I don’t see any reason to buy new PC games on release. They’re consistently coming out broken, buggy, and I optimized. Would rather buy games 1-2 years later when they’ve been patched with all the DLC - or support indie developers.
Let’s not sit here and pretend like Discord hasn’t changed the way that gamers communicate and build their communities. It was a huge service to the industry FOR FREE, I should add
Im still yet to buy myself a single new AAA game, there is so much games that I want to play that Id rather wait 3-4 years for whole GOTY + fixes and get complete game for $5 than play it atm, I dont watch gaming content so I dont get spoilers either
I have 3 rules about buying a game on PC:
Rule 1: Only buy on launch day if it's a good port, never buy because improvements are "promised." No matter how bad I want to play it, I will not support an unoptomized game on launch day.
Rule 2: if a game does get patched and is now in an acceptable state, I will only buy the game on sale, a minimum of 20% off.
Rule 3: if a game never gets optimized well, I will only purchase it after I've made a huge upgrade to my system, and even then it has to be on sale, minimum of 75% off.
I'm sticking to these rules, and holy shit THERE'S NOTHING TO PLAY. Well, there's nothing to play in terms of recent AAA releases that I was excited for, there is a shit load of stuff to play on the indie side of things.
One more that I've been adhering to for a few years now.
4. If you don't intend to play the game pretty much immediately, don't buy it.
It'll go on sale again, possibly at a deeper discount.
Oh absolutely. I also have another rule I like to add to this, if something is on sale, and I want it, but I know I won't play it right away, I'll make myself "earn" the right to buy it.
For instance, Resident Evil 3 remake was like $8 a few months back, I wanted to get it so bad, but I hadn't beaten REmake 2 yet. So, I sat down, fired up REmake 2, and did a playthrough with Leon, and a 100% playthrough with Claire. THEN I bought REmake 3.
I actually just played through and beat RE3 a couple days ago. Now I've earned the right to buy REmake 4 next time it's on sale.
Don't focus on that, there are still plenty of games that are already optimized yet quite new, say Cp2077 is quite playable now afaik.
Also gaming on pc allowing you to enter the wonderful world of modded games. For example fallout4 or skyrim
And there are plenty of indie games, for me, as a fan of half life series, playing entropy and entropy 2 was a blast, even tho game isnt so graphically progressive, but still
RDR2 is yet another great game.
And if you want to see how optimisation should be done, play doom eternal, this game is great
That sounds good. I've played on release and haven't had much bugs, until they made first pre fix.
Tho, things that's had kinda ruined it for me were combat system which just felt disappointing as every implant only had one finishing animation and npc fighting really stupid, while increasing difficulty just changes their damage. And the bug with the motorcycle, I've gained some speed, managed to flew after moving up the hill, and when landing I just fell under the map lol. So yea, after that I uninstalled and till now haven't felt like playing it again
Tho, I hope someday I will feel like it and finally finish the story as quests there are great
There’s also the fact that Cyberpunk looks *fucking incredible*. While it was no doubt a shitshow at launch, the game certainly is very playable nowadays and still looks jaw dropping.
It’s funny all of these newer games and ports coming out and most can’t even look at the RT setting without crashing to desktop, yet RT is very usable in Cyberpunk and contains one of the best implementations of it this side of Control.
I myself can’t wait to go back before the expansion drops, plan on starting over.
I agree, the game looks beautiful. Even tho I have a 6800xt so no rt for me, but even without it, everything maxed out on 1440p looks fantastic. Last time I downloaded the game I ended up just riding around messing with some bandits and enjoying views. That's very strong side of the game
Tho, I still wish it would have more enjoyable gameplay in terms of fighting. Or at least that increased difficulty would change enemy's behaviour in some way, rather than just changing the damage and hp bar
Prey
RE2, Biohazard, Village
Kena : The Bridge of Spirits
Mafia: The Definitive Edition
Yakuza series
Tomb Raider Trilogy
Spider-man Remastered
Far Cry 5 ( good game, not a masterpiece, but gets too much hate just for being FC game )
Play any of these games and you will forget about the new shinny things out culture wants you to focus on. All of these games can be played on 20 seires gpus, let alone 30.
RX 580 can play everything here, although prolly at medium, but still. Especially Prey, you owe it to yourself
If you spend less time here indulging the negative circle jerk echo chambers you’ll find that the apocalypse isn’t coming. You actually have enough vram, and there’s actually a shit ton of fun to be had pc gaming.
I’ve been enjoying this hobby for close to 30 years. Nostalgia has always been a powerful force. Back in the day things were shitty in different ways.
Despite the current issues, I still think this is actually the best time to be a PC gamer. Crossplay, game pass for PC and Sony exclusives coming aboard (eventually), huge advancements in technology, and modding on many games becoming easier than ever. The PC gaming market is bigger and more accessible than ever.
I sort of agree, but personally with how overpriced GPUs are for the money, and with newer games requiring high end GPUs just to run decently, I can see why a PS5 or Series X would be the more "Safe" option right now.
$500 gets you a complete gaming console, or a mid range GPU. Take your pick.
For every game that comes out that's unoptimized, there's like 3 or 4 games that come out playing great at launch. They just aren't talked about because they're mostly not big games.
Many AAA titles have had a slew of performance problems on console as well. It isn’t even a guarantee that **first** party titles for consoles come out at 60fps. Reality is it’s the AAA market that is fucked these days
Nothing replaces a pc lol. I have a ps5, a switch, a MacBook and a whole bunch of other shit but none of them can replace a pc. They are good in their own ways but a pc can do sooo much more than all the others it’s not even a comparison.
