• 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.

OPINION: Red Dead Redemption 2 on PC is exactly the reason why some people still HATE gaming on PC

Milk

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,325
Here's a video of me launching and configuring The Witcher 3 after a fresh install earlier today. You can see from Steam that it hasn't been launched since 2018 so this was not set up in advance.
Watch my confusion as I say to myself "hey, this doesn't look right" after loading up a save and then spend hours poring over the graphics options before I can play the game.


Welcome to the start of my video series detailing how difficult it is to "just play the game" on PC with all the production values that zero planning and 60 seconds of editing gets you, as I wait for another project to render out in the background.
I'm only half-joking. It's a project I've actually thought about doing for a while now thanks to this forum blowing things way out of proportion.
This doesn’t mean anything.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how easy PC gaming is nowadays. Consoles will always be a more simple experience, it’s an undeniable fact.

Take my recent example of my own personal experience with Gears 5 PC. Launch night, I excitedly boot up the game. I play the first level. At a certain cutscene, the game loses audio, then freezes, then crashes.

Close and repeat, same glitch happens multiple times in a row. Eventually I skip the cutscene, and the cutscene after it is EVEN WORSE with models not loading, the scenery not loaded, etc.

Said fuck it, booted up the Xbox (thanks to crossbuy) and played there, it worked, looked great, easy as pie.

Could I have fixed whatever was causing all that PC weirdness? Probably. But my settings seemed fine, my PC was well above the recommended specs, and those glitches were random as hell. No way I wanted to try and diagnose problems, I just wanted to play my game.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,137
This doesn’t mean anything.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how easy PC gaming is nowadays. Consoles will always be a more simple experience, it’s an undeniable fact.

Take my recent example of my own personal experience with Gears 5 PC. Launch night, I excitedly boot up the game. I play the first level. At a certain cutscene, the game loses audio, then freezes, then crashes.

Close and repeat, same glitch happens multiple times in a row. Eventually I skip the cutscene, and the cutscene after it is EVEN WORSE with models not loading, the scenery not loaded, etc.

Said fuck it, booted up the Xbox (thanks to crossbuy) and played there, it worked, looked great, easy as pie.

Could I have fixed whatever was causing all that PC weirdness? Probably. But my settings seemed fine, my PC was well above the recommended specs, and those glitches were random as hell. No way I wanted to try and diagnose problems, I just wanted to play my game.
That doesn't mean anything. My Gears 5 PC worked flawless.
 

sugarmonkey

Member
Oct 27, 2017
217
To the point of the OP, I do sometimes hate having to tweak games to get them to run their best on my hardware. With that being said, the amount of times I've had trouble like RDR2 in the past 20 YEARS is about 7-8 times. PC gaming is more expensive, and isn't plug and play. Some days I boot up my Xbox 1X because I want to lay back in my recliner and boot up a game in the Xbox ecosystem and relax. Eventually though, I find myself back on my PC for 60+ frames per second on a G-Sync monitor, with a visual quality that is consistently great. For every "Wow! That looks ducking awesome!" Game I can play on my 1X or Pro, there are 100 games on my PC that look as good.

PC gaming is a luxury, and I'm grateful I get to experience it. Do I sometimes wish it was plug and play? Sure. But using what appears to be an unoptimized port of a game designed for consoles as an example for why people don't like gaming on PC seems pretty uninformed.
 

Milk

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,325
Didn't Gears 5 on console have a bunch of issues anyway?
With servers and progress, etc. No graphical collapses like my PC experience.

That doesn't mean anything. My Gears 5 PC worked flawless.
Nice snark but it does mean something. Extremely random little things like that simply will not happen in 99.99% of cases on a console.

I remember back when Halo 5 MP came to PC, a user posted an odd glitch where the vines on a multiplayer map were missing texture. Just the vines. What?

Never something you’ll run into if you just pop in a console version.

I don’t know why this is something some people have a hard time admitting. Consoles are easier, full stop.
 

