Prefering the trouble over the troubleshoot makes no sense for me. Unless the person chooses to ignore the trouble for whatever reason, thing that is also possible on pc.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
OPINION: Red Dead Redemption 2 on PC is exactly the reason why some people still HATE gaming on PC
- Thread starter krg
- Start date
This relentless attitude and insistence on proving your position to be the only one that makes sense when we're talking about a simple matter of preference for that person to play on consoles is annoying.
Uh no. No need to baby up PC versions because people get mad they cant ULTRA max everything.
You're the one who's on a mission to try to convince me of some shit.
Wasn't even you that I quoted on the "troubleshoot" matter. Are you an alter account of that person?
Release like this one are annoying, where performance doesn't feel nearly as good as it should.
That being said, even after turning down some settings so I can stay at 60-70 FPS, it still looks infinitely better than the console versions, so I dunno. Still coming out way ahead in the end imo. And the mouse controls actually work really well.
That being said, even after turning down some settings so I can stay at 60-70 FPS, it still looks infinitely better than the console versions, so I dunno. Still coming out way ahead in the end imo. And the mouse controls actually work really well.
On RDR2, in case anyone hasn't seen:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/271590/discussions/0/1630790506919847161/
Launching from the exe and not the launcher
Just rename rdr2.exe to GTA5.exe
https://steamcommunity.com/app/271590/discussions/0/1630790506919847161/
Launching from the exe and not the launcher
Just rename rdr2.exe to GTA5.exe
Tbf, more presets would be cool.
That would be actually worse. PC is not a closed machine so closed graphic options would make a weak favor to any game that includes them. That's why there's always a custom graphics option
Linus Sebastian keeps his (and his wife's) PC in the closet too but still manages to play it. :P
But seriously, who would let their cat rub itself all over a $1,000 motherboard, not to mention sit on the graphics card!? I shuddered!
C'mon, lets not trade one bit of hyperbole for another. PC is by far the fastest loading, but my Xbox One X does not take anywhere close to "1+ minute"
He didn't say closed options. Something like "Textures: PS4 - low - medium - PS4 Pro - High - Ultra"
You are right, tried to game on PC and wasted my money hate the experience and now the PC is obsolete to gaming.
How is another preset a bad idea? Frankly I'd be grateful if we had something like that across the board for all PC games because it'd give me a nice reference point when adjusting settings.
Gears 5 is amazing on the X, but how demanding is it? I could run it at 100fps on average at ultra on my 6 year old PC with only GPU upgrades (1080ti at the moment). Could run it on three screens and still have it around 70fps.
OP
OP
I think 90% of current gen games run at 30 fps on the One X just because the processor is holding them back.
I run pretty much every game at 1080p@60 with my current rig and now it seems it's my fault for expecting a better performance on RDR2 even though I met the recommended specs...and no, I never expected to run the game on Ultra.
The X is running it at 4k native. A 1060 is not getting 30fps at 4k at low, if even 20.
When people are talking about 'Ultra' settings, they usually mean everything besides textures. Textures are one of those things which are only dependent on your vram, if you have less than 6GB then yes, setting them to Ultra will kill your performance, but in general if they can fit in your video cards ram higher-res textures do not cause any perfomance degradation. A 1060 can run Ultra textures fine, it's the other settings that are the issue.
Of course this is a high profile game so it's going to get attention, but I think people are shocked at this is because GTAV was such a good port. The PC version blew away the PS4/Xbox versions even on middling hardware at the time.
So why is this specific issue the reason people hate pc gaming as you say, when the problem is with this game and almost every game plays fine on your pc?
There are games that don't perform as well as they should on console as well.
Games is performing equal or worse than on consoles while looking the same? If yes, then we have a problem.
Alright, running slightly worse on a pc is expected (hardware specific optimization on consoles) but that certainly seems worse than what I'd consider reasonable.
hopefully they take a look at that performance.
So there is good and bad with PC RDR2.
The good aspects are not going to get worse.
The bad aspects can only get better overall.
Even if it's 2 steps forward, 1 step back in the next update/patch.