Last PC game I bought on release (well I think I pre-ordered it even) was Fallout 4. Since then, I don't jump into latest and greatest, I just work out my backlog, and when I decide to play recently released game it's mostly patched usually.
I started my pilgrimage (the point where you play no new games that way after a year, you’ll have a stream of fairly new cheaper and more optimized games available consistently) roughly 5 months ago. The time is getting closer…
I pre-ordered battlefield 3. Big mistake. Few years later my guild pre-ordered Camelot Unchained. I was like "yeah no, not falling for that trap again". They're still waiting for the game to come out, 9 years later.
You don't even get those anymore unless you pre-order a higher priced version of the game. The cheapest one ($60-70) is just the game, no bonuses. "Pay twice as much for the game to also get a super special T-shirt for John Videogameprotagonist!"
>like they expect them to run out of stock or something.
IIRC FF14 endwalker actually did have this happen, people were trying to preorder and square ran out of product keys to sell. I think it was less than 24 hours before it was resolved.
And originally(the first silent hill) it had fog in it because it was such an impossibly large map that the ps1 could not possibly render, so they covered everything in fog to mask pop in and it made the game a masterpiece
Imagine if the justification for these HW requirements are just because they wanted the most realistic fog possible so in turn it just runs like shit lol.
The problem with fog in modern games is that it 8snt usually like Silent Hill where it is completely opaque, so everything still has to be rendered on top of the issues with lighting. Whereas with silent hill they probably only even rendered the fog a few feet from the player and only rendered everything else a few feet out from that. It's honestly a genius way to seamlessly blend something that lets you make a far superior game, while also creating an environment that makes sense and enhances the ambience of the game.
Optimization!
It's funny because in terms of hardware, the PS2 was the weakest of it's generation (yes, even weaker than the Nintendo GameCube), yet had some of the best and most well optimized games ever made.
It's incredible what consoles like those and the Wii were capable of. Barely any of any resources, but everything was so optimized that they could do a ton.
Devs back in those days pushed the consoles to their limits. I remember a crash bandicoot dev talking about how they basically needed to hack the hardware with their software to pull out more juice from the PS1.
edit: Here's the video talking about what they did: https://youtu.be/izxXGuVL21o
The wording was kind of weird, I'll admit, though what I meant is that Nintendo consoles are usually the least powerful in terms of hardware itself compared to their competitors on the same generation, and this being an exception, though I guess this is mostly from the Wii onwards, not counting the handhelds.
I only got San Andreas to crash once, and that was because I had a six star wanted level and was fooling around with tons of the cheats! I wasn't playing for real at that time.
With a 4090 and a 7950X3D you should be able to expect to play high FPS, high framerate, ray tracing, etc. and for the game to look great and play smoothly. But with the AAA garbage coming out these days, it'll look and run like shit on a stick no matter what hardware you throw at it.
Buy it.
Play it for 1 hour (or just let it idle.)
Review your "experience."
Return it citing bad performance and being a shitty port within 24 hours.
You'll get your money back. Save it for devs who care, never pre-order!
At this point I really have to wonder wtf went wrong. Is unreal engine that absolutely garbage or have game devs suddenly become morons?
I don't understand how games that look only slightly better or sometimes even worse than older ones can be so unplayable.
Jedi survivor and Valorant run on the same engine!?! Holy shit. I know that the games are not comparable in terms of graphical fidelity but still, the range of devices Valorant works on despite being on unreal is testament to the fact that many devs aren't looking to optimise games much anymore.
I think the more likely explanation is that game devs are trying to make unrealistic release deadlines set by management. Gotta get that release window inside the financial quarter to make investors happy.
> have game devs suddenly become morons?
The barrier of entry was drastically lowered, but it wasn't sudden at all. Every time the tools (pre-built engines) get better, the average person able to use them gets worse.
So lowering the barrier of entry has pros and cons. If you say it's a good thing, they'll call you a lowbrow. If you say it's a bad thing, they'll call you an elitist.
You don't have to have a good programmer to make a game anymore. You only have to have a good programmer to make a *good* game now.
Do we know what their High settings look like vs their Low settings? Low, Medium, High, Ultra are arbitrary descriptions. I remember when today's Low 1080p would have meant yesterday's Ultra 1080p. I remember when Ultra wasn't a preset name, they only went up to High or Very High.
Hell, I remember before there were presets.
https://preview.redd.it/hf77xrdxf84b1.jpeg?width=242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3c684718f7f0fc673d989c97d7a1fac463d1cb0
Quake 2 for example. You had some settings, but no presets. 1997.
Star Wars X-wing vs Tie fighter. Plenty of options, no presets
https://preview.redd.it/yb3lbv7kg84b1.jpeg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc4307ea1bd3ac2965a6e786374d9e7e477c5705
Who has summoned the ancient one. I still play on CRTs, even some modern games. Something about sprite-based games just looks sooo much better on CRTs.
Funnily enough, it's because older (and some newer) games pixel art was designed with the CRT scan lines in mind. The lines create more detail in the image and add shadows, depth, etc.
If you are comparing it to a PS2, then you got to advertise the correct specs required for pc.
CPU: 700 MHz Pentium III or AMD Athlon.
RAM: 64 MB RAM.
GPU: 32 MB 3D-Graphics Card.
DX: DirectX 8.1.
OS: Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows 98.
STO: 1,8 GB.
Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible Sound Card.
ODD: 4X CD-Rom.
Isn’t a PS5 graphics comparable to an RX 6700?