Milk

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,325
Of course, it goes without saying that when PC does work (and it does work most of the time), it’s phenomenal.

I do most of my gaming on PC since it’s where I play Destiny 2. Phenomenal port, works great, the 60fps is an instant banger compared to the eyesore fps of the console versions.

But when that occasional game does give you issues, and you gotta start tinkering with settings and files, it’s infuriating. Absolutely infuriating.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,478
Dude, that's a different video from what I cited. Anyway other posters are trolling with "lol its on low-medium" when YOU just proved that it runs mostly high settings with a few items on medium.

No duh a 2080 TI (MSRP $999) can run it better than Xbox One X (MSRP $399). In your video DF even states (@ 13:40) that most PC gamers aren't running these Insane or even Ultra settings, certainly not a 1060 like the OP has. One X represents great price:performance.

As far as RDR2, we'll have to wait until the tech analysis but I bet it'll be the same where One X has a mix of mostly high and medium settings... Not "lol Low settings" To my eyes, these games don't look that much different across platforms save for PS4/XO where the IQ takes a noticeable hit.
It's not running high settings on the really taxing stuff though, that's kinda the point. SSR at medium is nowhere near as taxing as it is at insane (
Dude, that's a different video from what I cited. Anyway other posters are trolling with "lol its on low-medium" when YOU just proved that it runs mostly high settings with a few items on medium.

No duh a 2080 TI (MSRP $999) can run it better than Xbox One X (MSRP $399). In your video DF even states (@ 13:40) that most PC gamers aren't running these Insane or even Ultra settings, certainly not a 1060 like the OP has. One X represents great price:performance.

As far as RDR2, we'll have to wait until the tech analysis but I bet it'll be the same where One X has a mix of mostly high and medium settings... Not "lol Low settings" To my eyes, these games don't look that much different across platforms save for PS4/XO where the IQ takes a noticeable hit.
You claimed that Gears 5 on 1X is using the equivalent of PC Ultra+ (not a real setting, but maybe you mean better than Ultra), which just isn't the case. You also claim that it's similar to high end PC version, which again, it isn't. A high end system doesn't need to drop to 1080p to maintain a decent level of performance. My 1080 Ti is, at this point, toward the lower rung of what's considered high end, and I don't have to make do with medium or high settings for the taxing stuff like volumetric lighting, or SSR.

X1X is a great mix of price and performance, but you're comparing it with hardware that it has no business being compared to.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,137
With servers and progress, etc. No graphical collapses like my PC experience.


Nice snark but it does mean something. Extremely random little things like that simply will not happen in 99.99% of cases on a console.

I remember back when Halo 5 MP came to PC, a user posted an odd glitch where the vines on a multiplayer map were missing texture. Just the vines. What?

Never something you’ll run into if you just pop in a console version.

I don’t know why this is something some people have a hard time admitting. Consoles are easier, full stop.
Native mouse+kb is already working in Gears 5 on Xbox or they didn't fix this deal breaker issue yet? it's easier to play with mouse+kb at 100+fps, ultrawide on Xbox?

Point is being easier doesn`t mean nothing as the machine doesn't allow anything to improve the experience.
 

georaldc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,016
Here's a video of me launching and configuring The Witcher 3 after a fresh install earlier today. You can see from Steam that it hasn't been launched since 2018 so this was not set up in advance.
Watch my confusion as I say to myself "hey, this doesn't look right" after loading up a save and then spend hours poring over the graphics options before I can play the game.


Welcome to the start of my video series detailing how difficult it is to "just play the game" on PC with all the production values that zero planning and 60 seconds of editing gets you, as I wait for another project to render out in the background.
I'm only half-joking. It's a project I've actually thought about doing for a while now thanks to this forum blowing things way out of proportion.
Depending on your setup, a straightforward game (when it comes to configuring) like Witcher 3 can also work not right out of the box. An example is when I used to have a gaming laptop with a 970m. For some reason, my laptop connected to an external display plus The Witcher 3 in exclusive fullscreen would not work properly at all. The main menu video background becomes a static picture, the loading screens would not load properly and the loading voice overs would be missing. Framerate would be all over the place too. The fix was to switch to borderless if I remember right. Such a strange issue and something I was never able to figure out.

