The human eye is only capable of seeing so many graphics per second anyway.
-
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
It can be but one look into reddit or the steam forums for almost any game shows many people with even more problems.
I played The Division 2 with my best friend over the last few months and his game would simply start running like shit after 2 hours of gameplay. After a restart everything works fine. So, because i'm a pc player for over 20 years, i tried to look into hos problems and found many people with the same problem in the ubisoft forums. I tried the recommended 5-10 "fixes" but nothing helped. So i tried to update the nvidia gpu driver... Should be simple and without a problem but nothing could be further from the truth. The game displayed weird colours and ran worse than before. Just update the driver... lol. I had to manually uninstall the new driver, download a tool to delete the leftover driver parts and find his old gpu drivers because with them he could at least play for a time.
Easy.
As a lapsed PC gamer now pretty much console only this thread seems weird. PC gaming was always great, obviously not without issue, but still. Hell to this day I end up running all sorts of games I wouldn't expect to on my SP3 and its a freaking tablet.
basically you just had to install a driver. Good that you wrote a wall of text making it seems like rocket science and spliting the atom level of engineering
Indeed, everyone can have issues. The same applies to console.
But if you follow that thread, consoles experiences are fast, easy and flawless.
PC experience is buggy, all about tinkering and updating.
That's simply bullshit on both accounts.
Today (and even previous gen) a lot of games had problematic launches on consoles. High profile releases too. The Witcher 3 had a shitty framerate on PS4 for months, because of the vsync implementation which meant the game would look at 20fps in some areas. This would've been fixed if there was a simple "vsync" setting. But instead of "tinkering" for 5 minutes, people had to wait months for a fix.
World of Final Fantasy on PS4 Pro had a bug with the depth of field, which made the game super blurry, nearly unplayable. Was there a graphical setting, this would've been fixed in a click. But hey "I dont want to do tinkering".
People in here are acting like new releases are flawless. My ass. Red Dead Redemption 2 had a bug where your camp would be missing characters, preventing completion on some stuff. But hey, "flawless experience, a single button to play".
People in here are acting like the experience on console is flawless. You start, you play... Yet conveniently forget about the day one patches (which takes hours to download on the slow PSN). Yet coveniently forget that their consoles also have OS updates.
Whenever it's a small or a big release, problems exists on consoles. You know the difference though ? There's nothing you can do to fix them. Nothing. Except waiting in the hope that in the following days, weeks, sometimes months, a dev will notice and fix it. And that doesn't always happen (See Bloodborne).
I also dont remember a PC game killing my hardware. I remember Anthem bricking PS4s or Rocket League lobby overheating them. I also remember some games not supporting some fight stick without any choice but:
Hope for a patch
Buy a new one
Is a PC experience flawless ?
No. Did it improve ? Dramatically. To the point that as far as I'm concerned, it became more convenient than a console experience. Because there's nearly always a solution. If you want your PC to be a console, it's also possible.
Is a console experience flawless ?
No. In fact, as opposed to the PC experience, it got more and more complicated.
The difference in one case is you're stuck. Not the other.
Plus I always thought it was good practice to manually uninstall drivers and install the new ones. I dunno I always remembered something like that.
I do appreciate how Modern Warfare is so easy to play on Xbox
When I wanna play it, I just press a button on my console and I'm in
When the game hard crashes my console every fifteen minutes, I just press a button, and ten minutes later, I'm back in
No troubleshooting required
Its so easy and worry free
for real though the console experience has not been doing it for me lately, feeling like a lot of what I once considered to be usability advantages are diminishing over time as UIs become more sluggish and as many big name games become less reliable in terms of performance and stability
When I wanna play it, I just press a button on my console and I'm in
When the game hard crashes my console every fifteen minutes, I just press a button, and ten minutes later, I'm back in
No troubleshooting required
Its so easy and worry free
for real though the console experience has not been doing it for me lately, feeling like a lot of what I once considered to be usability advantages are diminishing over time as UIs become more sluggish and as many big name games become less reliable in terms of performance and stability
Last edited:
You are kinda giving me flashbacks of all the hard resets I had to do on my Xbox to get things working in Destiny.
