ram) which ran at 30fps on lowest when there was nothing going on in view. When in view I guess the fps went down sharply. I know my x200 will run it, but it's maxed at 15fps and lags so badly it's impossible to play.

Bioshock at Max on an 8600M GT: This is possible. I ran Bioshock Demo on an 8600M GT 512MB GDDR2 at max at 1280*800 and got playable fps (see sig for the review and specs). Not really above 30 at all, average about 20. On a GDDR3 it might run that well if the rest of the laptop components are up to the task.

 

Maybe those people are fine with low settings and choppy performance.

Also, people want to be able to play games. Admitting to yourself that your computer can't run it is admitting you need an expensive upgrade.

 

Again, a difference in the way people view "playable". For me, any shooter needs to run at 20+ FPS, not average 20. I usually won't say playable for a game until it can run at 30+ FPS except for maybe a stutter when it encounters a load. And I'd much rather pull a game down to medium to be fluid than keep it on max just so I can say I run it at max.

 

Misinformation or misinterpretation...

x200... is it the chip or the x200 toshiba which carries an 8700GT?
I dunno... didn't read that thread...

Playable for me is usually 24fps MINIMUM.... but frankly its when I cannot detect skipping and don't feel that I missed out on anything while gaming.
For someone else it may be different.

Methinks the OP misinterpreted someone and wants to feel superior...

 

The X200 ati chip.

No, its not misinterpetation. I see it time and time again, and quite frankly, it annoys the hell out of me because its misleading to those that are basing their purchases on lies and/or grossly exaggerated truths.

As for Bioshock at 1280x800 at average 20fps is bad enough (lets face it, an average of 20fps is not really playable if thats an average and there are severe dips) but imagine the res increased to 1440x900 - this is what people seem to frequently claim they are running the game at. Looking at your quote you state between 10 and 20fps actually, but to be fair, like you said Bioshock is strangely responsive at lower FPS then say, other games like Airborne which chugs at even 22/23FPS.

I really didn't want this to descend into the 'what people consider playable' argument, but I think, interestingly, that people are actually convincing themselves of what actually is playable just to be able to live up to the grossly inflated hype surrounding the 8600MGT.

As I said the only true representation of the 8600MGT running Bioshock at a stable FPS that averages high enough to sustain the severe dips was running at 1024x768 max settings - which is defintely a fair better example of what the 8600MGT can reasonably acheive as a gaming card.

 

depends what 8600m gt is being talked about as well. the gddr3 version is alot faster than the ddr2 one. so it could be possible that some people are running it at 1440x900 and 1280x800 with no problems and then the ddr2 ones are running it at 1024x768.

 

That's a pretty low-end GPU... to the degree it can be barely called a GPU... you really think someone is talking that up? Please give me a link to the conversation... I bet in context I see it differently than you.

Many people have these chipsets... the best part about a community like this is the reproduceability of any test given. If some guy says he got 400fps at 1920x1200 on his OC'd 8600GT DDR2 in a particular game, I am going to ask the drivers, the OC he reached, the patches he used, the settings he used and any other settings needed to get someone else up to that score. Lying will get you caught pretty easy and most people who post here know it.

I said 15 minimum, (only really at the whale in the cutscene) then 24-25fps average with all DX10 features on and 28-29fps average with DX10 textures off. Granted, performance has massively improved as we patch new drivers, Vista fixes, and Vista tweaks...

I found Bioshock quite playable with 163.44 drivers and once vista was patched... then again I told everyone what I found playable...

If 1024x768 is where you want to play then do so... if 1440x900 is where someone else wants to play then they will do so...

It is YOUR misinterpretation of their words that is causing the problem.
YOU are disenchanted with anything which doesn't fit your minimums... other people are tweaking and getting better results and for the most part they are reproduceable.
If you cannot do it and 5 other people can then they aren't being false...
if it cannot be reproduced, then it didn't happen.

The 8600GT does exactly what it supposed to do... midrange GPU at middle to low res...
I have not seen any of the "grossly inflated hype" that you seem to be subscribing to.
I have seen mostly consistent scores, some odd results explained by people who don't understand their results, and yes indeed a few people who don't seem to get that the 8600GT is not going to outperform an 8800GTX.

 

No, he's not lying, it was in one of those can my card do x type forums. And they were talking about the card, since the Toshiba wasn't released yet. I've also seen people talk up whatever card they have. It's really natural instinct to boast about your computer, given that it costs more than most things you use.

Please no personal attacks. This isn't the forum for flaming.

 

I completely agree with Havok. This is something that happens all the time.

A while ago I read that my 7900gs could play Oblivion at 1440x900 maxed out at a good fps... and everyone seemed to be agreeing with that. So when I went out and bought Oblivion, I was obviously a little dissapointed that it only ran at around 15 fps (outdoors) at those resolutions and settings.

I think it's human nature to exaggerate a little bit. But people who claim to run recent games on max settings with a x200 are simply lying.

 

Mob effect.
Haw come I've never seen screenshots (showing FPS) those "very playable" at high resolutions/settings games made in very intense moment-"Where bullets are flying and enemies dieing"
Every time is something like wall or trash can (LOL).

 

I remember arguing with the guy that was talking about his ddr2 8600mgt running bioshock with full settings at that res. He said he was too busy to take screenshots in fraps. Funny how he wasn't too busy to brag about his graphics card on a forum?

 

ok, let's start a thread where everybody will post their screens with fps displayed?! resolution, settings, etc, etc... who is up 4 it?!