Maybe that's an edge case but I can imagine a person not used to PC game troubleshooting attempting to figure out what is going on with that and just being frustrated.
 

Conkerkid11

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,095
For you. Plenty of people would prefer the simpler experience.
There was a thread just the other day about people not wanting to buy Control until it was patched on consoles.

And that just tends to be the way things go on consoles. You can't fix anything yourself, so you have to hope that the devs give a fuck and eventually patch it. That doesn't always happen though, which is why it's nice that PC allows for troubleshooting.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,137
There was a thread just the other day about people not wanting to buy Control until it was patched on consoles.

And that just tends to be the way things go on consoles. You can't fix anything yourself, so you have to hope that the devs give a fuck and eventually patch it. That doesn't always happen though, which is why it's nice that PC allows for troubleshooting.
Some people prefer to wait forever for a fix (like Skyrim on PS3) than have a option/solution and play the game better than on console, for whatever reason.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,991
Seattle
You are like a parody of the PC Master race meme.

I love PC gaming, but console gaming is simpler and shouting over people about how it's inferior is just pointless.

People have different priorities; if your priorities are mouse and keyboard support you are going to PC game. If you aren't, consoles might be more attractive, especially if you like how much simpler they are
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,137
You are like a parody of the PC Master race meme.

I love PC gaming, but console gaming is simpler and shouting over people about how it's inferior is just pointless.

People have different priorities; if your priorities are mouse and keyboard support you are going to PC game. If you aren't, consoles might be more attractive, especially if you like how much simpler they are
Simpler = without options. Lack of options is not better over more options.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,991
Seattle
Simpler = without options. Lack of options is not better over more options.
Again, priorities.

Console games crash less, that is better than crashing more.
Consoles are generally cheaper, that is better than being more expensive.

blah, blah

It's about priorities; like I said, I love PC gaming.. it's less complex than a lot of people make it out to be, but it still has issues a console will never have. Consoles also have issues PCs rarely have. It's about what matters to you as a consumer, not some war about what is superior or inferior overall.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,137
Again, priorities.

Console games crash less, that is better than crashing more.
Consoles are generally cheaper, that is better than being more expensive.

blah, blah

It's about priorities; like I said, I love PC gaming.. it's less complex than a lot of people make it out to be, but it still has issues a console will never have. Consoles also have issues PCs rarely have. It's about what matters to you as a consumer, not some war about what is superior or inferior overall.
No one said it doesn't have any issues, but has far less issues and almost every issue has a fix, while tons of issues don't have on console. It is objetively superior as a gaming machine. Nothing to do with war or this non senses.

Cheaper = better? 0.o
 

Tommcatt

Member
Apr 26, 2019
386
Cheaper = better? 0.o
Not everyone wants to invest all that much into gaming. They might just wanna play some Forza every once in a while and in that case they can grab an Xbox on sale for like 200 and call it a day. That's better than spending more.

Priorities decide better options, not specs lol.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,991
Seattle
No one said it doesn't have any issues, but has far less issues and almost every issue has a fix, while tons of issues don't have on console. It is objetively superior as a gaming machine. Nothing to do with war or this non senses.

Cheaper = better? 0.o
Spending less money is better than spending more money, do I really need to argue that with you?

But any given point isn't even.. the point. You are just declaring something objective that is subjective. You are objectively wrong about how opinions work.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,137
Not everyone wants to invest all that much into gaming. They might just wanna play some Forza every once in a while and in that case they can grab an Xbox on sale for like 200 and call it a day. That's better than spending more.

Priorities decide better options, not specs lol.
Than you agree with me that cheaper is not always better, right?
Spending less money is better than spending more money, do I really need to argue that with you?

