• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

Am i crazy for wanting more games like Red Dead 2 on PC?

PC gamers do you agree?

  • Yes

    Votes: 197 61.9%
  • No

    Votes: 121 38.1%

  • Total voters
    318

TaySan

Member
Dec 10, 2018
6,195
Even the games Medium-Low settings look better than the XBX version. And a few years from now when i upgrade my hardware i can go back to it and experience it again improved in all of it's glory in Ultra. Now that's what i call a good value.

Crysis had it right last generation pushing hardware to it's limits.
 

Varixio

Member
Oct 27, 2017
202
The poll and thread question are at odds. Do I respond to the title of the thread? 🤔
 

BigTnaples

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,232
No. This is what I’ve wanted all along.


Games now should have crazy Ray Tracing Ultra modes that we can use years down the line, no need for a remaster.
 

Pennyfish

Member
May 17, 2018
1,003
'console equivalent' hardware should at least be serviceable. I'm all for PC games that use the extra power, but at the same time the minimum has creeped up maybe too fast.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,208
Red Dead Redemption II and Cyberpunk will be making PC setups sweat for the long term. Intel 7nm CPUs and Nvidia 7nm GPUs aren’t coming out until 2021, everything is looking like a refresh of current offerings in 2020.
 

nsilvias

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,077
what are you talking about? pc games have done this for years. ultra/max is usually just future proof
 

TC McQueen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,669
Honestly, I'm fine with what Red Dead Redemption 2 PC is doing, they just need to let the players know "our settings scale differently, ____ replicates or surpasses console baseline visuals, ultra/highest is designed for future hardware" in the game itself.

No one should have to have Digital Foundry and/or Gamers Nexus tell them "oh, if you want better than console visuals and ___ FPS, use these settings."
 

Eorl

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,221
Australia
This isn't new. Crysis was the first to really "do it" by offering settings that no at-the-time PC could run properly. I'm not sure why this question is even relevant because of RDR2.
 

Pennyfish

Member
May 17, 2018
1,003
Honestly, I'm fine with what Red Dead Redemption 2 PC is doing, they just need to let the players know "our settings scale differently, ____ replicates or surpasses console baseline visuals, ultra/highest is designed for future hardware" in the game itself.

No one should have to have Digital Foundry and/or Gamers Nexus tell them "oh, if you want better than console visuals and ___ FPS, use these settings."
like putting a * on some settings.
 

Necromanti

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,924
I’m fine with it, but I can’t say that so-called “future-proofing” is of much interest to myself, personally. I have no interest in waiting a decade to play a game at better settings or possibly revisiting a game with an arguably low amount of replayability.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,208
Whatever it's doing on the CPU is not what I want at all.
This is the thing that irks me about game development on PC. It’s easily patched, but it shouldn’t be making a 2700X work at 100% usage and boost my temps to about 95c. Seems like a fundamental issue with the game engine, so Rockstar needs to fix that s***. Happened in previous titles they released on PC.
 

Kieli

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,307
I don't understand how to vote in your poll because it contradicts the thread title.
 

Okabe

Member
Aug 24, 2018
7,066
Yes i agree that you are indeed crazy as are all of us after trying to figure out how to vote in that poll
 

Flandy

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,895
Please make games scale well into the future
Just label it properly so that people don't bitch about optimization. Call it something like "FUTURE SETTINGS" and maybe have it be a separate entry in the settings menu

A problem way to many PC games have is they don’t communicate to the player the performance cost of each setting. I love it when games give vram usage, performance cost, and when they specify if the setting is CPU or GPU dependent. Even better when they have screenshots of what the settings actually do in the settings menu. Don’t know if I’ve seen all of these in one game but I’ve definitely seen a mix of them in one before and it’s always very appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
4
Already have games so broken that you need to wait to get cards that brute force them in order to play them properly, so why not?
 

Mecha Meister

Member
Oct 25, 2017
980
This is the thing that irks me about game development on PC. It’s easily patched, but it shouldn’t be making a 2700X work at 100% usage and boost my temps to about 95c. Seems like a fundamental issue with the game engine, so Rockstar needs to fix that s***. Happened in previous titles they released on PC.
100% usage on a 2700X? That's interesting! What settings are you using, and what frame rate are you getting when you see that kind of CPU usage?

My CPU was hardly above 70% usage at 1080p 90+ fps in one of the videos I uploaded, and it's a 6 core 12 thread CPU. Meanwhile, yours is an 8 core 16 thread CPU.
What CPU cooler do you have? I use an NH-D15.

Red Dead Redemption 2 1080p | 90 fps Ultra-Medium Settings - Ryzen 5 3600 + GTX 1080 Ti


I've been experimenting with the settings in this game and have reduced the settings that are the most computationally intensive, I'm using the same Ultra-Medium V2 settings I found, but this time at 1080p. There may be some room for improvement but this is what I'm using at the moment for a 1080p 90 fps target.
 
Last edited:

Nzyme32

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,164
Yes I want highly scalable PC games - great for current and future systems.

No extra labeling is not necessary - as long as there are presets / descriptions to clarify how expensive certain options are - that's great
 

Chettlar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,892
what are you talking about? pc games have done this for years. ultra/max is usually just future proof
What are you talking about? This is rarely true. Yes they are above console settings but not like, on another level. Digital Foundary's recent video on Red Dead's PC port talks about how the fact that it goes to these lengths is very unusual. Any extra work that goes into these settings is more about ensuring that if they let the engine scale up to a higher res version of a texture, for example, that it doesn't break the engine or something. Typically there isn't a whole lot of extra work in providing something new that is just wholely on another level of consoles. It's something simply scaleable like a texture res that is literally already made.

"Future proof" is such a relative term. I feel like it's a hard sell to try and say that just because you can up the res to 8K and anti-aliasing to MSAA x64 that you are being future proof. Yes those are beyond what most computers can do for a AAA top of the line graphics video game in 2019, but that's not what people are talking about.

Future proof in this sense, so like the OP mentioned Crysis right, so in this case it would be like, idk, making a game fully raytraced in every aspect so that it literally could not run at a stable 1080p30 on a 2080 ti, but it could be scaled down so only parts of the game are ray traced and it could run at 1080p60.

Not a lot of devs will bother doing this because most people are buying a game at release and not many will return once these settings can be taken advantage of, and if they do, developers typically will want you to buy their new game for those crazy groundbreaking graphics. That's pretty much the long and short of why it doesn't happen.
 

Csr

Member
Nov 6, 2017
246
Yes you are crazy and yes I agree with you so I voted no.

Seriously what are we exactly answering in the poll?

I like having future proof settings like crysis had. We need more detailed system requirements though and also a better way to find the right settings for different setups and different tastes.
 

JustinH

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,740
This "confusing poll" shit is stupid and not funny. I'm pretty sure I've seen OP do it before.

No, of course not. If games are able to take better advantage of newer hardware as they are released, then how would that be a bad thing.
Games that get better with hardware way newer than the actual game though, I would have to imagine are difficult to make because you don't exactly know how and which way the technology is going to advance. I'd guess you'd have a good idea, but not knowing specifics, I bet, make it more challenging.
 

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,737
Red Dead 2 on PC looks miles ahead of anything else I've played. Normally I'd prefer 100+fps, but given the style of game, even 60-70fps feels just fine.
 

Mecha Meister

Member
Oct 25, 2017
980
Yes you are crazy and yes I agree with you so I voted no.

Seriously what are we exactly answering in the poll?

I like having future proof settings like crysis had. We need more detailed system requirements though and also a better way to find the right settings for different setups and different tastes.
I think the system requirements for Rare's Sea of Thieves is a shining example of how system requirements should look.



The game's system requirements clearly detail the hardware required to run the game at the given settings, resolution and the frame rate target, it's fantastic!

It's very well communicated with the players and provides a solid basis for people to pick some settings for the game and then tweak from there should they desire to do so.
In-game comparisons of the visual differences is great to see in PC games, and indicators of the performance impacts of the settings is very important too!
I think it would also be great to see PC games offering settings equivalent to a particular console (providing there is a console version), so people can use those settings and scale up or down from there.