I figure things will be much better in a few months with R*, Nvidia and AMD doing what they have to do to get problems fixed.
That's the way I look at it.
The good aspects are not going to get worse.
The bad aspects can only get better overall.
Even if it's 2 steps forward, 1 step back in the next update/patch.
I figure things will be much better in a few months with R*, Nvidia and AMD doing what they have to do to get problems fixed.
That's the way I look at it.
What? No. The only problem is developers not communicating how well the listed specs can run the game. Every developer will have their own render target and budget depending on the game and then there are proprietary engines that studios use as well. This is how it works on consoles as well except that they do not allow adjusting graphics.
Gears 4 and 5 are by far the most optimised games of the last 5 years imo.
They just work (single player at least)
They wouldn't be closed, just in addition to the regular stuff. You'd have Low/Medium/High/Ultra/PS4/XB1X/PS4Pro/Switch etc (plus Custom / the the ability to tweak every setting independently from a preset - and maybe even more advanced ini editing if needed), and picking PS4 just sets all the individual settings to mimic what is set on the PS4 - you'd still be able to alter the individual settings from there if you desired - like up the resolution, etc.
Bought my first gaming PC a month or two ago and downloaded The Arkham series when they were free on the Epic store. Tried booting up Asylum and got an error code. It kept popping up so I had to Google it. Next thing I know I'm in the properties of the game data reorganizing the binary code in order to make it work. After it was all said and done it started working, but I'm not gonna lie I had a little bit of buyer's remorse knowing that I have a Ps4 that I just pop a disk in an play.
It's gotten a lot better and I'm starting to tap into settings with my games and stuff. The barrier to entry was definitely pretty high for me when I first started though.
It's gotten a lot better and I'm starting to tap into settings with my games and stuff. The barrier to entry was definitely pretty high for me when I first started though.
Well you probably started with the most notoriously broken game in memory if that helps.
Haha yeah I discovered that when I was trying to fix it! Oops. APEX is starting to crash mid game for me now, so I've gotta do some research on that as well
You won for free, lost less time that you would with the loadings on PS4 with the trouble and is not locked to 1080p/30fps plus better controller options.
He said Asylum, not Knight.
This is lengthy, but heh, I can't find a different way to go through it all:
- While waiting for Digital Foundry to come up with some reliable data on PC/Console comparison, I've myself compared side by side, frame by frame footage between a supposedly maxed quality 4k PC and PS4 Pro. I'm not seeing the difference people claim to be. The PC footage is very clearly much more defined and high resolution, but what's on screen is almost identical to the PS4 footage. The same distance ranges, the same geometry, trees on the distance, grass draw distance. The exact same distance where shadows pop up. It's close to 1:1 reproduction. The PS4 seems to have a stronger "haze", and has much less clarity because of the resolution, but it looks just the same screen rescaled. So I'm still doubting that the console version is a mix of low and medium, unless low and medium are nearly identical to the max.
This is the footage I've used:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpgt6L89hY (PS4 Pro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNutWJ7Xw2Q (PC)
I've compared 2:05 onward from the first video VS 1:42:30 of the second one. Going on for the next 10 minutes. Since they are scripted sequences in the open, they are quite easy to compare side by side.
- The second point is about the topic itself. The advantage of playing on a console isn't simply that the game "just works", but also that it was built FOR the hardware. On PC when you have to juggle with settings to find a decent compromise of performance and quality, you either spend three months taking screenshots, compare every setting and so on. There are always settings that tank the performance while being negligible visually, so you just don't know what's the best compromise unless you really spend hours researching, and even then it's always a rough estimation.
This on top of emergent technical issues. For example I remember the first Titanfall, the developers explained they spent a lot of time reorganizing the texture pool on PC, so that all the big, important textures that take the priority on screen still retained a very high quality, while they used lower textures for stuff that was more hidden, less noticeable. The result what that on a screenshot comparison there wasn't almost any perceivable distinction between different texture settings. Even if the texture requirements went up dramatically from one setting to the next.
