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

Sulik2 · Nov 9, 2019

Games that actually decide to push pc hardware are a rarity so I kind of agree. But there is a balance, it shouldnt take three years like Crysis for a game to become playable. And red dead seems like it's just poorly optimized.

Keep an eye on Star Citizen they are doing some really interesting things pushing PC hardware. Requiring an SSD is a preview of what next gen will look like.

TaySan · Nov 10, 2019

Sulik2 said:
Games that actually decide to push pc hardware are a rarity so I kind of agree. But there is a balance, it shouldnt take three years like Crysis for a game to become playable. And red dead seems like it's just poorly optimized.

Keep an eye on Star Citizen they are doing some really interesting things pushing PC hardware. Requiring an SSD is a preview of what next gen will look like.

I think Red Dead does it right. 60 fps is reasonably achievable on low and mediums settings while anything above requires beefier hardware and ultra for next gen hardware.

Star Citizen is going to amazing once finished. This is what PC gaming should be.

TaterTots · Nov 10, 2019

TaySan said:
What's confusing about the poll? Honestly it's pretty straightforward to me.

Yea I'm confused about what people are confused about. Seems like you're saying, "am I crazy for wanting more games like RDR2? Do you agree PC gamers?" So you're asking if PC gamers want more demanding games like RDR2.

I'm fine with it.

Tagyhag · Nov 10, 2019

Finaika said:
Low < Medium < High < Ultra < Future

Yep, simple and easy. Really hope it's done more in the coming years.

ss_lemonade · Nov 10, 2019

Eorl said:
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.

Oh yeah. Tweakguides.com was my best friend when it came to console and ini tweaking back then. Surprisingly, Crysis felt good to play eventhough I was only able to manage awful framerates.

Edit:
Wow, I just realized that tweakguides.com is no more.

leng jai · Nov 10, 2019

But the way Red Dead has optimisation issues and "future proofed" settings, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

How demanding it is also a little exaggerated, it's nowhere near Crysis level. A 2070 Super with the right CPU can max out the game at 1080p/60fps with TAA pretty easily. You don't have to play at 4K.

TaySan · Nov 10, 2019

TaterTots said:
Yea I'm confused about what people are confused about. Seems like you're saying, "am I crazy for wanting more games like RDR2? Do you agree PC gamers?" So you're asking if PC gamers want more demanding games like RDR2.

I'm fine with it.

Bingo!

I swear people overcomplicate things. 🙄

Finaika · Nov 10, 2019

TaySan said:
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.

I agree. PC gamers have huge ego. You shouldn't expect spending $1000 on a 2080 Ti to run everything at 144fps 4K @ max settings.

DaciaJC · Nov 10, 2019

TaterTots said:
Yea I'm confused about what people are confused about. Seems like you're saying, "am I crazy for wanting more games like RDR2? Do you agree PC gamers?" So you're asking if PC gamers want more demanding games like RDR2.

I'm fine with it.

People are confused because it's an illogical question-answer scheme. The poll doesn't offer a consistent response to both the main question "Am I crazy?" and the implied "Should there be more games like RDR2 on PC?"

TaterTots · Nov 10, 2019

DaciaJC said:
People are confused because it's an illogical question-answer scheme. The poll doesn't offer a consistent response to both the main question "Am I crazy?" and the implied "Should there be more games like RDR2 on PC?"

I feel like ya'll are nit picking just because. If you read everything its pretty obvious what question was being proposed.

Dalik · Nov 10, 2019

I disagree, I was never a fan of how heavy Crysis was. I think we have a nice balance in between the extremes now, I don't know anything about Red dead 2 tho.
I like pretty graphics but I would rather not have to make a game look like potato just so I can play it at 60-100fps. Framerate is way more important.

Some games have bad graphics options and often it's just horrible till almost max...

GameAddict411 · Nov 10, 2019

Eorl said:
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.

I think Crysis still holds the crown for literally making the most powerful set up unplayable at highest setting at the time at any decent resolution. The RTX 2080 ti can still run RDR 2 over 60 FPS at decent resolution. We have yet to see a crysis level of graphics demand. Some RTX titles get close. Control, and Metro Exodus are actually more demanding with RTX on then RDR 2.

nikos · Nov 10, 2019

This is the first game to make my system sweat a little bit. I respect it.

TaySan · Nov 10, 2019

GameAddict411 said:
I think Crysis still holds the crown for literally making the most powerful set up unplayable at highest setting at the time at any decent resolution. The RTX 2080 ti can still run RDR 2 over 60 FPS at decent resolution. We have yet to see a crysis level of graphics demand. Some RTX titles get close. Control, and Metro Exodus are actually more demanding with RTX on then RDR 2.