Clearly communicating the system requirements is important, this should help temper expectations and reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings regarding a game's performance, in a time when people will moan first and ask questions later.

Durante made an article on PC Gamer about optimization in games, in this article he uses Dying Light as an example of a game where people complained about the performance because they cranked up a draw distance setting and were unsatisfied with the performance, what they didn't know is that this setting goes well beyond the console versions of the game and was tailored specifically for PC Gamers.

PC Gamer: What 'optimization' really means in games

There was an outcry about the 'terrible unoptimized PC port' when Dying Light would not perform up to (arbitrary) standards at maximum settings. As it turned out, the draw distance slider in the initial version of the game was already above console settings at its lowest position, and went incomparably higher. People were so agitated, in fact, that the developer felt like they had to reduce the range of the slider to 55% of its former maximum in an early patch.

Would the game have been perceived as much more 'optimized' if this trivial step would have been taken before release? I definitely think so. Would it actually have been ‘better optimized’? No, absolutely not. Dying Light is a great example of just how difficult it can be to judge optimization, and also of the concerns developers might be limited by when implementing game options.
Red Dead Redemption 2 has an extensive list of settings, but you don't really know how much of a performance impact they will have until you try them.
This is how PC Gaming has been for quite some time, but I would argue that more recent games have taken a better approach to presenting options to the user, an example of a game would be Gears of War 4 and 5. These games have extensive settings lists too! However, they present them in a way that is very well communicated with the user, by detailing what hardware it stresses and by how much and even showcasing the visual differences of them in Gears 5!

Gears of War 5 - Screen Space Reflections example:



 
Last edited:

Sanctuary

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,648
What's confusing about the poll? Honestly it's pretty straightforward to me.
It is if people actually read the OP + poll in a vacuum. Your thread title asks a question, then we open the thread up to a yes/no poll with a question that could have a contradictory result from the initial one.


Am I crazy? Do you agree? > then read the OP...
 

Tagyhag

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,685
Yeah I do wish more games had "future" settings. GTA V's scaling is insane.

The problem is that then you have idiots angry that they can't max the game at 4K. They should just have those in a separate "experimental" or "future" category in the settings.
 

Finaika

Member
Dec 11, 2017
2,032
Yeah I do wish more games had "future" settings. GTA V's scaling is insane.

The problem is that then you have idiots angry that they can't max the game at 4K. They should just have those in a separate "experimental" or "future" category in the settings.
Low < Medium < High < Ultra < Future
 

TeenageFBI

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,770
Future-compatible games used to be a lot more common on PC. Origin was known for releasing games like that and I loved them for it.

And yeah, I like buying games that have options well beyond what today's hardware can handle (assuming the game is actually well-optimized). The important thing is that the options should VERY CLEARLY warn you when enabling something that will push your hardware.
 
OP
OP
TaySan

TaySan

Member
Dec 10, 2018
6,195
Yeah I do wish more games had "future" settings. GTA V's scaling is insane.

The problem is that then you have idiots angry that they can't max the game at 4K. They should just have those in a separate "experimental" or "future" category in the settings.
I think it's definitely an ego thing which I can understand. You drop a lot of money on this hardware and you expect it to last for a long time. But technology can never progress if your 4-5 year old flagship is still *maxing* games.

I'm happy my Titan xP lasted as long as it did, but I'm happy something is bringing it hard to its knees.
 
Oct 27, 2017
125
Yes I agree OP.

Pre-Steam PC gaming was great for that. You wouldn't so much buy graphics cards to max everything out but to simply get a feel for its power by testing its limits with older, familiar games and the most demanding games of the day.

One way I'd do this in the 360 era where most PC ports were just console versions running on better hardware, was to go nuts spawning TNT blocks in minecraft and see how many could go off before it crashed/froze. It's actually a decent indicator of performance if you test it before and after a hardware upgrade.
 

Eorl

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,221
Australia
Crysis 1 on low looked awful though
You had to go deep into ini tweaking to get low looking good, and be able to turn a lot of unnecessary stuff off but boy was it a great feeling when you did. Being able to run that game at medium was so dang satisfying, until I went into MP LAN and someone got the frost railgun then my FPS tanked hard.