But any given point isn't even.. the point. You are just declaring something objective that is subjective. You are objectively wrong about how opinions work.
PS2 is cheaper than a PS4. Than PS2 is better, right?

100+fps Gears 5 is objetively better than 60fps. There are things that opinion can't change.
 

Solid

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,396
This doesn’t mean anything.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how easy PC gaming is nowadays. Consoles will always be a more simple experience, it’s an undeniable fact.

Take my recent example of my own personal experience with Gears 5 PC. Launch night, I excitedly boot up the game. I play the first level. At a certain cutscene, the game loses audio, then freezes, then crashes.

Close and repeat, same glitch happens multiple times in a row. Eventually I skip the cutscene, and the cutscene after it is EVEN WORSE with models not loading, the scenery not loaded, etc.

Said fuck it, booted up the Xbox (thanks to crossbuy) and played there, it worked, looked great, easy as pie.

Could I have fixed whatever was causing all that PC weirdness? Probably. But my settings seemed fine, my PC was well above the recommended specs, and those glitches were random as hell. No way I wanted to try and diagnose problems, I just wanted to play my game.
I could barely even play Gears 5 for the first two weeks on Xbox between full game crashes and server issues. It almost turned me off entirely from the game and I've barely played the game since my buddy and I were finally able to complete the campaign together two weeks after the game came out.

You don't even wanna hear about our experiences with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Borderlands 3 on Xbox. Constant, baffling issues. Several full-on console shutdowns per session being the worst of them. I've already sworn off of Call of Duty for the next few months because of the sheer number of issues I run into any time I try to get a game going with one of my buddies.

And I don't get the opportunity to fix this stuff. I just have to wait and hope that the shit improves.
 
Last edited:

rodrigolfp

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,137
You can't declare an entire product "objectively better" by looking at a single facet of it in comparison to another product.
Where I am looking at a single facet of PC and console gaming? Talking about all. Is it simpler to fix Skyrim problems on PS3 or on PC?

And I don't get the opportunity to fix this stuff. I just have to wait and hope that the shit improves.
But it's simpler gears 5 on console, and simpler/no option to do anything = better. /s
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
734
PC game is not for you.

And if you tolerate 30 fps u should play on consoles.

You are trying everything on ultra. Try high settings and see the magic happen.

And remember consoles(even one x) is a mix of low and medium.
i would say that attitudes like this is why some people still hate PC gaming, not recommended specs
I would agree. It does suck that the game isn't well optimized, but the shitty attitude that a lot of people that game on PC is the main killer and that's coming from someone that games on PC a lot.

I have a friend that was super excited to play it but ultimately decided not to because his 1060/1700 doesn't seem like it will cut it.
 

grandwizorb

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,846
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.
We are in angular graphics territory here folks.

Thread accomplished it's objective. It's no wonder why half the PC community already bailed on this site.
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,358
These generalizations of an entire platform aren't really productive. Seriously.

All platforms have poor releases. Some are marred with performance issues. Some don't deliver on the level of content they set expectations for. Some are filled with garbage monetization and more.

Put the blame where it belongs and stop making a platform war out of everything.

Edit: If it helps. Imagine someone making a thread about how the Playstation platform is garbage because No Mans Sky didn't deliver content on release to his/her personal satisfaction? Would that thread be welcomed? Left unlocked for fanboys to pour in looking for any excuse to pat their Xbox fandom on the back? Or would it be locked and mocked by the community?

Seriously.... This is pathetic really.
 

inguef

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
12,692
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.
This has the makings of a new copy pasta meme.
 

RedSwirl

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,796
Not everyone is playing on PC to enjoy better graphics or performance though, many prefer the controls, mods, Steam ecosystem, or want to play on their gaming laptop.
This is probably the biggest point I'd highlight in this discussion.

I already think Red Dead 2 looks amazing on my base PS4, but I couldn't stand the gamepad controls, so I decided to wait for the PC version just to play it with a mouse and keyboard. I guess mods'll eventually be cool too. And yeah, maybe most laptops 10 years down the line will be able to play it.