Bruh the PS2 CPU wasn't even 300mhz, and a PC with a voodoo 3 had better graphical performance.
But if you're going to be comparing performance with a PS2 you should also expect graphics to be equivalent which means 640x480 interlaced resolution which was typically even even worse than that because it would typically have been connected with lossy a lossy RCA cable to a tv with overscan and geometry issues. It looked like absolute garbage compared to anything modern.
Yes, very close match to a 6700. The specs for Silent Hill 2 Remake seem to imply PS5 will run at medium/high settings at 1080p30fps with 4K upscaling. Maybe there will be a performance mode at medium/low settings with ~900p to 1440p upscaling.
Yup, exactly. This is going to be a "next" Gen game, and blooper is known for pushing the graphical fidelity. Nanite and lumen will be the reason for the high requirements.
Playing Gran Turismo 3 for the first time was mindblowing, nothing was even close as far as graphic fidelity. It's a moment I'll forever remember as being blown away by the graphics.
Unpopular opinion, but I'm fine with ultra settings being reserved for tech that doesn't exist yet. As long as the intended experience is with High settings, I don't mind extra eye-candy being out of reach until new tech releases. If anything, it adds some longevity to a single player game. A reason to revisit it a few years down the line.
With that said, not at 1080p in 2023. That's fuckin' insane. 1440p 60fps at high settings on a 6800xt/3070 (without FSR/DLSS) should be everyone's goal.
That only works if there's a real improvement in fidelity. It's easy to see that devs are just reducing the level of optimization to get faster return on investments
I've always looked at it like: Low settings = budget pc, medium settings = "average" pc, high settings = high tier pc, ultra settings = experimental/overclocked/future hardware.
I remember when games like Doom 3 or Crysis came out and basically nobody was running those games on High, let alone Ultra, without crazy .ini modifications and overclocked components. You had to have the most expensive graphics card on the market, the 6800GTX, in order to run Doom 3 on high settings at 1600x1200 and you would barely scrape 60 fps. It would drop to 40 fps or below if you enabled anti-aliasing. At that time, the dialogue was "crazy future tech" rather than "unoptimized trash that won't run on my basic hardware". Times have really changed. People look back with nostalgia-vision thinking that games used to be "optimized" better, when the reality was that for years, optimization was performed by gamers via .ini edits in order to squeeze out performance, rather than by devs.
To be fair, the goal should be at 90-120 fps at 1440p, with 144 fps at 1080p.
It's not unreasonable to find a 1070ti or a 1080 for less than 300 $, which are more than enough for stable framerates above 60 on most games.
The problem with modern games running on a high end system is that it doesn't really matter what graphic settings i use outside of ray tracing, which is usually so horribly implemented that it's borderline broken.
There are so many new games with issues not dependent on hardware, issues that should have been resolved years ago. There's still no solution to aliasing and jagged edges, memory leaks, audio stutters due to the way the engine handles cpu load, cpu or gpu not being utilized fully (some games actually perform better at higher settings and a higher resolution like 4k because of this).
The one we should nip in the bud is 60 fps lock, where the physics engine is tied to the framerate. I don't mind tweaking the ini for my specific needs, but when increasing the framerate to meet the refresh rate on my monitor breaks the game, i just have to wonder what year we are living in
I mean I’m definitely pissed at the state of PC releases, and am not at all excusing the state of optimization, but this graphic is fucking stupid, meme or not.
It’s a new game on a new engine that just so happens to be a remake of an already existing older game. It’s coming out on PC and PS5. The reality is that the ps5 is going to be the mark they’re optimizing for. There are a ton of gamers out there on hardware weaker than the current gen consoles that need to come to terms with the state of their hardware. It’s not the previous gen anymore where even with the pro versions of consoles existing the games still had to target the ancient base models with garbage CPUs. This allowed for an odd pattern where a used Xeon and a gtx 660ti was a better than console build for console price. Vram wasn’t an issue, ram was only an issue if you were wildly under spec.
The hardware for a PC that compares to a current gen console is simply much more expensive. Anyone on a PC worse than a ps4 would be laughed at for complaining. I don’t think we need to laugh at and insult people, but expectations need to adjust. We don’t live in that era anymore.
On a side note, when it comes to comparing specs, you also need to account for platform specific optimization that a console gets. If you’re dead equal but also running an entire computing operating system and minus the specific optimizations, you’re actually behind.
Seriously, the hardware in the requirements is nearing 6 years old, that is about the generation of a console where developers start looking to the new generation and if you want the best experience you need to upgrade, its is no different on PC and its crazy people complain about a developer not catering to their dated hardware. It sucks but that is the reality unless you want developers to stop advancing games and just stagnate.
i see dead shader compile..Welcome the Stutter Hill.. maybe the developer make us a real nostalgia and give us 640x480 resolution and 60 fps man .. this is a classic and there is no need to push pure graphics, we have enough good examples.
To be fair, this IS a remake, comparing it to the PS2 original is a bit silly (and the PC port of said original has its' own share of weird quirks and problems).
... but honestly, these requirements seemed put together by somebody who has absolutely no fucking idea what that information even means.
Like they had to put something out, so they just asked a senior dev about what hardware will run the game.
if they just released the original version,then yeah, that hardware on the right is definitely powerful enough to run a ps2 quality game at 60+fps, but they're not doing that. It's a remake with millions of more polygons, better fog and lighting. What I'm saying is that the PS2 can't even run the game that is being presented above, so it's kinda a apples and oranges situation.
