Games you are currently playing: ROUND SIX

[Do Make Say Think]

even without it, not great

Is that DX11 or DX12? Is that with or without ray-tracing effects? Which ones?

That and the game settings "high" is everything max (without ray-tracing effects) and Control is probably one of the most intense graphical game on the market now. Is anyone supposed to be surprised that it takes a beast to run the game at max?

We have reached the point where maximum graphical settings are essentially futureproofing. This graph, on it's own, doesn't say much of anything outside of "this game can look absolutely amazing" which it does. Being able to run it at 60 fps with a 2060 is pretty standard for a showcase game like this.

Posting a graph with no context is main board level of effort: "this player is awesome/bad cause this analytics chart says so!". If you want to argue that the game runs poorly, this graph does not make that case.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

About 15 hours through Dragon Age III. Gameplay is fun and strategic, and I do like the characters. The sheer amount of content at hand is astounding.......shame a ton of it isn't memorable. Now I know why Andromeda ended up the way it did.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Finally got around to Celeste.

It really does live up to the hype.

I got it on the switch, and it really is an excellent game to play on the handheld.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Is that DX11 or DX12? Is that with or without ray-tracing effects? Which ones?

I believe the DX11s are listed separately in the graph.

That and the game settings "high" is everything max (without ray-tracing effects) and Control is probably one of the most intense graphical game on the market now. Is anyone supposed to be surprised that it takes a beast to run the game at max?

We have reached the point where maximum graphical settings are essentially futureproofing. This graph, on it's own, doesn't say much of anything outside of "this game can look absolutely amazing" which it does. Being able to run it at 60 fps with a 2060 is pretty standard for a showcase game like this.

Posting a graph with no context is main board level of effort: "this player is awesome/bad cause this analytics chart says so!". If you want to argue that the game runs poorly, this graph does not make that case.

I think the only issue is that beast video cards all the way up to last gen (until the 1080 Ti) cost approximately the same as what your "budget" options cost this gen. Turing is a leap in technology, but a staggering leap in cost to match.

"High" settings is normally the way to play without the real performance hogs of "ultra". That said, all those ratings are arbitrary and "Medium" for Control might be pretty close to "High" on other games.

Hard to say without a deep dive analysis, but that level of effort seems like a lot of unnecessary work....

About 15 hours through Dragon Age III. Gameplay is fun and strategic, and I do like the characters. The sheer amount of content at hand is astounding.......shame a ton of it isn't memorable. Now I know why Andromeda ended up the way it did.

Very true. The grind-y tasks in Inquisition were an unfortunate add to the series, but were fairly easily to ignore (for the most part). For Andromeda, they comprised most of the game...

I'm not as hard on Andromeda as others, but that was a flaw of the game. I still think if it didn't come off the back of one of the greatest game trilogies of all time (IMO of course), it would've been considered a decent game.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I believe the DX11s are listed separately in the graph.

Fair but then is that DX11 vs DX 12 with all ray-tracing? Only some of them? No ray-tracing?

My point is only that the graph, on it's own, doesn't make the case that Control runs poorly.

I think the only issue is that beast video cards all the way up to last gen (until the 1080 Ti) cost approximately the same as what your "budget" options cost this gen. Turing is a leap in technology, but a staggering leap in cost to match.

"High" settings is normally the way to play without the real performance hogs of "ultra". That said, all those ratings are arbitrary and "Medium" for Control might be pretty close to "High" on other games.

Hard to say without a deep dive analysis, but that level of effort seems like a lot of unnecessary work....

GPU prices are pretty insane but that is an entirely different issue. However, that is why the neckbeards have invested so much into the "this amazing looking game runs like crap" because it justifies their anger at GPU prices since neckbeards only run games ultra max settings and now don't want to run the race anymore.

The graphic preset "high" in Control puts all effects to their highest (except ray-tracing) was my point, so that graph can be misleading when usually those settings are referred to as ultra.

Dual Foundry did make a deep video about this game actually. They bring up the annoying stuttering but everyone seems to agree that it is an API issue, not the game.

We have to push back against false narratives.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

I believe the DX11s are listed separately in the graph.