And I know that whenever I get my next system I'll just be able to reinstall it. Yeah that'll probably happen with the console versions too this time around, but it's always a guessing game, and we still don't know if Rocktar (or other developers) will charge money for remastered versions or just do enhancement patches.

I have a FX 6300 and a GTX 760 2 GB since late 2013 and have played 95% of games at equal settings/performance or better than base consoles, as it should be. There are some outliers of course, but that's the developers fault and Kepler aging like milk. A 7950 R9 280 aged much better and costed the same. My bad.
How is this card holding up for the latest games?

I got that card in 2013 too and in just about every game I was able to still get performance better than base PS4. I just had to target 1080p/30 in pretty much every game (60 for games that ran at 60 on consoles). It was fine. I had no problems with Witcher 3 after limiting the framerate to 30 and targeting some kind of mix between medium and high settings. The game still looked great.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
9,876
That post is the epitome of what mental gymnastics people come up with to dismiss the platform, even worse than the ol' "I can't concentrate on PC gaming because the temptation to open Netflix on my dd one monitor is too much".

This is probably the biggest point I'd highlight in this discussion.

I already think Red Dead 2 looks amazing on my base PS4, but I couldn't stand the gamepad controls, so I decided to wait for the PC version just to play it with a mouse and keyboard. I guess mods'll eventually be cool too. And yeah, maybe most laptops 10 years down the line will be able to play it.

And I know that whenever I get my next system I'll just be able to reinstall it. Yeah that'll probably happen with the console versions too this time around, but it's always a guessing game, and we still don't know if Rocktar (or other developers) will charge money for remastered versions or just do enhancement patches.



How is this card holding up for the latest games?

I got that card in 2013 too and in just about every game I was able to still get performance better than base PS4. I just had to target 1080p/30 in pretty much every game (60 for games that ran at 60 on consoles). It was fine. I had no problems with Witcher 3 after limiting the framerate to 30 and targeting some kind of mix between medium and high settings. The game still looked great.
Plus 90% of the time you're stuck with whatever awful FoV and post processing effects are in the game.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,218
Posts like this are exactly why PC players get stereotyped bud.

“Consoles are simpler, I just get to put the game in and play” is by no means a bad or reach-y defense on why some prefer console gaming.
No normal person judges someone based on the platform they choose to play video games on. Lol what kind of stupid shit.
 

hlhbk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
933
While I still do think the game is not optimized well if you don't want to play with settings and work through issues for the benefits of pc gaming then it's not for you

Things are so much easier now compared to years ago it's crazy.
 

Firefly

Member
Jul 10, 2018
1,665
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.


Higher resolution textures bringing out flaws. 60fps animations more stiff and robotic. hooo boy..
 

georaldc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,016
Just bought the game and have only had time to run the benchmark. So far, the game seems to run pretty well at 3440x1440 and a mix of medium/high, averaging roughly 50 fps. Framerate is definitely lower than what I am used to (have a 1080 Ti and a 3700x) but gsync helps mask any drops. I imagine I can hit 60 fps or more if I spent time tweaking settings, but I guess this is one of those things other people just hate doing (especially with the amount of options available in the game).

There are some strange things I noticed though:

- the game always seems to reset to borderless windowed when starting the game.
- gsync doesn't work when disabling vsync in game, and using the vulkan api, at least for me
- loading times in the benchmark are awful with dx12
 

Arulan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,254
This thread, and the many like it that have come before are nothing more than an invitation for platform war rhetoric and ignorance.

We are in angular graphics territory here folks.

Thread accomplished it's objective. It's no wonder why half the PC community already bailed on this site.
You can say that again.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,699
Posts like this are exactly why PC players get stereotyped bud.

“Consoles are simpler, I just get to put the game in and play” is by no means a bad or reach-y defense on why some prefer console gaming.
No, but the issue is that the difference in ease of use and the amount of 'fiddling' you have to do is very often ridiculously exaggerated.
 