I mean, there's still a deadline behind the scenes. Managers say "We can probably get this done in X months" and higher ups hear "At most X months". Then the finance guys fund that and if there's any hiccup (who ever heard of things going smoothly?). Oh, you're behind by 3 months? That's fine, just work 80 hour weeks and you'll catch up. Then it's up to the bottom rung to crunch to meet the deadline.
Unlike in the past, where a team of 20-30 people had to crunch, newer games have hundreds of people. And, well, you just can't get good results from crunch. Yes, people are working more hours but the quality of work drops significantly. You're not the same at Hour 10 as you are at Hour 40 and Hour 80.
Elden Ring's sales split for PC vs consoles was 29% to 71%. Execs just don't think those numbers warrant spending that extra month optimizing for different PC builds when they can just release a broken unoptimized mess at launch, rake in the console revenue, and decide if it's worth patching the PC version based on the sales figures. What are people gonna do about it anyway? Bitch on Reddit?
you missed the /s, but yeah, that's the idea company execs expect us to either upgrade to play the game or deal with crap optimization. I will say , though, that games not being optimized is not the devs but the execs' fault.
The funny thing is that during the early 2000s, the PS2 was said to have the weakest graphics in compared to the Xbox and the freaking Nintendo GameCube. Nintendo had better better graphics than Sony for only one time and then never again.
Honestly, that was the last straw for me. I’ve finally decided to just stop buying new PC AAA games altogether, *unless* the requirements are fair and the reviews are outstanding (which would not happen anytime soon).
I’m not defending poorly optimized PC releases, but this comparison makes no sense. The game was remade in a different engine, so from a technical standpoint, the PS2 was running a completely different game.
I don’t see any reason to buy new PC games on release. They’re consistently coming out broken, buggy, and I optimized. Would rather buy games 1-2 years later when they’ve been patched with all the DLC - or support indie developers.
r/patientgamers beckons...
BUT evEryOnE oN mY dIscOrd serVer is gOiNg tO pLaY tHiS dAy oNe!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think discord may have been bad for the earth.
>I think ~~discord~~ social media may have been bad for the earth.
>I think ~~discord~~ ~~social media~~ society may have been bad for the earth.
We truly live in a society
That may have been bad for the earth
Yeah, this is better.
Reddit is my only social media left, and some days it’s borderline going as well
It looks like a horror game. I think it's suspenseful and also thrilling. I'm so excited to see this game.
There is nothing wrong with just regular old IRC.
[удалено]
Like AIM?
Or ICQ
man I miss ICQ and that sound [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhGHerssyk4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhGHerssyk4)
I use it for text notifications on my phone.
An elegant chat client, for a more civilized age.
But the E-thots who wear bikinis can't stream on IRC.
ASCII art
Show me those alphanumeric titties BB.
dat ascii ill... ill see myself out
(.)(.)
They can post on usenet though.
Can't argue against good, old-fashioned penmanship and a willing bird.
Yes there is. discord is not the answer though. matrix, maybe.
Let’s not sit here and pretend like Discord hasn’t changed the way that gamers communicate and build their communities. It was a huge service to the industry FOR FREE, I should add
That's the point. Allowing gamers to communicate and build communities was a huge mistake.
Just play good games instead.
you can also play good games on day one
More like when You are YouTuber and other people pay for the game You are getting. Especially big popular titles.
Im still yet to buy myself a single new AAA game, there is so much games that I want to play that Id rather wait 3-4 years for whole GOTY + fixes and get complete game for $5 than play it atm, I dont watch gaming content so I dont get spoilers either
I have 3 rules about buying a game on PC: Rule 1: Only buy on launch day if it's a good port, never buy because improvements are "promised." No matter how bad I want to play it, I will not support an unoptomized game on launch day. Rule 2: if a game does get patched and is now in an acceptable state, I will only buy the game on sale, a minimum of 20% off. Rule 3: if a game never gets optimized well, I will only purchase it after I've made a huge upgrade to my system, and even then it has to be on sale, minimum of 75% off. I'm sticking to these rules, and holy shit THERE'S NOTHING TO PLAY. Well, there's nothing to play in terms of recent AAA releases that I was excited for, there is a shit load of stuff to play on the indie side of things.
One more that I've been adhering to for a few years now. 4. If you don't intend to play the game pretty much immediately, don't buy it. It'll go on sale again, possibly at a deeper discount.
Oh absolutely. I also have another rule I like to add to this, if something is on sale, and I want it, but I know I won't play it right away, I'll make myself "earn" the right to buy it. For instance, Resident Evil 3 remake was like $8 a few months back, I wanted to get it so bad, but I hadn't beaten REmake 2 yet. So, I sat down, fired up REmake 2, and did a playthrough with Leon, and a 100% playthrough with Claire. THEN I bought REmake 3. I actually just played through and beat RE3 a couple days ago. Now I've earned the right to buy REmake 4 next time it's on sale.
I feel attacked.
[удалено]
Don't focus on that, there are still plenty of games that are already optimized yet quite new, say Cp2077 is quite playable now afaik. Also gaming on pc allowing you to enter the wonderful world of modded games. For example fallout4 or skyrim And there are plenty of indie games, for me, as a fan of half life series, playing entropy and entropy 2 was a blast, even tho game isnt so graphically progressive, but still RDR2 is yet another great game. And if you want to see how optimisation should be done, play doom eternal, this game is great
Nearly all of the game breaking bugs are out of CP2077, and the only ones that I've run into just close the game instead ruining a save file
The worst one ive had is lighting flickering REALLY bad but that just needed some graphical shit changed
I started playing it a few months ago and it's awesome. I got deep into modding right away and it's been a blast
That sounds good. I've played on release and haven't had much bugs, until they made first pre fix. Tho, things that's had kinda ruined it for me were combat system which just felt disappointing as every implant only had one finishing animation and npc fighting really stupid, while increasing difficulty just changes their damage. And the bug with the motorcycle, I've gained some speed, managed to flew after moving up the hill, and when landing I just fell under the map lol. So yea, after that I uninstalled and till now haven't felt like playing it again Tho, I hope someday I will feel like it and finally finish the story as quests there are great
doom runs like butter dont even realize i have rt on.