 

Lol it only takes one person to start a thread chief...just do it it's not that big of a deal.

 

Bioshock would play at around 15 fps for me at 1440x1050 with everything on high and my c90 overclocked. In standard mode i dropped it down to 13xx x 768
and got playable fps again. I don't belive people who say their 8600m gt 512 (same on as me) could play it at 1650x1080 with everything at high. I tried. 7fps does not cut it for playable

 

Maybe people have lives as boring as slideshows, making 7fps quite exciting for them.

 

Hmmm..... You have a point there...

 

dude, u mean me?! read that thread again, where i said i ,in fact, was not getting 30fps, but the game would still run smooth.
p.s. maybe it was not you...but i do recall having a little argument...

 

Ummm....under 30 fps isn't smooth by any means dude. You interpretation of smooth is way off. That is if you're the one who said he was gonna post screenshots but was "too busy" and never did it.

 

Under 30fps average isn't smooth maybe, but with Bioshock I've seen it be playable as along as the minimum is 15+ (it's a pretty strange game that way). Depending on your tweaks you could have 15/25/45 kind of distribution and still be playable, so saying that "under 30fps isn't smooth" as a blanket statement is kind of misleading.

 

ok, i c u want the shots, i'll try my best to do it tonite...no promises tho

 

No it isnt...I said SMOOTH, not playable.

Smooth means you can never distinguish between frames, even at lowest FPS. Playable is left up to the player.

 

Sorry, to me I consider something to only be playable if it's smooth for the whole gaming session, so replace "playable" with "smooth" in my above comment if you wish.

 

Well if you consider 15 fps smooth then you are terribly mistaken, if your above post is really what you meant.

 

Not in all games, no, but for some reason in a few games as long as their are no dips below ~15 I cannot tell any frame from frame difference.

 

As others have said, some of it is how people interpret "playable."
Edit: and apparently "smooth" too.

On my lappy, Bioshock with max settings @ 1280x800 is what I would call the minimum playable (averaging about 45-50 FPS, never dropping below 30). I can play at 1920x1200 and average 20-25 FPS (dropping much lower at times), but I couldn't stand playing like that for any long period of time.

But I'm very picky about graphics quality and framerate (which is why I buy and build high-end PC's). A lot of other people aren't so picky.

If people would be more specific about their settings and their actual, measured framerates, we wouldn't have this problem with subjective measures of "playability". In my review of the Sager NP5790 (linked below), I made sure to include my exact settings, including resolution, AA and AF levels, in-game settings, an in-game screenshot with FRAPS running, along with actual FRAPS benchmarks or results from an in-game performance benchmark.

 

That is EXACTLY what I was trying to get it Joga, thank you for take the time to post that because I'm too lazy to post something that long.

 

Just try to shoot down security bot (in Bioshock) at 15FPS, then at "smooth" 35FPS.
If you still don't see difference-sorry, but You need to see Eye Doctor immediately

 

I hear ya OP, it all boils down to one thing though. Peoples definition of "runs playably" severly differs. Some gamers i know are happy with their 5200FX, the piece of absolute garbage that lagged with GTA vice city for me back in 2003. It depends what your used to, personally me coming from a 7900GTO, i dont think ill be particularly impressed with my 8600GT, but it should do the job.

edit: well i just read a few other posts and realized ive basically regurgitated what joga said hes right though.

 

I'd like to defend myself as I'm said person who said the alleged MoH:A setting.

I was mistaken and edited my post in later. Guess not in time for this topic.

Sorry for the misinformation folks

 

I've never run a game on my notebook. Not even solitaire.

 

Solitaire runs at a dissapointing 4 fps on my notebook. And that's before tweaking.

 

damn, 4 fps....i'm only getting 2 on 640*480, dx7, everything low... tweaking?! huh

 

Solitaire is very shader heavy. You know when all those cards fly over the screen? That's intense. It's like an unofficial 3dMark.

 

Thanks for posting this thread HavoK. Yes I have seen exaggerating comments but not enough of them. Then again I can't read every post.

The best thing anyone can do if someone is exaggerating or incorrect is to point it out and tell us. Even if one person disputes the claim that is enough.

 

In the end this is a forum for discussion, not an encyclopedia with dead set facts. There a few experts here with good information, there are some good stickies and a lot of good people willing to help other people out.

As with anything in life ... nothing is perfect. You can't really destroy people for stating facts that are wrong or far fetched. Although free speech isn't what it used to be, I hope this forum still supports it

 

jb1007, totally with u on that man...speech should be free but to an extent where it doesn't conflict with other rights (interests)

 

I think part of this problem is that people are basing their opinion of playability on what a benchmarking program tells them. Just play the game..if it looks good to you, then it looks good to you. Who cares what 3dmark says, who cares what fraps says...

I played Bioshock the other night on medium settings, 1680x1050 resolution, and you know what? Looks pretty damn smooth to me..

What makes anyone else's opinion better than mine? If I think it looks good, I'm going to say it looks good...

Anyways, that's just my 2 cents...

 

AGREED!

people who exaggerate their graphics card's performance = people who are exaggerating their e-p enis (why is pen is blocked? it is a medical term...)

what losers...

seriously, these girls should become more secure with themselves to not have to brag about their gpu's performance to masturbate their egos

 

That's why you need (making such a statements) posts screenshots with FPS, because for some gamers 15FPS is not smooth enough .

 

I blame Nvidia and AMD. Games never run smoothly as one would like because that's reserved for those with $500 and lots of luck.