I want to install The Witcher 3 again, even if that means I probably won't touch it (played it too much). I just want to see those two games' icons side by side! :3 I may even have the game directory one over the other.
I have not had very much in the way of problems myself. I did have an issue on my laptop with a 1660 Ti not launching until I updated the Nvidia drivers, but that was no big deal. My main system with a Radeon VII has been fine overall. I played 5 hours and 33 minutes before I even finished Chapter 1, although about 1.5 hours of that was spent in the benchmark and testing settings in game. I have reached a combination of settings (Medium to Ultra) that offers about 50 FPS AVG at 4K resolution, which is pretty playable with a Freesync monitor. The visuals are about 90% as good with the FPS being 150% of the 34 FPS I get at default Ultra.
I'm 26 hours in the game and 33% game, 27% story complete so far. Still haven't opened much of the map either. Very enjoyable with the exception of the freeze-ups.
Yeah, DX12 seems to be rather unstable in this game. I guess that's the reason why the game defaults to Vulkan. Vulkan also seems to perform slightly better for me overall, especially when it comes to minimum FPS.
It's a 10/10 for me. People who can run the game generally are lost in the wilderness enjoying the game, those who have problems rush online to rant about it, that's the nature of the internet.
^ And then there are those who can run the game, but still don't like it because of stupid gameplay mechanics and clumsy controls.
Well, it kinda paints a bad picture if there are so many people with technical problems that they rate the game so poorly. I had to actually flash a bios to even have the game start, which is just absurd. Technical problems aside, the game has been out for a year so everyone who was interested had plenty of time to find out about it.
Imo yes - performance is abysmal, especially considering the visuals - it's not exactly a next gen crysis, where crazy graphics would justify the performance.
Abysmal is a strong word. I'm at ultra/high and I'm averaging 55FPS - very playable. People need to set expectations!
Is anyone else finding that RDR2 completely ignores any settings in the driver gaming profile? So annoying this Same, I'm at Ultra/High and getting about 45-50 which for me is decent considering my spec if good but far from top of the li
At 1080p i assume... and that performance is quite honestly laughable for the visual output. You'd have nearly twice the performance in anthem with same settings, while anthem also looks better (yes, the game itself is much worse, but it does look better). It's the same performance as control with maxed out in 1080p dx11, again a game that looks considerably better. But what it comes down to is that this game is a very poor executed console port. On xbone x, which has a 6 tflops gpu, the game manages to run at a locked 30 fps at native 4k with settings equivelant to high. My gtx 1080 at 2 ghz is a 10 tflop gpu, but runs the game at 20-25 with native 4k on high settings... it is indeed abysmal.
Why would you compare an open world game with non open world games? It's not even remotely comparable. If anything you'd compare it with AC:O.
OK so Anthem looks better, Shadow of the Tomb Raider looks better, Metro looks better.. and now even Control looks better. TBH adding more games that you think look better is only making your statement more and more ridiculous
The amount of detail pushed is pretty heavy too and while some settings are kinda like medium or high the main ones like volumetric lighting are even below what the PC version "Low" corresponds to. Still looks pretty though for the console version. From Reddit, pushing water, volumetric lighting and draw distance to even higher and yeah I can see how the game just won't be easy to get running well even on high-end PC builds plus the complexity in D3D12 and Vulkan despite advantages and what looks to be pushing for a 8 core CPU ideal though 6 works and earlier i5's meaning 4 core just stutter. There's game bugs too and the benchmark is entirely unreliable doing a in-game loosely scripted run where everything goes so I would have preferred a singular December release date and some extra time but then they've been hinting at or there's been leaks of a PC port since over a year back too. (GTA V had a number of issues too but now runs fairly well, some issues in the campaign due to patches affecting content a bit but nothing severe or broken.) Low level API though so short of jamming in AMD's render toolkit and analytics I'm not getting anything out of the game well I haven't picked it up yet but can't do the usual for shaders and draw calls through SpecialK monitoring or threading and CPU details. EDIT: Wildlands did well as did Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey though the draw calls and CPU requirements certainly reflected how much it required of the hardware, this looks like it's doing a better job still at distant details including even shadowing and clouds and such and not just "2d like" billboards of objects a few meters out in the distance from the camera.
Trivial concern: Why did the game install an RDR2 icon to my desktop when it is useless? Clicking on it just gives a pop up saying to please use the R* launcher instead. On another note, I've played enough of this game now to come to the conlusion that the people complaining are truly being elitist. Reading about "the shitshow that is RDR2 on PC" as if this game runs like garbage is nonsense. People refuse to back off their settings (of their uber-rig) and enjoy the game.
I don't care what you think tbh. This game barely looks better than gta 5 (yet is 3 times as demanding), and while it looks decent, i could name a long list of games i consider to be better looking.