I think the only issue is that beast video cards all the way up to last gen (until the 1080 Ti) cost approximately the same as what your "budget" options cost this gen. Turing is a leap in technology, but a staggering leap in cost to match.

"High" settings is normally the way to play without the real performance hogs of "ultra". That said, all those ratings are arbitrary and "Medium" for Control might be pretty close to "High" on other games.

Hard to say without a deep dive analysis, but that level of effort seems like a lot of unnecessary work....




Very true. The grind-y tasks in Inquisition were an unfortunate add to the series, but were fairly easily to ignore (for the most part). For Andromeda, they comprised most of the game...

I'm not as hard on Andromeda as others, but that was a flaw of the game. I still think if it didn't come off the back of one of the greatest game trilogies of all time (IMO of course), it would've been considered a decent game.

That is a huge issue. I haven't looked in a while since I got a 2080Ti early this year but isn't the 1080Ti on par with the 2080 and the 2080 is still the same price as the 1080Ti was? Sure, the 2080 supports raytracing but your framerate without ray tracing is the same and it's rather insulting to customers to say "hey, here's the next gen of video cards! You know, that time of year where you can spend the same as the last gen but get much better performance?! Yeah... about that, you pay the same and get the same now." I mean, imagine if the PS5 gets released, has the same power as the PS4 Pro and they're charging the same price as the PS4 Pro. You're going to have people who refuse to buy a PS5 out of principal. I have a friend who's still running a 980, was planning on upgrading when this series of cards came out and now he just refuses to because the prices are insane. He'd buy a 1080Ti but they sold out insanely quick. He tried a used one but it didn't work off the bat and now he doesn't want to waste his time again.

 

[Commander Clueless]

GPU prices are pretty insane but that is an entirely different issue. However, that is why the neckbeards have invested so much into the "this amazing looking game runs like crap" because it justifies their anger at GPU prices since neckbeards only run games ultra max settings and now don't want to run the race anymore.

I actually think the two are very much intertwined.

People used to blasting all levels of graphics at GPUs they can afford have all of sudden become budget to mid-range gamers on PC with the same bank. I think that increases frustration.

That said, bumping down graphics settings on PC usually tends to leave games still looking fantastic, so for the normies like us it's probably not a huge deal to bump a few things down. I know a few enthusiasts who are upset when any settings must be sacrificed, though, so I do understand.

For me, shadows are the first thing to go....but I'm probably weird.

The graphic preset "high" in Control puts all effects to their highest (except ray-tracing) was my point, so that graph can be misleading when usually those settings are referred to as ultra.

Ah yes, I was wondering if it was something like that. The terminology having no real standards can really change the discussion.

 

[Commander Clueless]

That is a huge issue. I haven't looked in a while since I got a 2080Ti early this year but isn't the 1080Ti on par with the 2080 and the 2080 is still the same price as the 1080Ti was? Sure, the 2080 supports raytracing but your framerate without ray tracing is the same and it's rather insulting to customers to say "hey, here's the next gen of video cards! You know, that time of year where you can spend the same as the last gen but get much better performance?! Yeah... about that, you pay the same and get the same now." I mean, imagine if the PS5 gets released, has the same power as the PS4 Pro and they're charging the same price as the PS4 Pro. You're going to have people who refuse to buy a PS5 out of principal. I have a friend who's still running a 980, was planning on upgrading when this series of cards came out and now he just refuses to because the prices are insane. He'd buy a 1080Ti but they sold out insanely quick. He tried a used one but it didn't work off the bat and now he doesn't want to waste his time again.

That's pretty much it, yeah.

Granted, we got the shiny new ray tracing tech (which is still in its infancy), but standard price-to-performance really didn't shift at all like it has in previous generations and I think that has added to confusion/frustration in the PC world....particularly after the massive jump we had with the GeForce 10 series.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I know a few enthusiasts who are upset when any settings must be sacrificed, though, so I do understand.

Then those people say the game runs like crap and scare people away. We have to push back.

I usually reduce SSAO: negligble difference and a considerable gain.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

That is a huge issue. I haven't looked in a while since I got a 2080Ti early this year but isn't the 1080Ti on par with the 2080 and the 2080 is still the same price as the 1080Ti was? Sure, the 2080 supports raytracing but your framerate without ray tracing is the same and it's rather insulting to customers to say "hey, here's the next gen of video cards! You know, that time of year where you can spend the same as the last gen but get much better performance?! Yeah... about that, you pay the same and get the same now." I mean, imagine if the PS5 gets released, has the same power as the PS4 Pro and they're charging the same price as the PS4 Pro. You're going to have people who refuse to buy a PS5 out of principal. I have a friend who's still running a 980, was planning on upgrading when this series of cards came out and now he just refuses to because the prices are insane. He'd buy a 1080Ti but they sold out insanely quick. He tried a used one but it didn't work off the bat and now he doesn't want to waste his time again.

Insulting? It's business: if you want the best, you pay.

In this day and age of everybody gouging everyone as much possible this is the only logical conclusion. The game, like hockey, is always getting more expensive to play at the highest level. This is nothing new.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Then those people say the game runs like crap and scare people away. We have to push back.

True enough.

I usually reduce SSAO: negligble difference and a considerable gain.

Another good target.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Insulting? It's business: if you want the best, you pay.

In this day and age of everybody gouging everyone as much possible this is the only logical conclusion. The game, like hockey, is always getting more expensive to play at the highest level. This is nothing new.

I think the major shocker isn't that the price went up, but that the price went up so drastically over the course of one generation.

That said, this discussion should probably move to the PC Building thread.

 

[542365]

Playing a lot of Slay the Spire trying to distract myself from the fact that Borderlands 3 is still a week away.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I think the major shocker isn't that the price went up, but that the price went up so drastically over the course of one generation.

That said, this discussion should probably move to the PC Building thread.

I mean, ray-tracing is a bit of a victim of the classic "diminishing returns": it requires a crap ton of power (GPUs are so big now, I was afraid I was going to need a new case!) and to the untrained eye, it doesn't look that inredible, especially in a still.

Control has made me a believer though, ray-tracing is legit.

 

[Osprey]

That is a huge issue. I haven't looked in a while since I got a 2080Ti early this year but isn't the 1080Ti on par with the 2080 and the 2080 is still the same price as the 1080Ti was? Sure, the 2080 supports raytracing but your framerate without ray tracing is the same and it's rather insulting to customers to say "hey, here's the next gen of video cards! You know, that time of year where you can spend the same as the last gen but get much better performance?! Yeah... about that, you pay the same and get the same now." I mean, imagine if the PS5 gets released, has the same power as the PS4 Pro and they're charging the same price as the PS4 Pro. You're going to have people who refuse to buy a PS5 out of principal. I have a friend who's still running a 980, was planning on upgrading when this series of cards came out and now he just refuses to because the prices are insane. He'd buy a 1080Ti but they sold out insanely quick. He tried a used one but it didn't work off the bat and now he doesn't want to waste his time again.

I don't have a huge issue with that. Sure, it's disappointing, but at least you're paying the same for the same performance. It's not like they're charging more and giving you less. Yeah, if you're the kind of person who upgrades every generation because he must have the latest, it's a bitter pill to pay a heap without getting the performance leap that you expect, but I think that most people skip generations. The 2080 could be looked at as targeted at those who never upgraded to the 1080.

For me, shadows are the first thing to go....but I'm probably weird.

It's weird if you're turning off shadows, but they should definitely be one of the first things that gets turned down. Very High and High settings are real performance killers. In contrast, I've never noticed a framerate difference between Off and Low, so I always set shadows at least on Low. I can usually even go up to Medium with negligible additional impact. That's the sweet spot for most games, I think. The shadows look good and are framerate friendly, whereas, if you bump them any higher, it's difficult to tell the difference, yet they start wrecking your framerate.