Compare this I just said, to Assassin Creed Unity. If you tried to match the same texture quality of a PS4, on the PC version, you obtained a version that looked HORRENDOUS. This because the PS4 had a mix of medium and high textures, carefully handpicked, that on PC was impossible to achieve. You either selected "high", or medium would have been already lower than PS4 quality despite some trivial textures would look better. Because on PC the textures pools weren't well done and the developers only focused to make the high settings good. The result of this was that on PC you either maxed textures, or the game would look worse than a PS4. No middle ground.
Here we come to the conclusion about one aspect that I've never seen expressed: games on consoles, because of the single hardware, are VERY FINELY TUNED FOR ART DIRECTION. It means that there are devs whose whole job is match the very best performance concessions to look the best possible. It means there are professionals who spend days doing this fine tuning of details, cutting the corners that are the least important. On PC you can replicate some of this through manual settings, but it's a very long shot from tuning the code directly, and you can never match the time and care spent by devs paid for the job.
This directly leads, on PC, the impulse of pushing everything to the max. It's natural.
And now maybe a personal thing: when I look at PC footage, compared to consoles, the PC footage gives me a feeling that things aren't quite "right". But it was hard to pinpoint why. I eventually realized that its because of the animations. When moved to 60 fps footage the added smoothness has the incidental effect of making the same animations more robotic and stiff. The same happens with textures, when you increase the resolution to 4k the much higher definition simply brings out flaws that you wouldn't notice. Basically the PC, with the added clarity, enhances the problems too, because the game wasn't originally made for this definition. And ultimately it looks "off", weird.
The exact same animation that looks perfectly fine at 30 fps, when seen at 60 becomes extremely unnatural and robotic, as if sticks out the rest of the environment like a sore thumb. Same for facial expressions, or textures quality. When you see the console footage, the game looks like a marvel because it all blends together naturally. When you see the PC footage you have this surgical sight that suddenly emphasizes all the things that aren't quite right, and it all appears more glitchy and rough.
- While waiting for Digital Foundry to come up with some reliable data on PC/Console comparison, I've myself compared side by side, frame by frame footage between a supposedly maxed quality 4k PC and PS4 Pro. I'm not seeing the difference people claim to be. The PC footage is very clearly much more defined and high resolution, but what's on screen is almost identical to the PS4 footage. The same distance ranges, the same geometry, trees on the distance, grass draw distance. The exact same distance where shadows pop up. It's close to 1:1 reproduction. The PS4 seems to have a stronger "haze", and has much less clarity because of the resolution, but it looks just the same screen rescaled. So I'm still doubting that the console version is a mix of low and medium, unless low and medium are nearly identical to the max.
This is the footage I've used:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZpgt6L89hY (PS4 Pro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNutWJ7Xw2Q (PC)
I've compared 2:05 onward from the first video VS 1:42:30 of the second one. Going on for the next 10 minutes. Since they are scripted sequences in the open, they are quite easy to compare side by side.
- The second point is about the topic itself. The advantage of playing on a console isn't simply that the game "just works", but also that it was built FOR the hardware. On PC when you have to juggle with settings to find a decent compromise of performance and quality, you either spend three months taking screenshots, compare every setting and so on. There are always settings that tank the performance while being negligible visually, so you just don't know what's the best compromise unless you really spend hours researching, and even then it's always a rough estimation.
This on top of emergent technical issues. For example I remember the first Titanfall, the developers explained they spent a lot of time reorganizing the texture pool on PC, so that all the big, important textures that take the priority on screen still retained a very high quality, while they used lower textures for stuff that was more hidden, less noticeable. The result what that on a screenshot comparison there wasn't almost any perceivable distinction between different texture settings. Even if the texture requirements went up dramatically from one setting to the next.
Compare this I just said, to Assassin Creed Unity. If you tried to match the same texture quality of a PS4, on the PC version, you obtained a version that looked HORRENDOUS. This because the PS4 had a mix of medium and high textures, carefully handpicked, that on PC was impossible to achieve. You either selected "high", or medium would have been already lower than PS4 quality despite some trivial textures would look better. Because on PC the textures pools weren't well done and the developers only focused to make the high settings good. The result of this was that on PC you either maxed textures, or the game would look worse than a PS4. No middle ground.
Here we come to the conclusion about one aspect that I've never seen expressed: games on consoles, because of the single hardware, are VERY FINELY TUNED FOR ART DIRECTION. It means that there are devs whose whole job is match the very best performance concessions to look the best possible. It means there are professionals who spend days doing this fine tuning of details, cutting the corners that are the least important. On PC you can replicate some of this through manual settings, but it's a very long shot from tuning the code directly, and you can never match the time and care spent by devs paid for the job.
This directly leads, on PC, the impulse of pushing everything to the max. It's natural.
And now maybe a personal thing: when I look at PC footage, compared to consoles, the PC footage gives me a feeling that things aren't quite "right". But it was hard to pinpoint why. I eventually realized that its because of the animations. When moved to 60 fps footage the added smoothness has the incidental effect of making the same animations more robotic and stiff. The same happens with textures, when you increase the resolution to 4k the much higher definition simply brings out flaws that you wouldn't notice. Basically the PC, with the added clarity, enhances the problems too, because the game wasn't originally made for this definition. And ultimately it looks "off", weird.
The exact same animation that looks perfectly fine at 30 fps, when seen at 60 becomes extremely unnatural and robotic, as if sticks out the rest of the environment like a sore thumb. Same for facial expressions, or textures quality. When you see the console footage, the game looks like a marvel because it all blends together naturally. When you see the PC footage you have this surgical sight that suddenly emphasizes all the things that aren't quite right, and it all appears more glitchy and rough.
Last edited:
I keep trying to tell PC gamers exactly this. Like I love Xbox, my co worker has a beefy ass PC and sold his Xbox. He's trying to convince me to join the master race since we both make pretty good money at this job and he's saying I'd save money in the long run, which isn't wrong. But recently he got red dead 2 (the game that made me go out and buy a 4K tv and a Xbox one x, LITERALLY for that one game... that I have yet to beat lol) and he's having similar problems about not hitting the settings he was hoping to fix. That and some game called blood stained he has had problems with. When he mentioned it I was like bro this EXACTLY why a lot of us hardcore console gamers don't game on PC.
I've heard people say "well you still have to download patches and installs" and the simple answer to that is nobody cares, at the end of the day I press a button, it downloads, then I'm playing the game. Nothing more nothing less, honestly I wish steam machines would've taken off because I've always wanted to mod and stuff... plus I thought the controller was pretty rad lol.
I've heard people say "well you still have to download patches and installs" and the simple answer to that is nobody cares, at the end of the day I press a button, it downloads, then I'm playing the game. Nothing more nothing less, honestly I wish steam machines would've taken off because I've always wanted to mod and stuff... plus I thought the controller was pretty rad lol.
Bloodstained was brilliant on PC. Not sure what would be the issue there. In fact Bloodstained is a mess on Switch.
And honestly, 99%+ that last part is exactly my PC experience. The only problematic game I bought that I recall is Arkham Knight, so I just got a refund and played on PS4.
I'm not a "PC gamer" by any stretch.. just someone that plays on everything. I have pretty much everything available but just don't see this issue as it's being painted.
Last edited:
Those settings are based on the underlying engine technologies as well as the graphic card technologies any given user may have.
If you have a "high" setting for anti-aliasing, there are numerous AA solutions that a developer may choose to provide, and some of them may be proprietary for nVidia customers, so if you have an AMD card, your "high" setting would be a literal different technology. It's the same with PS4 and XBO, and their Checkerboard and Native 4K solutions, where you have the same game on different hardware running differently.
The point is, that settings will always mean different things especially as time marches on and technology improves. Ambient occlusion, screen-space reflections, multi-threading, all of these change over time, and if you have a new gfx card that renders that stuff in hardware, playing an older game that did that stuff in software isn't gonna see an improvement with new hardware anyway. So what your pc setting means for "SSR on" today, will mean something different in five years anyway.
Did you fix the issues with Halo MCC fast on your console?
I am still waiting for Nintendo to patch OoT to run at 60fps. Or at least 30.
Last edited:
With all do respect, that sort of leans towards my point about general confusion from the consumers point of view.