Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by ramthegamer, May 10, 2017.
Pretty excited for this one!
+ The dog is cute
+ Fishing seems cool
+ Love the landscape and wildlife
- weapons dont have a feel to them
- AI is dump AF
- HUD is full of symbols (hopefully can be set to off)
- Why do i see a result screen when i cleared an area? forcing a player out of his char is bad in FPS
- Cutscene for starting the plane. Really?
- planes are too slow, dogfights are easy AF. Also realism: there's no way a fighter plane can not outmaneuver a waterplane
I hope the rest of the game is a lot more impressive. So far its just FC4 with another landscape & enemy models.
Yawn, same old but worse
i haven't seen the dogfights, but i don't want to ruin my good opinion abouit this game...
the downgrade is strong with this one .....
did u notice the downgrade in the latest gameplay walkthrough?, the draw distance and the lighting, feck man,,,,
Game look's nice and all, but it's just a modified version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wild lands.
Played a demo of the game over the weekend (UK LAN event, Insomnia) - game looks pretty. Framerate was diabolical on the PS4. Hoping they fix it before release.
I always expect the worst of Ubisoft, it seems like a sloppy company, mistreats its games as if it hates what it does, I do not know anything about this company, I'm almost sure that it's going to be a broken pc game like the new Assasins Creed.
Is the dog invincible? Seems silly to send him into a gang of armed thugs.
i don't like the game i have to admit after watchinf the new ps4 pro walkthrough, game feels lifeless, the gameworld especially, there is no atmosphere, farcry primal i was immersed in the world around me, farcry 5 seems a step back...
prepare urselves for an unoptimized game that will run like shite at above 1080p on gtx 970, the only game in the universe to be unplayable at 2k because it will be unoptimized, typical ubishite stuff...
Not sure about that. Primal ran fantastically for me, and was also my favorite since it dropped the "lone man on an island blah, blah, blah" crap.
But, Ubisoft announced a few days ago that FC5 has been delayed. They pushed the released date back from Fed to March. One month only... but... still.
Hopefully not, never has a problem with any other Far Cry game so don't see why this one should be any different. But...I don't have any problems with AC Origins either, sure high cpu usage, knocking the environment detail down a notch remedies that. I do have 3 machines that my kids play on, each has a gtx 970 on board. As long as settings are tuned for the older cards everything runs ok including all Far Cry games. This card sells on ebay for £130-£150 after all.
As Damien mentioned above, they have taken an extra month to tune and optimize the game because origins has done so well.
it ran fantastically for u at 1080p, and not at 1440p, when u try 1440p u will see what i mean...while every other game i played in the last 2 years plays great at 1440p on the gtx 970, only farcry primal ran like shite at 2560*1440, so it s not optimized enough.
Yeah, at the right settings... I've had no issues with FC3, 4 or Primal.
But, as you said, it's all about knowing what your card is capable of and not trying to push it past that limit.
i play bf1 and every other shooter in the last 2 years no problem at 1440p, so what i said is perfectly spot on, that ubisoft games are not optimized enough and require more for no reason, frostbite>dunia engine... enough said, why the higher stress hog??? no reason..
so people with 2k monitors and gtx 970 equivelant, prepare urselves for low performance at 2560*1440
I will wait for the game to be released, then wait for a side by side comparison of the downgrade - then make up my mind.
Frostbite has never really been an overly demanding engine... I remember running BF3 on Ultra settings on a 750ti. Is it greatly optimized, probably. Is BF3 a more narrowly focused game then FC3... yes.
So, maybe I'm more willing to accept the FarCry games requiring a bit more video memory since they load in large, open maps as opposed to BF loading in smaller, linear levels.
Either way, I play at 1080p mostly because... I'm comfortable with that. Also, far too often people throw around the resolution they play games at as if it's some kind of status about how great they are. And really, the 970 is over three years old. Almost 4. Sooner or later, yeah... people are going to have to make larger and larger concessions in regards to the settings they play games at when using the card.
With it's limited video memory (and the 3.5 ram at one speed, and .5 at another)... there will be issues with larger, more open games that require more memory. So, is it better to run at a slightly lower resolution... or try and push it and maybe run into a bit or stuttering?
I've been very happy with my 970. But, I'm looking to upgrade simply because of the cards lack of video memory.