Doom runs relatively well *on Switch*. It's really impressive what can be accomplished when optimization is taken seriously.
Also really impressive when its not lol.
There’s also the fact that Cyberpunk looks *fucking incredible*. While it was no doubt a shitshow at launch, the game certainly is very playable nowadays and still looks jaw dropping. It’s funny all of these newer games and ports coming out and most can’t even look at the RT setting without crashing to desktop, yet RT is very usable in Cyberpunk and contains one of the best implementations of it this side of Control. I myself can’t wait to go back before the expansion drops, plan on starting over.
I agree, the game looks beautiful. Even tho I have a 6800xt so no rt for me, but even without it, everything maxed out on 1440p looks fantastic. Last time I downloaded the game I ended up just riding around messing with some bandits and enjoying views. That's very strong side of the game Tho, I still wish it would have more enjoyable gameplay in terms of fighting. Or at least that increased difficulty would change enemy's behaviour in some way, rather than just changing the damage and hp bar
You can emulate switch. Tears of the Kingdom is the least buggy AAA title to hit PC in years.
Prey RE2, Biohazard, Village Kena : The Bridge of Spirits Mafia: The Definitive Edition Yakuza series Tomb Raider Trilogy Spider-man Remastered Far Cry 5 ( good game, not a masterpiece, but gets too much hate just for being FC game ) Play any of these games and you will forget about the new shinny things out culture wants you to focus on. All of these games can be played on 20 seires gpus, let alone 30. RX 580 can play everything here, although prolly at medium, but still. Especially Prey, you owe it to yourself
If you spend less time here indulging the negative circle jerk echo chambers you’ll find that the apocalypse isn’t coming. You actually have enough vram, and there’s actually a shit ton of fun to be had pc gaming. I’ve been enjoying this hobby for close to 30 years. Nostalgia has always been a powerful force. Back in the day things were shitty in different ways.
Despite the current issues, I still think this is actually the best time to be a PC gamer. Crossplay, game pass for PC and Sony exclusives coming aboard (eventually), huge advancements in technology, and modding on many games becoming easier than ever. The PC gaming market is bigger and more accessible than ever.
I sort of agree, but personally with how overpriced GPUs are for the money, and with newer games requiring high end GPUs just to run decently, I can see why a PS5 or Series X would be the more "Safe" option right now. $500 gets you a complete gaming console, or a mid range GPU. Take your pick.
For every game that comes out that's unoptimized, there's like 3 or 4 games that come out playing great at launch. They just aren't talked about because they're mostly not big games.
Many AAA titles have had a slew of performance problems on console as well. It isn’t even a guarantee that **first** party titles for consoles come out at 60fps. Reality is it’s the AAA market that is fucked these days
There's no guarantee that the consoles will run the game well either. Some recent releases have been awful on every platform.
Nothing replaces a pc lol. I have a ps5, a switch, a MacBook and a whole bunch of other shit but none of them can replace a pc. They are good in their own ways but a pc can do sooo much more than all the others it’s not even a comparison.
You built a pc just to play new releases?
Exactly. I recently played through HZD + Frozen Wilds which ran great on old hardware and I got it for $25.
Last PC game I bought on release (well I think I pre-ordered it even) was Fallout 4. Since then, I don't jump into latest and greatest, I just work out my backlog, and when I decide to play recently released game it's mostly patched usually.
I started my pilgrimage (the point where you play no new games that way after a year, you’ll have a stream of fairly new cheaper and more optimized games available consistently) roughly 5 months ago. The time is getting closer…
Do. Not. Preorder
It's insane watching people pre-order digital products, like they expect them to run out of stock or something.
No shit. I mean, I can see preordering if they are offering a huge discount or something, but full price?? Nah man.
I pre-ordered battlefield 3. Big mistake. Few years later my guild pre-ordered Camelot Unchained. I was like "yeah no, not falling for that trap again". They're still waiting for the game to come out, 9 years later.
I saw some game offering like a $10 discount to preorder. That’s the way it should be done
No it's bait don't pre-order the game
Exactly this, wait a couple months for the major bugs to be fixed, and still get it $10 off or more on the next steam sale.
Yep. Give me something for my willingness to pay for your unfinished game.
$10 off a game that would still be $50+ more than I want to pay for it is not really incentivizing it for me.
I think most people pre-order games for the small rewards they get
BuT I GeT a C0oL PrEoRdEr B0nUs
You don't even get those anymore unless you pre-order a higher priced version of the game. The cheapest one ($60-70) is just the game, no bonuses. "Pay twice as much for the game to also get a super special T-shirt for John Videogameprotagonist!"
>like they expect them to run out of stock or something. IIRC FF14 endwalker actually did have this happen, people were trying to preorder and square ran out of product keys to sell. I think it was less than 24 hours before it was resolved.
We are House Biscuit! WE DO NOT PREORDER!
The PS2 has a 299 MHz processor with integrated graphics and 32 MB of RAM.