Pennyfish

Member
May 17, 2018
956
No, but the issue is that the difference in ease of use and the amount of 'fiddling' you have to do is very often ridiculously exaggerated.
This is very subjective. Unfortunately, for some people anything more than "it just works" is too much. With modern PC releases I'd say "it just works" 85% of the time. The next 10% need minutes of fixes, and the 5% that need more probably can't be fixed by anybody other than the dev. And, that is to get the game how I want it. I would consider my standards decently high.
 

Firefly

Member
Jul 10, 2018
1,665
This is very subjective. Unfortunately, for some people anything more than "it just works" is too much. With modern PC releases I'd say "it just works" 85% of the time. The next 10% need minutes of fixes, and the 5% that need more probably can't be fixed by anybody other than the dev. And, that is to get the game how I want it. I would consider my standards decently high.
Getting up to change discs is just too much for me when i'm laying on my comfy couch at the end of the day after work and just wanna play a different game, but I also want to be able to resell my games, therefore, this is why I HATE console gaming.

/s
Ofcourse that was sarcasm but this is the kind of ridiculous things that get posted here when it comes to pc gaming.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,699
This is very subjective. Unfortunately, for some people anything more than "it just works" is too much. With modern PC releases I'd say "it just works" 85% of the time. The next 10% need minutes of fixes, and the 5% that need more probably can't be fixed by anybody other than the dev.
I disagree. I review PC games for a site I partly own and I play a lot of PC games not day one but even before that, at the beta stage. I have a very modest PC too, an i5 6500 and a 1050ti. Out of the many games I've reviewed in the last three years only one was broken, Just Cause 4.
 

laxu

Member
Nov 26, 2017
955
RDR2 PC is a shitshow of a launch and should not be held as a norm for PC. In the past say two years I have had no huge problems with any of the games I played before this one.

The openness of the PC platform is both beneficial and detrimental to gaming on it.

Pros:
  • Community fixes when a developer doesn't step up or abandons their game.
  • Community mods improving or changing the gameplay experience.
  • Wide variety of control options.
  • Possible to configure each game to work best on your hardware.
Cons:
  • Multiple launchers and stores making just launching a game awkward nowadays
  • Ported games receiving less attention to make sure their PC-specific aspects work well (mouse+keyboard controls, ultrawide displays etc)
  • Requires more knowhow to get games performing like you want. Things like GeForce Experience optimization settings are supposed to take the guesswork out of this.
  • Constant Windows and driver updates to keep everything running rather than just console OS updates every month or so.
  • Games are more prone to issues due to the wide variety of hardware configurations
Consoles nowadays are really good and the next gen will be stellar. If you don't want to put in the added effort for PC gaming then it's fine to stick to consoles. Personally I will most likely always play on PC primarily because those tinkering and tweaking options are a plus in my book. On average most games require no more than a one time configuration, which can be as simple as choosing a graphics preset and as complex as applying ReShade filters and getting the max performance out of it.
 

ffvorax

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,519
What bothered me in the past was not much to not be able to get the "best options" to play the game, but more to play the game at all... drivers to update, incompatible things, crashes... but its like 10 years at least I dont play on pc anymore? I suppose these things are mostly a problem of the past.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,388
As a followup to my posts from last night:


This game needs some serious work, and it still has the GTA V era i5 bug. It might actually be worse than GTA, considering that it flat out doesn't work depending on what motherboard (or even bios revision) you own for the Ryzen platform. Rockstar shouldn't have launched the game like this.

That aside, in a primarily CPU limited scenario at Medium settings this game stomps around at 60fps on a 2600k from 2011, handily outperforming consoles 2 years newer. Give a hoot n' holler to Zen 2 and nvme being the standard next gen, rather than a tablet cpu and spinning platters.

Even with PC gaming's occasional day 1 issues, this is one of the reasons why PC gaming has continued to remain a great choice despite its higher barrier of entry and issues.
 
Last edited: