That'll explain it then. Yes I'm using a monitor, 120hz actually. In my (first hand because I own one) experience 3d PC gaming on a 3D HDTV is a sub par experience. In fact Nvidia's 3DTV play if that is what you are using doesn't render 2 separate images at all unlike 3D vision so it gives a much less pronounced 3d effect but with almost none of the performance impact. I've no idea what solution it uses to make the game 3D but it's certainly totally different to 3D vision. If I had to guess I'd say it's something similar to what happens when you use 2D->3D conversion on you're TV. Although the results are thankfully a lot better than that.
Yay for P.C Gaming
- Thread starter Davros
- Start date
That'll explain it then. Yes I'm using a monitor, 120hz actually. In my (first hand because I own one) experience 3d PC gaming on a 3D HDTV is a sub par experience. In fact Nvidia's 3DTV play if that is what you are using doesn't render 2 separate images at all unlike 3D vision so it gives a much less pronounced 3d effect but with almost none of the performance impact. I've no idea what solution it uses to make the game 3D but it's certainly totally different to 3D vision. If I had to guess I'd say it's something similar to what happens when you use 2D->3D conversion on you're TV. Although the results are thankfully a lot better than that.
Billy Idol
Legend
I love all of Naughty Dog's games and think they look fantastic! But please don't tell me The Last of Us looks better than Crysis 3 on PC. Crysis 3 on PC is likeand The Last of Us is like
That is true, obviously...although for my personal taste, I was as shocked with some of the ambient light scenes in tlou as I was with C3.
Yeah my 6950 has pushed through life just for Crysis 3. A game that actually legitimately uses its 2GB RAM and D3D11 features. Too bad about the flashing black boxes and tessellation bugs lol. Runs about as well on my 560 Ti but with no bugs, but it only has 1GB RAM so can't max out the texture resolution.
I'm looking forward to the next generation of GPUs and the games that don't target PS360. Even Crysis 3 surely has compromises.
Also looking forward to Oculus Rift.
I'm looking forward to the next generation of GPUs and the games that don't target PS360. Even Crysis 3 surely has compromises.
Also looking forward to Oculus Rift.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Eh? The gameplay is rather average and limited. But at least they give some fist fighting animations, which is cool. It's the story that carries the game.
Gameplay in a zombie like game is done so much better in State of Decay.
I mean, why the heck do the runners and clickers stop chasing you and completely ignore you even if you are only 2 feet away from them just because you went through an archway (with no gate) into another area in TLOU? It's just silly. Same thing if you shoot at something but the clicker/runner is only 3 meters away but in another "area" then they don't respond to it at all. The human AI is even worse sometimes. You have a sniper human with a height advantage and when you hide in a building instead of staying there to watch for you from an advantageous position, they always run down to get easily killed. There's sooooo many things that they did that completely ruins the believability of the gameplay/realistic setting. That doesn't mean they didn't do anything good. The level design and atmosphere are great. The set piece encounters are generally done well. But a lot of it falls apart due to the stupid things I mentioned before among others.
As to nothing on PC ever using the full capabilities of a PC? Eh? Sure console ports never will. But ports from PC to consoles often do. The Witcher 2 and Crysis 3 for instance. OK, maybe they don't push Tri-SLI or Tri-Crossfire systems with hex or octo-core CPUs, but does it matter if it doesn't push the less than 1% of PCs out there? Heck StarCraft 2 is designed to be able to be played on integrated graphics, but maxed out in multiplayer with a lot of units on screen, it can push extremely beefy computers pretty hard.
Regards,
SB
pushing PC hard with noticeable picture quality and gameplay quality boost or not?
playing 30 fps vs 60 fps are easy to notice, but to push to 120fps, most people wont notice.
theres this "good enough" zone that wont give noticable impact if surpassed.
thats why i love pc game where i can tweak the option however i want. i rarely notice shadow quality, so i usually drop that down to low and make other option climb to high
playing 30 fps vs 60 fps are easy to notice, but to push to 120fps, most people wont notice.
theres this "good enough" zone that wont give noticable impact if surpassed.
thats why i love pc game where i can tweak the option however i want. i rarely notice shadow quality, so i usually drop that down to low and make other option climb to high
Billy Idol
Legend
Well, maybe that is the difference of youtubing a game or playing a game...I personally would be careful to judge gameplay of a game without actually playing it (same goes for graphics imo)...gaming is not watching, and sadly most 'gamers' forget this nowadays.
TLoU for me personally has the most consistent world, characters, story, natural light+art and especially gameplay....and the game destroyed gaming for me, as even now, I can't enjoy SP games or gaming as a whole as I did before TLoU...I guess that I just need a few more months to recover.
But that is just me, so who cares...lets move on to the thread subject.
Anyway...I hope that with the new console generation, we see a significant boost in PC graphics. What I personally hope is that as a consequence, we see a dramatic boost in hardware requirements! I have a 670...in my dreams, this should equal to 'low settings'. At the moment, I can basically play most games at MAX, although I admit that at 1080p the experience is quite fluctuating
but still...I hope that next gen, 670+MAX settings means unplayable. I have the strong feeling that low spec GPUs hold back PC tec and I hope that in the next gen these get dropped.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
What difficulty did u 'watch' the gameplay at?The part in cemetey does have a door to stop them, i have been thru there thrice. Play the game, its one of the best. The Clickers follow you even to the next floor of a building if make a ruckus. Also, stealth if broken once, can sometimes never be restored. As for humans, they are tougher to fight than the clickers, as they can see too. Your 'experience' depended on the player you watched playing and the difficulty level he decided to play on. If you use the Listen mode, the game is basically just anothwr console game. But play without it and its a complete, well tested, well balanced unbreakable gameplay experience which allows space for your ideas/tactics and has tension that you can feel in your hands on the controller.
But then everyone has different tastes. Stateof Decay has nothing in common to be compared to it, in my view. Also, I haven't played it. Hope it sells more than LoU if it is better than LOU, so that devs can branch out to other platforms.
As for witcher 2 etc, my next post after that one covers it.
pushing PC hard with noticeable picture quality and gameplay quality boost or not?
playing 30 fps vs 60 fps are easy to notice, but to push to 120fps, most people wont notice.
theres this "good enough" zone that wont give noticable impact if surpassed.
thats why i love pc game where i can tweak the option however i want. i rarely notice shadow quality, so i usually drop that down to low and make other option climb to high
I'd say to take a sub 720p/30fps current gen console game and run it with a few extra graphical bells and whistles at 1080p with good AA at 60fps is a noticeable and worthwhile jump. And to do even that can max out a lot of modern PC's. To then do the same in 3D will challenge even the very highest end PC's but the difference would blow most console exclusive gamers heads off!
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'm actually watching it through a second time on Youtube as I thought the story was great and wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. The other thing I've noticed and people have commented on is that the graphics sometimes just glitch out in the game.
And yes, I have played it a bit myself at a friend's place. But I'm not going to sit there and play the entire game through, obviously as both my friends and I have lives.
Hence, watching it on Youtube.Also the world isn't terribly consistent. At the Hydro plant. If you wade into the stream to get to the other side there's a swift current that you have to work against as you'd expect. But when you dive into the reservoir above the dam, there is zero current. This despite there being a large current if it had been the real world as well as there being a significant current visually in game. It's totally disorientating.
Yes, not everyone is as sensitive to details as I am (makes many movies difficult to enjoy as well) so won't necessarily see things as I do.
It's still a great game. And graphics are certainly good, for a current gen console. But that's to be expected when the game play area's are so small. But neither are anywhere as good as I was lead to believe before playing it and watching it.
As for PC games. I'm really hoping that this next generation of console games will finally force developers to embrace 64 bit windows with 64 bit only game executables. But I'm guessing most will still not go that far.
Regards,
SB
at least the multicore CPU on consoles will force developer to make proper multithread game...
my 4 core AMD cpu rarely being used more than 50% (most of the time, only 2 cores are used)
yay for PC gaming, no need to upgrade my rather old CPU
my 4 core AMD cpu rarely being used more than 50%
(most of the time, only 2 cores are used)yay for PC gaming, no need to upgrade my rather old CPU
RenegadeRocks
Legend
time to get 8 core CPUs then and Graphics cards with asmuch Vram as we can, cos the consoles are 5 GB min.
i dont think we will need it.
those 8 cores on console are running in low clockspeed. My 4 core AMD Phenom II X2 550BE running on 3,4GHz.
as for RAM, those 5GB still shared between data for cpu and gpu right? Those with more than 1GB VRAM should be fine (i just chose arbitrary number ). Those with low system RAM can use pagefile happily (if using SSD).
those 8 cores on console are running in low clockspeed. My 4 core AMD Phenom II X2 550BE running on 3,4GHz.
as for RAM, those 5GB still shared between data for cpu and gpu right? Those with more than 1GB VRAM should be fine (i just chose arbitrary number
). Those with low system RAM can use pagefile happily (if using SSD).Not really, most games let you increase graphics settings beyond just image quality to some degree these days. Those increases my be inefficient in terms of hardware use but they are certainly real. Combine that with 1080p, 60fps and good AA and most PC's are getting maxed out already. Throw in 3D (which makes a MASSIVE visual difference) and only the highest end setups will cope in the most demanding games (and often even they won't be enough).
Your costly hardware mostly goes unutilised, where as on consoles, every drop of performance is sucked out of it. There is a different kind of satisfaction in it
To be honest I'd take no satisfaction out of watching my hardware puff and wheeze to push out graphics that would be considered an eye sore on even a low end gaming PC of today. And as I mentioned above, it's not really going underutilised if I'm playing at the settings I want (1080p 3D with normal levels of AA aren't exact crazy) and still only just, or even struggling to hit a solid 60fps.
Why? Even 4 core Intel CPU's are well over twice as fast as the 8 core console CPU's at the higher ends of the scale and AMD's quads should be significantly faster than the 8 Jaguars too although not by as much as the Intels.
On graphics memory I tend to agree although with the useable RAM being dropped to 5GB and system memory reservation to be accounted for I'd say a 3GB GPU should be enough while a 4GB will be plenty. I'm a little worried about my 2GB card but I expect it will last quite a while into this generation before developers really start to make full use of the memory.
Pagefile is great on my RAM drive.
Speaking of RAM, what happened to prices? I just checked the 16Gb G.Skill Ripjaws I bought for my latest PC a year ago for $60 and they're currently $140?
Or even 11,520 x 2,160
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
MS reckon pagefiles are pretty good on SSD. Lots of small reads, infrequent writes that are sequential.
I don't see why one would put a pagefile in RAM. That's sort of back asswards for your RAM usage.
I always leave the pagefile on SSD/disk. I usually shrink it down to a gig or two so save space but that's it. Unless the machine has insufficient RAM the pagefile isn't going to be used much anyway. Enthusiasts tend to worry too much about the lifetime of the hardware they'll only use for a few years anyway. Inherent OCD in the breed...
I always leave the pagefile on SSD/disk. I usually shrink it down to a gig or two so save space but that's it. Unless the machine has insufficient RAM the pagefile isn't going to be used much anyway. Enthusiasts tend to worry too much about the lifetime of the hardware they'll only use for a few years anyway. Inherent OCD in the breed...
I fully agree however no matter how much RAM you have Windows will still use a pagefile so I figured that dedicating 4 out of 16Gb to temp files, pagefile etc. would not hurt and only benefit. On 8Gb or lower I'd put it on the SSD.
Similar threads