Yes but only up to their capped framerate. Games with 30fps locks are still locked at 30fps (which is most of them).
I played a console game once and after waiting through the summer for the slow PlayStation network to download the enormous day one patch (yes, a day one patch on a console game, people on this thread would have you believe console gaming was a flawless experience). I then loaded the game up and went to a location where there was a gamebreaking bug that I had read about online. I didn't actually experience the bug myself, but it was further evidence that the flawless console experience espoused by certain people on this thread couldn't be further from the truth. I tried to muddle on, but the device was physically warm to the touch by now and seemed like it could capitulate under it's own industry at any moment. "so much for the convenience of consoles" I told myself as I returned to my Windows desktop computer.
Yes, the community is console centric, but I'm a primarily high end PC gamer sitting here telling you I agree with them.
And as I conceded, both platforms are very smooth indeed. At big picture scale, the difference isn't that big. But at a very granular level, most users never want to (or will never even consider) deal(ing) with any of this shit. Not even a tiny bit of it. They don't want to have to fiddle with their software, in any case, at any level. They want plug and play.
I'm not saying it's flat-out prohibitive - it's just not the experience they want, because it requires more effort (even if it's not much more, it's enough).
That's the thing. On PC the likelihood, the RISK of things just not quite working right and needing tweaks/fiddling is FAR higher than on console. Simply due to the nature of modular hardware, containing many more software components.
Counting game for game, console probably has more titles that perform worse, but the hardware is set in stone so you can't waste any time fiddling. Just try to enjoy what you've got. On PC you can fiddle endlessly and if something's wrong it's v likely to be an edge case related to your one of millions of hardware permutations.
Of course console isn't always performative and is far from flawless, but at least when you have an issue on console you don't lose minutes or hours of your day repeatedly fiddling with settings in game, in the driver management sfware, in the OS etc, and reloading the game every time to see if you've "fixed" whatever surreal arcane issue you're having is.
Last edited:
Ah yes, I can't wait to not have to deal with downloads/patches anymore once I get stadia
on modern versions of windows this generally isn't the case. i'd recommend it if you're switching from AMD to nvidia or vice versa, but if you're just updating then installing the new version on top doesn't require any uninstall first or reboot after.
having to do any of that to fix bugs can happen but they'd be marginal edge cases.
You, me and everyone else on this forum are a tiny minority of users compared to the bigger gamer audience. We may share our opinion and express ourselves but we can't speak for others outside of our own little bubble. So when the facts contradict our claims we have to be able to realize that maybe our own viewpoint if affected by the communities we interact with.
The facts, then, are that a whole lot of people out there, in the tens of millions, play PC games every day and seem to be enjoying it. For them to keep playing on PC they must not feel that changing the graphics preset from "High" to "Medium" if the game chugs a bit is such a daunting task that it puts them off from the platform. Millions of people of all ages seem to be doing just fine playing games on PC without having their computer spontaneously explode.
So while I imagine that everyone would agree that our gaming experience should ideally be as smooth as possible, there is a world of difference between saying that and claiming that the general audience absolutely can't stand something as trivial as changing a graphics preset.You may hold any opinion you like but the facts do not support it.
Hmm might have to eat some crow then. Yeah might be possible to just scrape 30fps at low with a 1060. A 1660ti getting 30fps with medium/high mix seems possible too, that's a good equivalent to the oneX (or the far cheaper super), so I guess we'll see with DF's analysis what equivalent settings the consoles are actually using.
Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Graphics Benchmark
Launched on PC a year after it debuted on consoles, Red Dead Redemption 2 is still a big release that deserves a detailed benchmark analysis, much like...www.techspot.com
It's averaging 19fps on high here at 4k. If you extrapolate....
As someone who buys on PC first, to be honest I've never had a huge problem with From Software console performance. Demon's Souls is still my favorite Souls game and I haven't even tried to emulate it yet. My 2nd favorite might be Bloodborne and I was perfectly fine playing it on my base PS4.
Really, generally speaking, if I enjoy a game enough, sub-30fps doesn't ruin my experience at all, not even on PC, especially if the game on PC is doing something in terms of graphics or scale of gameplay that's ambitious or unique enough to where I can understand why it runs like crap. That's how it was when I first played Crysis -- it looked beautiful back in 2007 and is still for the most part a top-tier FPS campaign. Arma 3 has taught me that 18fps can indeed be playable. I spent 400 hours playing Witcher 3 on PC at 30fps. I think the first game that was good enough for me to overlook the framerate was Ocarina of Time way which is like 20fps most of the time on N64. I think Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 was another one. I'm not saying I'll accept a slideshow, but if I'm really into a game I can still accept framerates as low as the high teens to be honest.
That said, I can recognize when a game should be running better than it is on PC because of how similar games run, or how it runs on console or whatever. I don't have RDR2 yet but what seems to be happening is we don't really know how the different PC settings compare to the console settings. Everything above medium seems to be significantly above what the consoles are pushing, and ultra seems to be in "forget about it for the next two years" territory.
The main reasons I'm getting RDR2 on PC are mouse controls and the assurance that I'll be able to play it on future PCs down the road.
Really, generally speaking, if I enjoy a game enough, sub-30fps doesn't ruin my experience at all, not even on PC, especially if the game on PC is doing something in terms of graphics or scale of gameplay that's ambitious or unique enough to where I can understand why it runs like crap. That's how it was when I first played Crysis -- it looked beautiful back in 2007 and is still for the most part a top-tier FPS campaign. Arma 3 has taught me that 18fps can indeed be playable. I spent 400 hours playing Witcher 3 on PC at 30fps. I think the first game that was good enough for me to overlook the framerate was Ocarina of Time way which is like 20fps most of the time on N64. I think Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 was another one. I'm not saying I'll accept a slideshow, but if I'm really into a game I can still accept framerates as low as the high teens to be honest.
That said, I can recognize when a game should be running better than it is on PC because of how similar games run, or how it runs on console or whatever. I don't have RDR2 yet but what seems to be happening is we don't really know how the different PC settings compare to the console settings. Everything above medium seems to be significantly above what the consoles are pushing, and ultra seems to be in "forget about it for the next two years" territory.
The main reasons I'm getting RDR2 on PC are mouse controls and the assurance that I'll be able to play it on future PCs down the road.
We played video games for decades and loved them, but this generation has seen a fetishization of performance numbers and pixel counting. Last gen, barely anyone cared that Halo 3 or CoD4 ran at sub-720p, or that most games ran at or below 30fps. All of a sudden it was a huge deal and anything less than 1080p or 60fps is now "completely unplayable". This is probably due to the sharp rise of PC gaming this decade, where that kind of thing is more closely scrutinized.
PC games don't necessarily hold their framerates either, it's just that on PC you're able to brute-force your way to a consistent framerate either by lowering graphics settings, capping framerate through Vsync or in-game option, buying better hardware, or a combination of the three. Due to the flexibility of the PC platform, you can't just say "PC games have better framerates than console". You have to say "PC games CAN have better framerates than console".
Also, I mentioned that console games "just work" (which they do), but they don't perform to the expectation of some people like yourself. There's a difference between a game working and how a game runs. If a game refuses to start due to issues with the launcher, that means the game doesn't work. If a game targets 60fps but fails to hit that target a majority of the time, that's an issue with how the game runs.
I'll give you an example. I got a gaming PC in 2011 for Battlefield 3. Upon release, I was unable to play the multiplayer due to a Punkbuster issue. I couldn't for the life of me fix this issue for YEARS. It wasn't until well into BF4 that I finally figured out the issue (it was an external program that PB mistook for a cheat). This is an issue where the game didn't work, but it soured my experience with PC gaming for a long time. I spent years trying to fix the issue so that I could play the one game I bought this $1000 PC to play. Had I just bought the game on my 360, sure it would have been a lesser experience. Fewer players on the smaller map, lower resolution and framerate etc, but I would have at least been able to play it. Nowadays I'll take that over the mess of PC any day.
According to this thread lower settings is better anyway, can't have shit looking too angular.
This thread is a shitshow.
But this video proves wrong those in the first few pages who were adamant Xbox One X was the same as medium/high on PC.`
Happens for every game where people on this forum claim the X version looks almost identical.
We still have Alex's followup video to look forward to as well. That will go even more in depth with individual settings
And right on cue we got the "Next gen is gonna make PC gaming OBSOLETE!!" crowd.
Probably gonna get even worse once the specs of next gen consoles are released. Then the armchair engineers can tell everyone how the hardware is basically a NASA supercomputer.
Probably gonna get even worse once the specs of next gen consoles are released. Then the armchair engineers can tell everyone how the hardware is basically a NASA supercomputer.
I guess I wish I could have console gamer eyes so I could appreciate how low settings on a locked down plastic box are better than low settings on an open plastic box.
Wait for the 250p Switch version with Arthurs character model swapped out for 16bit Mario in a trench coat for the ultimate in immersion.
This is inaccurate to the content of the video.
Consoles settings are all over the place, Digital Foundry has some things on high, some on medium and some on low. Then they also mention some would go lower than low. Logically they are probably trivial when it comes to performance, or there would be no reason to remove the setting on PC just to prevent someone to play the game on more accessible hardware. It makes no sense.
More specifically, the settings I could distinguish from simple observation, like the distance of LOD for geometry, draw distance, and shadow distance, these are all macroscopic settings that are set to *high*.
They show "console" settings at minute 12. Texture quality is at Ultra, shadow quality and far shadows at High, Geometry Level of Detail at max.
These are also probably some of the most impactful settings, performance wise. They are about the draw distance and quality of assets.
Last edited:
Ah, but, last gen was kind of a mess performance wise and many of those games with caps drop below 30fps often with tearing on 360. These are fixed on X1 BC.
All of this hated against the game would have been resolved if the language in the options screen would have changed starting from High.
Oh I agree, X's BC is incredible as far as consoles are concerned.
But the original argument was regarding PC advantages - and PC still wins out by a mile (obviously) because it's not dependent on enhancement patches for higher resolutions or to go from 30 to 60fps, or indeed to take advantage of higher settings across the board. Eg I can enjoy last gen's games (with PC ports) all at 4k and 60fps on PC, which - as someone who bought my first gaming PC this year - was absolutely mind-blowing.
The idea of PC gaming becoming obsolete due to a new hardware generation is bizarre. Where do people assume this new console tech comes from? I have a buddy who wouldn't stop boasting about how PS5 is using an SSD lol. By the time the new consoles drop, there will already be PCs built with superior specs. That's just the nature of the industry, I don't see why some people are willfully ignorant to that.
PC is already way ahead of the next gen console.
For me and many others, RDR2 is actually one of the reasons why we DESPISE console gaming. Playing games with a locked system is very frustrating when you know how much better the experience could be.
Are there spec leaks I'm unaware of? I just assumed they'd slap a 2080 in there and call it a day lol.
OP
OP
yeah, but at what cost? a 2080Ti is expensive as fuck. Consoles usually hit the right balance, don't forget that.
Consoles hit the right balance for some. That's the great thing about the PC side. We aren't forced to be satisfied with the current state of console performance if the balance doesn't hit the mark personally.
While more power is definitely an option, this is not about it. I can get better experience with lower specced PC. Different options for controls and display alone are a huge improvement. And i can always sacrifice graphics for framerate. I'd say PC gaming is more "balanced" than console gaming. I can also just delay getting the game when it's released and play it later when better hardware is coming out seasonally and scale it accordingly. Then there's all the tweaks, mods and hacks that improve and change the vanilla game to my liking.
I do get it why some people prefer console gaming but op is making it sound like that all this is just negatives when in reality it's actually strength of the platform.
Are we also forgetting that no one is obliged to get the absolute best thing out there or be in lock step with consoles.
The attitude is entirely different. The functionality and scalability of the game is what counts.
People who invested in a PC don't just lose everything, they can upgrade / resell at a pace that makes sense to them, is cost effective for them and still lets them play whatever they want at a fidelity balanced to them.
As just one example, since quitting 360 in 2007, I put the cost of XBL to one side and used that to upgrade every 2/3 years because that made sense to me while I was a student - and I still got to play what I wanted and shifted between playing well beyond console fidelity. Then I took a huge step back playing well below, at the start of this console generation to suit my wallet - still got to play everything. Then in 2016 dove right back and well ahead of console fidelity and performance, this time investing a bit more than before gradually so that this year I could jump up to 144Hz capable VR ready machine - its been fucking awesome and still super cost effective - and the games I have scaled up too.
Importantly for me, I get the benefits of the ecosystem, all the experimentation, new tech and freedom to make these choices that I simply won't get on consoles.
It's really up to anyone how they move proceed with PC gaming, and for me in particular - its been hugely cost effective over getting consoles and supports my work stuff too. And that's just my specific preference since gaming is probably the lowest priority hobby I have.
At what cost = whatever the hell folks want with benefit of all their previous investments
Playing it right now on a 3900x Titan X Pascal 32 Gb system.
On Vulkan at 1440p with everything nearly at Ultra the game looks absolutely breathtaking and blows the XBX version out of the park. This game is designed for next gen worthy hardware.
I personally don't care about running it at 30fps for all the eye candy this game offers compared to a typical console port.
On Vulkan at 1440p with everything nearly at Ultra the game looks absolutely breathtaking and blows the XBX version out of the park. This game is designed for next gen worthy hardware.
I personally don't care about running it at 30fps for all the eye candy this game offers compared to a typical console port.
This is a common error. In truth, the human eye can only hear 29.97 fps.
If a new game can't run on my 486 with maxed bells and whistles that aren't even present on the console version then PC is shit.
You heard it here first folks.
Some people so insecure about their vidjagames it makes me chuckle. Yes yes you made the BEST CHOICE, because you are SMART. 4D chess players! *patsback*
You heard it here first folks.
Some people so insecure about their vidjagames it makes me chuckle. Yes yes you made the BEST CHOICE, because you are SMART. 4D chess players! *patsback*
You don't NEED a 2080 Ti. You also don't need to run native 4K. It's a fools errand considering today's hardware. You can get amazing image quality and performance by toning down the resolution a bit.
This is at 1620p (Down sampled to 1080p with a careful mix of Medium/High/Ultra settings) with a 2070 Super and a 4 year old CPU. 70+ fps. Still not cheap, mind you, but worlds ahead of what consoles offer.
Targeting native 4K is almost never the right balance of visuals, resolution for whatever reason is the only thing people care about in the console space.
On PC you rarely ever see people playing at native 4K and gimping the settings to low because it makes no sense (which is basically what the X does for half of its settings). For some reason people don't give a shit the the volumetric lighting looks grainy as hell on the X because all they see is "native 4K". To me the X version would average looked better at 1620p with volumetric lighting shadow dramatically improved but then people wouldn't be able to froth that the game is 4K.
On PC you rarely ever see people playing at native 4K and gimping the settings to low because it makes no sense (which is basically what the X does for half of its settings). For some reason people don't give a shit the the volumetric lighting looks grainy as hell on the X because all they see is "native 4K". To me the X version would average looked better at 1620p with volumetric lighting shadow dramatically improved but then people wouldn't be able to froth that the game is 4K.
This video shows how bad initial impressions are vs reality.
The game is optimized. We will need real gpus and cpus to get this title to 100fps+ stable but 60fps steady seems to be more about proper settings than just cranking everything to high or ultra.