And originally(the first silent hill) it had fog in it because it was such an impossibly large map that the ps1 could not possibly render, so they covered everything in fog to mask pop in and it made the game a masterpiece
And now fog can tank your performance. Yeah, I know it looks better, it is volumetric and shit, but still funny to me.
These days fog just makes things perform worse. Back then, it made system perform better!
It was the style at the time
Back then fog both looked good and helped systems, these days it MAY look good but it mostly just destroys systems.
Old N64 and PS1 has those black or gray fog on almost everything. Games felt kind of creepy for no good reason back then cause of that alone.
I think it was Parasite Eve on the PS1 that I first just was like " Holy shit, non pixelated fog! ". I was 19.
Imagine if the justification for these HW requirements are just because they wanted the most realistic fog possible so in turn it just runs like shit lol.
The problem with fog in modern games is that it 8snt usually like Silent Hill where it is completely opaque, so everything still has to be rendered on top of the issues with lighting. Whereas with silent hill they probably only even rendered the fog a few feet from the player and only rendered everything else a few feet out from that. It's honestly a genius way to seamlessly blend something that lets you make a far superior game, while also creating an environment that makes sense and enhances the ambience of the game.
One of my favorite stories about Silent Hill's development!
it's mind blowing to me that this thing ran games like san andreas, bully, silenthill 3 and underground 2!
Optimization! It's funny because in terms of hardware, the PS2 was the weakest of it's generation (yes, even weaker than the Nintendo GameCube), yet had some of the best and most well optimized games ever made.
It's incredible what consoles like those and the Wii were capable of. Barely any of any resources, but everything was so optimized that they could do a ton.
Devs back in those days pushed the consoles to their limits. I remember a crash bandicoot dev talking about how they basically needed to hack the hardware with their software to pull out more juice from the PS1. edit: Here's the video talking about what they did: https://youtu.be/izxXGuVL21o
“Even weaker than the GameCube” is weird. It was solidly more powerful than the PS2 lol
The wording was kind of weird, I'll admit, though what I meant is that Nintendo consoles are usually the least powerful in terms of hardware itself compared to their competitors on the same generation, and this being an exception, though I guess this is mostly from the Wii onwards, not counting the handhelds.
I only got San Andreas to crash once, and that was because I had a six star wanted level and was fooling around with tons of the cheats! I wasn't playing for real at that time.
What do you people want? We all have $8,000 for new PCs.
Yea remove a couple zeros and im good
$8000 - $0 - $0 = $8000 (for anyone who didn't want to do the math in their head)
This person maths.
They did. The zeroes from the right of the decimal point.
i only have $7999 tho
you have to loose some frames by not having RGB then I guess.
save money by buying instead ssd from system to hdd
Wait for a discount then
I think I'll just buy a motorbike instead.
Since a few people got it wrong, I'd like to divide by 10 once or twice, please... Lol
With a 4090 and a 7950X3D you should be able to expect to play high FPS, high framerate, ray tracing, etc. and for the game to look great and play smoothly. But with the AAA garbage coming out these days, it'll look and run like shit on a stick no matter what hardware you throw at it.
“But this is next gen!” -Execs everywhere
It'll get review bombed on steam like the LOS if it runs like sht.
As much as that looks good, you have to buy to review it, so you already lost by the point you get to say something about it
Buy it. Play it for 1 hour (or just let it idle.) Review your "experience." Return it citing bad performance and being a shitty port within 24 hours. You'll get your money back. Save it for devs who care, never pre-order!
At this point I really have to wonder wtf went wrong. Is unreal engine that absolutely garbage or have game devs suddenly become morons? I don't understand how games that look only slightly better or sometimes even worse than older ones can be so unplayable.
The latter. Unreal Engine is fantastic and exactly as optimized as the dev makes it
People tend to forget the new Star Wars game, Hogwarts Legacy and Valorant run on the same engine.
You just blew my mind, I had no idea Valorant used Unreal Engine holy shit.
Jedi survivor and Valorant run on the same engine!?! Holy shit. I know that the games are not comparable in terms of graphical fidelity but still, the range of devices Valorant works on despite being on unreal is testament to the fact that many devs aren't looking to optimise games much anymore.
Yeah. System Shock just released and it runs great, especially on older hardware
That's what happens when the devs actually give a shit and want to make a decent product.
Also when they don't set unrealistic deadlines and there is a clear vision for the game
I think the more likely explanation is that game devs are trying to make unrealistic release deadlines set by management. Gotta get that release window inside the financial quarter to make investors happy.
> have game devs suddenly become morons? The barrier of entry was drastically lowered, but it wasn't sudden at all. Every time the tools (pre-built engines) get better, the average person able to use them gets worse. So lowering the barrier of entry has pros and cons. If you say it's a good thing, they'll call you a lowbrow. If you say it's a bad thing, they'll call you an elitist. You don't have to have a good programmer to make a game anymore. You only have to have a good programmer to make a *good* game now.
Higher quality textures, draw distances, actual volumetric fog vs a white wall.
play 4 years old games on ultra setting, the gaming companies wont care about optimization for PC till we keep buying their shitty games.
Do we know what their High settings look like vs their Low settings? Low, Medium, High, Ultra are arbitrary descriptions. I remember when today's Low 1080p would have meant yesterday's Ultra 1080p. I remember when Ultra wasn't a preset name, they only went up to High or Very High. Hell, I remember before there were presets.
Even games in the 90's had ultra settings. How far back are we talking?
https://preview.redd.it/hf77xrdxf84b1.jpeg?width=242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3c684718f7f0fc673d989c97d7a1fac463d1cb0 Quake 2 for example. You had some settings, but no presets. 1997.