I agree Metro Exodus with RTX on is another great example. Hardware pushing the limits.

Deleted member 27751 · Nov 10, 2019

GameAddict411 said:
I think Crysis still holds the crown for literally making the most powerful set up unplayable at highest setting at the time at any decent resolution. The RTX 2080 ti can still run RDR 2 over 60 FPS at decent resolution. We have yet to see a crysis level of graphics demand. Some RTX titles get close. Control, and Metro Exodus are actually more demanding with RTX on then RDR 2.

I think devs are just being smarter now with compression and engine functionality. I mean yeah games are huge but the way in which the engine is interacting with objects in the game space and just what we are doing compared to Crysis is kind of mind blowing.

Haint · Nov 10, 2019

Out of curiosity, can an RX 580 (loosely Xbone X equivalent) run any combination of settings at a playable 4K/30?

Gelf · Nov 10, 2019

I'm fine with games having crazy settings that only a few impossibly rich people can use on current hardware as long as it's not at the expense of scalability to people on the opposite end. The one thing that irks me on that RDR2 port is that apparently some settings can't even be set as low as they are on console.

Linus815 · Nov 10, 2019

Haint said:
Out of curiosity, can an RX 580 (loosely Xbone X equivalent) run any combination of settings at a playable 4K/30?

DF has already touched on this:

https://youtu.be/RUrbciPfX6k?t=987

(timestamped video)

using the roughly estimated X settings (though DF says even the X uses lower-than-low settings), no. But it's fairly close, so dropping down a couple of settings or just relaxing the resolution a bit would likely result in a locked 30 fps.

maGs · Nov 10, 2019

I have to admit. I had a few very minor issues getting the game tweaked to my liking on pc but once I did, oh my. The game is not only stunning to look at but it controls like a dream with mouse and keyboard.
I couldn't really get into the console version upon release as the controls were just too wonky I felt. I haven't done a complete turn around on a game like this ever I dont think. Love it.

laxu · Nov 10, 2019

I am all for over the top settings as long as they actually make a visual difference rather than just increase GPU usage. Things like raytracing in Control are those kinds of things. I had to play at 3840x1080 instead of 5120x1440 to have good framerates with raytracing enabled but it was all worth it for the visual improvement.

Accoun · Nov 10, 2019

georaldc said:
Edit:
Wow, I just realized that tweakguides.com is no more.

What the hell, I remember seeing it mentioned in a conversation just a few months ago and how it's cool that it's still up.

GameAddict411 said:
I think Crysis still holds the crown for literally making the most powerful set up unplayable at highest setting at the time at any decent resolution. The RTX 2080 ti can still run RDR 2 over 60 FPS at decent resolution.

Pretty sure Crysis is infamously bottlenecked by CPU per-core performance, not as much GPU?

ShinUltramanJ · Nov 10, 2019

I agree. I love when I get a new GPU and find that I can push my prior game purchases further.

What fun is there is hitting the ceiling immediately?

TaySan · Nov 10, 2019

Accoun said:
Pretty sure Crysis is infamously bottlenecked by CPU per-core performance, not as much GPU?

Crysis nowodays is held back due to it being designed for dual core CPUs instead of multi threaded CPUs of today.

Lashley · Nov 10, 2019

No, I don't want more broken games that are released a year after their console equivalent.

RivalGT · Nov 10, 2019

You mean more AAA games? Not many games get the big budget like RDR2 got, so really we won't be seeing that many. Maybe DS when it comes next year to PC can do something similar. With nextgen around the corner expect more games to puch hardware even more, even put to use those SSDs.

Pargon · Nov 10, 2019

I'm all for PC games including options that are intended for future hardware rather than current hardware - so long as it does not affect its scalability for today's machines.
Part of the problem with RDR2 is that some of its lowest settings are higher than what is used in the console versions of the game. If it can go that low, it should be an option on PC.

A more general problem is that presets on PC are often poorly balanced.
Many simply set all options to low/medium/high without considering the balance between performance and image quality at all.
If I'm manually adjusting the settings on a game to maximize that balance between performance and image quality, I can often end up with some settings on ultra (low cost or high importance) with others at the lowest setting (high cost, low importance, or visually preferred).

It's significantly easier to tune performance in a game when those settings update in real-time, and are applied immediately without having to exit the menus. Too few games do this.
Many games don't do a good job of explaining what their options do either.

It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to have the game include a benchmark that automatically optimizes the game settings based on its performance either.