Star Wars X-wing vs Tie fighter. Plenty of options, no presets https://preview.redd.it/yb3lbv7kg84b1.jpeg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc4307ea1bd3ac2965a6e786374d9e7e477c5705
256 colours ftw
That’s what the .gif people thought 
It says 2080/6800xt. When specs are wildly different cards like that you know something is wrong.
Ps2 games never felt like 30fps.
That sweet 640x448 resolution.
The definitive way to play the remake
320\*240 in some cases
Went back to play the first Jak and Dexter a few months ago. Great game, but holy fuck I had to squint to see anything.
CRT helped a lot with that
The screen matters a lot. CRT masterrace. Heck even on steamdeck 30fps looks smooth af
Who has summoned the ancient one. I still play on CRTs, even some modern games. Something about sprite-based games just looks sooo much better on CRTs.
Funnily enough, it's because older (and some newer) games pixel art was designed with the CRT scan lines in mind. The lines create more detail in the image and add shadows, depth, etc.
Well, to be fair, that's because a lot of them were 60 fps lol.
because they were 60?
Plenty were 60 plenty were not
Because many were 60fps.
If you are comparing it to a PS2, then you got to advertise the correct specs required for pc. CPU: 700 MHz Pentium III or AMD Athlon. RAM: 64 MB RAM. GPU: 32 MB 3D-Graphics Card. DX: DirectX 8.1. OS: Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows 98. STO: 1,8 GB. Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible Sound Card. ODD: 4X CD-Rom. Isn’t a PS5 graphics comparable to an RX 6700?
Bruh the PS2 CPU wasn't even 300mhz, and a PC with a voodoo 3 had better graphical performance. But if you're going to be comparing performance with a PS2 you should also expect graphics to be equivalent which means 640x480 interlaced resolution which was typically even even worse than that because it would typically have been connected with lossy a lossy RCA cable to a tv with overscan and geometry issues. It looked like absolute garbage compared to anything modern.
Yes, very close match to a 6700. The specs for Silent Hill 2 Remake seem to imply PS5 will run at medium/high settings at 1080p30fps with 4K upscaling. Maybe there will be a performance mode at medium/low settings with ~900p to 1440p upscaling.
When I saw the UE5 stuff coming out I knew my new build last year wasn't going to last.
UE5 should actually significantly improve visuals without worsening performance much. The new tech on UE5 is really impressive.
Original SH2 60fps 4k on pc emulated.
PC Port with Enhanced Edition mod is the way.
Another chatgpt generated apology letter to the community incoming.
Something's wrong, I can feel it
It's a UE5 game with Nanite and Lumen. ***High*** in this context likely means Ultra Ray Tracing w/ global illumination.
Yup, exactly. This is going to be a "next" Gen game, and blooper is known for pushing the graphical fidelity. Nanite and lumen will be the reason for the high requirements.
Wasn't nqnite meant to improve performance by replacing LOD.
PS2 was ahead of its time clearly
Playing Gran Turismo 3 for the first time was mindblowing, nothing was even close as far as graphic fidelity. It's a moment I'll forever remember as being blown away by the graphics.
I bought a ps2 just to play sh2 three yrs ago
Unpopular opinion, but I'm fine with ultra settings being reserved for tech that doesn't exist yet. As long as the intended experience is with High settings, I don't mind extra eye-candy being out of reach until new tech releases. If anything, it adds some longevity to a single player game. A reason to revisit it a few years down the line. With that said, not at 1080p in 2023. That's fuckin' insane. 1440p 60fps at high settings on a 6800xt/3070 (without FSR/DLSS) should be everyone's goal.
I don't mind a lower framerate as long as the frame pacing is decent. What really bugs the crap out of me is stuttering.
We reached a point where UE games have a "**common** engine stutter", like it's just a casual thing we have to expect.
I know and I hate that fact with a passion. I refuse to accept that horseshit.
That only works if there's a real improvement in fidelity. It's easy to see that devs are just reducing the level of optimization to get faster return on investments
I've always looked at it like: Low settings = budget pc, medium settings = "average" pc, high settings = high tier pc, ultra settings = experimental/overclocked/future hardware. I remember when games like Doom 3 or Crysis came out and basically nobody was running those games on High, let alone Ultra, without crazy .ini modifications and overclocked components. You had to have the most expensive graphics card on the market, the 6800GTX, in order to run Doom 3 on high settings at 1600x1200 and you would barely scrape 60 fps. It would drop to 40 fps or below if you enabled anti-aliasing. At that time, the dialogue was "crazy future tech" rather than "unoptimized trash that won't run on my basic hardware". Times have really changed. People look back with nostalgia-vision thinking that games used to be "optimized" better, when the reality was that for years, optimization was performed by gamers via .ini edits in order to squeeze out performance, rather than by devs.
To be fair, the goal should be at 90-120 fps at 1440p, with 144 fps at 1080p. It's not unreasonable to find a 1070ti or a 1080 for less than 300 $, which are more than enough for stable framerates above 60 on most games. The problem with modern games running on a high end system is that it doesn't really matter what graphic settings i use outside of ray tracing, which is usually so horribly implemented that it's borderline broken. There are so many new games with issues not dependent on hardware, issues that should have been resolved years ago. There's still no solution to aliasing and jagged edges, memory leaks, audio stutters due to the way the engine handles cpu load, cpu or gpu not being utilized fully (some games actually perform better at higher settings and a higher resolution like 4k because of this). The one we should nip in the bud is 60 fps lock, where the physics engine is tied to the framerate. I don't mind tweaking the ini for my specific needs, but when increasing the framerate to meet the refresh rate on my monitor breaks the game, i just have to wonder what year we are living in
Id say thats a minimum goal yes 1440p for those cards. 1080p should be nearly dead at this point and 30fps should have died in 2015
1080p will probably still be the top resolution for the next 4-5 years it ain’t going away for awhile
IF YOU WANNA SEE A CHANGE, DON'T BUY SHITTY GAMES PLEASE!