TaySan said:
It's working fine enough for me, but then again I have a 3900x. 🤷 No stuttering or anything so far.

Hmm, I can't think why you might not be having problems with the fastest mainstream CPU available today.

Deleted member 56580 · Nov 10, 2019

TaySan said:
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.

Its called graphical parity since console people were always complaining before. No, I'm not bs ing.

Polk · Nov 10, 2019

TC McQueen said:
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."

After Crysis both developers and gamers should get wiser.

TaySan · Nov 10, 2019

RivalGT said:
You mean more AAA games? Not many games get the big budget like RDR2 got, so really we won't be seeing that many. Maybe DS when it comes next year to PC can do something similar. With nextgen around the corner expect more games to puch hardware even more, even put to use those SSDs.

Most AAA game developers don't push graphics far enough like RDR 2, Crysis or Metro Exodus RTX. They would rather make you buy their next game in order to experience the improved fidelity.

tommyv2 · Nov 10, 2019

TaySan said:
it's glory
it's limits.

it's = it is
Its = belonging to it

OP, I'm not sure what you're getting at. High-spec PC games that tax systems and scale with expensive hardware are the pleasures of PC gaming. It makes replaying things in the future a joy and nothing's new about this.

TaySan · Nov 10, 2019

tommyv2 said:
it's = it is
Its = belonging to it

OP, I'm not sure what you're getting at. High-spec PC games that tax systems and scale with expensive hardware are the pleasures of PC gaming. It makes replaying things in the future a joy and nothing's new about this.

What I'm saying is "Ultra" for most games is hardly any upgrade from "High" or "Medium" and that most developers don't go far enough pushing hardware.

Lo-Volt · Nov 10, 2019

Generally, I would say yes, so long as the cause is not because of bugs, poor optimization, or a sense of cruelty on the part of developers. I feel... less than ardent on that viewpoint simply because the average computer gamer is likely to be using a GPU less powerful than an RTX 2070. The most vocal of us are willing to spend $400 on a graphics solution, but that is not the average customer. Those guys are not well served by an RDR2 that is beyond their reach.

Braag · Nov 10, 2019

I totally agree. It looks glorious on PC and lets us push our rigs to the limit.

RivalGT · Nov 10, 2019

TaySan said:
Most AAA game developers don't push graphics far enough like RDR 2, Crysis or Metro Exodus RTX. They would rather make you buy their next game in order to experience the improved fidelity.

I think it's mainly because most are console games first. RDR2 shows that a console game can also push graphics, but a big part of that is because of the budget they have. Look at Control at times it shows what a nextgen game will look like, other times it shows that its a budget AA game.

etta · Nov 10, 2019

Medium-low is better than the Xbox One X version??
I'll need some comparisons to believe that.

MrCunningham · Nov 10, 2019

Who is going to disagree to wanting more AAA PC games that push the boundaries of the current crop of PC hardware? I haven't picked up Red Dead Redemption 2 yet. I am in the process of building a new PC. But the game is on my "want list".

It does sound like the launch for this game was a mess anyway. But it also seems like Rockstar is working the issues out. The release of this game reminds me of the release of Grand Theft Auto IV for the PC. When the PC version launched in late 2008, nobody could get good performance out of that game. Rockstar even released a PR message saying that GTAIV was designed for future PC hardware and not current (for that time) hardware. The game still had issues achieving good framerates 10 years down the line from its release.

RDR2 still looks great though. Also, I am impressed that Rockstar decided to put in a Vulkan renderer. I wonder if it will be possible to get the Rockstar client up and running on something like Lutris on Linux?

Tobor · Nov 10, 2019

128 people agree that you are crazy.

Deleted member 52407 · Nov 10, 2019

XOX version is high, medium and low at native 4k.. So how can the PC version look better than the XOX version at medium-low? Implying the XOX is worse? This is a troll thread tbh...

Haint said:
Out of curiosity, can an RX 580 (loosely Xbone X equivalent) run any combination of settings at a playable 4K/30?

It runs it the same as the XOX version. 27-30fps at 4k "console settings"

The RX 580 a 6TF GPU plays it at the exact same "console" settings at 4k with the same frame rate as the Xbox One X.

Csr · Nov 10, 2019

Mecha Meister said:
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

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:

Wow i hadn't seen those Sea of Thieves system requirements.
Those GOW5 settings examples are super useful the problem is that is don't see developers en mass doing the necessary work.

I can only see situation improving across the board if there was some kind of universal community feature where users create setting configurations and others vote for the better ones and you can choose within the game to use one based on your system and preferences (not sure how geforce experience configures settings but i have not heard people being happy with the software in general).

Praglik · Nov 10, 2019

Csr said:
Those GOW5 settings examples are super useful the problem is that is don't see developers en mass doing the necessary work.

It really doesn't take much time to make those screenshots and explanation, it's a day or two of development.

Flappy Pannus · Nov 10, 2019

Linus815 said:
DF has already touched on this:

https://youtu.be/RUrbciPfX6k?t=987

(timestamped video)

using the roughly estimated X settings (though DF says even the X uses lower-than-low settings), no. But it's fairly close, so dropping down a couple of settings or just relaxing the resolution a bit would likely result in a locked 30 fps.

Yeah, 1800p or even 3456x1944 (90% on each axis, that's what I use for my 1660 when I want to game at 4k but am just under) would likely do it. That's decent considering the relatively large bandwidth disparity. This game def favours AMD on the low/midrange segment, albeit the 1660 super would likely receive similar results, assuming 4K with Ultra textures doesn't hit its 6gb VRAM.

leng jai · Nov 10, 2019

It's really pointless for anyone on PC to try and match the X performance because that version gimps almost everything so it can run at native 4K to the point where important stuff like volumetric lighting resolution is awful. You're much better off staying at 1080p/1440p and picking a more balanced combination of settings.

Csr · Nov 10, 2019

Praglik said:
It really doesn't take much time to make those screenshots and explanation, it's a day or two of development.

Yeah is is not much work but no one does it, it is of very low priority to them. I suspect though with the way software is developed it would probably take more than 1-2 days for testing approval especially for such extensive settings menu as in RDR2.

leng jai · Nov 10, 2019

Csr said:
Yeah is is not much work but no one does it, it is of very low priority to them. I suspect though with the way software is developed it would probably take more than 1-2 days for testing approval especially for such extensive settings menu as in RDR2.

Just something as simple as colour coding rhe ultra settings in red would have prevented a lot of crying.

Csr · Nov 10, 2019

leng jai said:
Just something as simple as colour coding rhe ultra settings in red would have prevented a lot of crying.

There are a lot of simple things they could have done and some things that weren't simple but very important like the game being more stable for example, obviously they didn't put that 1 year delay to good use.

TaySan · Nov 10, 2019

MrCunningham said:
Who is going to disagree to wanting more AAA PC games that push the boundaries of the current crop of PC hardware?

We had a recent mega thread complaining about it and it blew my mind.

km_wonder said:
XOX version is high, medium and low at native 4k.. So how can the PC version look better than the XOX version at medium-low? Implying the XOX is worse? This is a troll thread tbh...

It runs it the same as the XOX version. 27-30fps at 4k "console settings"

The RX 580 a 6TF GPU plays it at the exact same "console" settings at 4k with the same frame rate as the Xbox One X.

XBX has some settings lower than the lowest settings than PC, but I did exaggerate a little bit so I apologise.

Csr said:
There are a lot of simple things they could have done and some things that weren't simple but very important like the game being more stable for example, obviously they didn't put that 1 year delay to good use.

They really need to patch this game up bad I can't even play it anymore on Vulkan or DX12 today....I might have to change what I said about this game.

julia crawford · Nov 10, 2019

Am i a PC gamer if i only ever play on medium? Do i count? Am i real? Do i exist??

Csr · Nov 10, 2019

John Kowalski said:
Am i a PC gamer if i only ever play on medium? Do i count? Am i real? Do i exist??

I am not even able to run a lot of AAA games with my 5870hd these days but i do want a higher ceiling for the graphics than is possible today, that doesn't mean that games shouldn't also scale well to the bottom.
Perhaps though having both is harder for developers so maybe this is something to be concerned about.

copelandmaster · Nov 10, 2019

Mecha Meister said:
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

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:

I'm just here to quote this post, its great.

That Sea of Thieves chart is the best one of those I've ever seen. Competitive focused games should start making them for 120/144hz and 240hz configs.

demondance · Nov 10, 2019

Don't arbitrarily put all your settings on the highest, figure out what they do and find the balance for you?

I realize that this console gen in particular made it so most anybody with gaming-level hardware could crank everything to Ultra and move on every time, but this is still PC gaming. You're supposed to have some willingness to tweak things.

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

PC gamers do you agree?

Yes

No

SayTan

SayTan

SayTan

User-requested account closure

SayTan

<<Tag Here>>

User requested account closure

SayTan

SayTan

User requested account closure

SayTan

Took the red AND the blue pills