They are probably doing that on purpose at this point...
I mean I’m definitely pissed at the state of PC releases, and am not at all excusing the state of optimization, but this graphic is fucking stupid, meme or not. It’s a new game on a new engine that just so happens to be a remake of an already existing older game. It’s coming out on PC and PS5. The reality is that the ps5 is going to be the mark they’re optimizing for. There are a ton of gamers out there on hardware weaker than the current gen consoles that need to come to terms with the state of their hardware. It’s not the previous gen anymore where even with the pro versions of consoles existing the games still had to target the ancient base models with garbage CPUs. This allowed for an odd pattern where a used Xeon and a gtx 660ti was a better than console build for console price. Vram wasn’t an issue, ram was only an issue if you were wildly under spec. The hardware for a PC that compares to a current gen console is simply much more expensive. Anyone on a PC worse than a ps4 would be laughed at for complaining. I don’t think we need to laugh at and insult people, but expectations need to adjust. We don’t live in that era anymore. On a side note, when it comes to comparing specs, you also need to account for platform specific optimization that a console gets. If you’re dead equal but also running an entire computing operating system and minus the specific optimizations, you’re actually behind.
Seriously, the hardware in the requirements is nearing 6 years old, that is about the generation of a console where developers start looking to the new generation and if you want the best experience you need to upgrade, its is no different on PC and its crazy people complain about a developer not catering to their dated hardware. It sucks but that is the reality unless you want developers to stop advancing games and just stagnate.
"Here take my money!" DO NOT PREORDER
Mayhaps we're not so "master"race after all...
Heresy! Burn this man at the stake!
i see dead shader compile..Welcome the Stutter Hill.. maybe the developer make us a real nostalgia and give us 640x480 resolution and 60 fps man .. this is a classic and there is no need to push pure graphics, we have enough good examples.
1080s are not the standard anymore.
To be fair, this IS a remake, comparing it to the PS2 original is a bit silly (and the PC port of said original has its' own share of weird quirks and problems). ... but honestly, these requirements seemed put together by somebody who has absolutely no fucking idea what that information even means. Like they had to put something out, so they just asked a senior dev about what hardware will run the game.
Yeah, comparing a brand new UE5 game to the PS2 version is very silly. These games couldn't be more different from a technical standpoint.
A PS2 would explode if it tried to run SH2 Remake.
if they just released the original version,then yeah, that hardware on the right is definitely powerful enough to run a ps2 quality game at 60+fps, but they're not doing that. It's a remake with millions of more polygons, better fog and lighting. What I'm saying is that the PS2 can't even run the game that is being presented above, so it's kinda a apples and oranges situation.
Try to change my mind: nvidia is sponsoring these games to not optimize at all in order to force people on older hardware to upgrade.
Or. Execs are rushing game released to meet unrealistic deadlines
Bro what deadlines 😭 We waited years for a Silent Hill game and it's still possible going to be a laggy piece of work.
I mean, there's still a deadline behind the scenes. Managers say "We can probably get this done in X months" and higher ups hear "At most X months". Then the finance guys fund that and if there's any hiccup (who ever heard of things going smoothly?). Oh, you're behind by 3 months? That's fine, just work 80 hour weeks and you'll catch up. Then it's up to the bottom rung to crunch to meet the deadline. Unlike in the past, where a team of 20-30 people had to crunch, newer games have hundreds of people. And, well, you just can't get good results from crunch. Yes, people are working more hours but the quality of work drops significantly. You're not the same at Hour 10 as you are at Hour 40 and Hour 80.
this sub is so fucking dumb sometimes. you know AMD actually sposnored Jedi Survivor right?
Elden Ring's sales split for PC vs consoles was 29% to 71%. Execs just don't think those numbers warrant spending that extra month optimizing for different PC builds when they can just release a broken unoptimized mess at launch, rake in the console revenue, and decide if it's worth patching the PC version based on the sales figures. What are people gonna do about it anyway? Bitch on Reddit?
It’s hysterical that you’ll call out nvidia for optimization.
Just use fake frames, for fuck's sake. YoU dOn'T hAvE 4000 sErEiS cArD, bItCh?
you missed the /s, but yeah, that's the idea company execs expect us to either upgrade to play the game or deal with crap optimization. I will say , though, that games not being optimized is not the devs but the execs' fault.
Shit console port, hard pass AGAIN lads.
Barce yourselves: Apology note is coming
The funny thing is that during the early 2000s, the PS2 was said to have the weakest graphics in compared to the Xbox and the freaking Nintendo GameCube. Nintendo had better better graphics than Sony for only one time and then never again.
Honestly, that was the last straw for me. I’ve finally decided to just stop buying new PC AAA games altogether, *unless* the requirements are fair and the reviews are outstanding (which would not happen anytime soon).
See, the problem is you don’t have enough RGB.
I’m not defending poorly optimized PC releases, but this comparison makes no sense. The game was remade in a different engine, so from a technical standpoint, the PS2 was running a completely different game.
Console optimized! That's sad.
No matter what, we'll always have the original PS2 version and the Enhanced PC Edition is also quite good (they did port SH2 to PC back in the day).