 

[ViktorBaeArvidsson]

Has anyone played SuperHot? I always think about getting it but idk, dont wanna drop $20 on a game that I play like once or twice and end up not playing it ever again. Idk if this is the thread to post it one but it seems active

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Has anyone played SuperHot? I always think about getting it but idk, dont wanna drop $20 on a game that I play like once or twice and end up not playing it ever again. Idk if this is the thread to post it one but it seems active

Great game but very specific. I found it plays more like a puzzle game than an actual shooter since you can spend time at a stand still to think if you want to.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Has anyone played SuperHot? I always think about getting it but idk, dont wanna drop $20 on a game that I play like once or twice and end up not playing it ever again. Idk if this is the thread to post it one but it seems active

It's one of those really cool concepts that loses steam in a hurry. Plays better in small doses. Would have preferred paying $10 for it. If it's through Steam, you can probably just test it out and get a refund if you feel like you won't be coming back to often.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Very true. The grind-y tasks in Inquisition were an unfortunate add to the series, but were fairly easily to ignore (for the most part). For Andromeda, they comprised most of the game...

I'm not as hard on Andromeda as others, but that was a flaw of the game. I still think if it didn't come off the back of one of the greatest game trilogies of all time (IMO of course), it would've been considered a decent game.

I agree that Andromeda wasn't an utter disaster of a game, but by god is it ever saved by its combat. The elements of Mass Effect that made the series beloved in the first place, i.e. world building and story, felt confused in their execution.

Now I got to Skyhold. This game already feels like it might never end.

 

[Shareefruck]

Finally got around to Celeste.

It really does live up to the hype.

I got it on the switch, and it really is an excellent game to play on the handheld.

I have to say, I actually prefer it on PC/PS4 because of the controller, though. Celeste is so input-intensive that with the individual button d-pad Switch joy-cons, it's really rough on your fingers, and with the pro controller, inputs on that awful d-pad get misrecorded all the the time. If I weren't already good at the game by the time I got the Switch version, I could see myself being very frustrated by it.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I mean, ray-tracing is a bit of a victim of the classic "diminishing returns": it requires a crap ton of power (GPUs are so big now, I was afraid I was going to need a new case!) and to the untrained eye, it doesn't look that inredible, especially in a still.

Control has made me a believer though, ray-tracing is legit.

Oh it's legit alright. It's also legit expensive.

I'm hoping to jump into the fray when it becomes a little cheaper. Maybe next gen.

Of course, saying that, watch me buy one next month....

It's weird if you're turning off shadows, but they should definitely be one of the first things that gets turned down. Very High and High settings are real performance killers. In contrast, I've never noticed a framerate difference between Off and Low, so I always set shadows at least on Low. I can usually even go up to Medium with negligible additional impact. That's the sweet spot for most games, I think. The shadows look good and are framerate friendly, whereas, if you bump them any higher, it's difficult to tell the difference, yet they start wrecking your framerate.

Depends on the game, but I have on several occasions just turned them off. I'd rather have crisp textures than shadows at all, personally.

Both is, of course, preferable.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Oh it's legit alright. It's also legit expensive.

I'm hoping to jump into the fray when it becomes a little cheaper. Maybe next gen.

Of course, saying that, watch me buy one next month....

I wonder how long Nvidia will wait to release the 30xx series. Not gonna lie, I'll be a bit pissed if they release them in the next two years but hey, that's the name of the game.

Going from a 970 to a 2070 Super is pretty damn awesome, especially considering my 970 allowed to max most games I played (no 4k for moi) until very recently.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I wonder how long Nvidia will wait to release the 30xx series. Not gonna lie, I'll be a bit pissed if they release them in the next two years but hey, that's the name of the game.

Going from a 970 to a 2070 Super is pretty damn awesome, especially considering my 970 allowed to max most games I played (no 4k for moi) until very recently.

NVIDIA's normal pattern would suggest Q1/Q2 of 2020, but they were a bit slower last time around, and the "Super" refresh may throw a wrench into the equation. That said, I would surmise sometime in the next 2 years would be a safe assumption. The Turing architecture is a year old now.

I'm currently running a 1080 which handles everything I throw at it, so I'm having trouble justifying an upgrade to anything with ray tracing capabilities but still in a reasonable price range.

The only caveat is that my 1080's fan is too loud....

 

[Commander Clueless]

Finally got around to Celeste.

It really does live up to the hype.

I got it on the switch, and it really is an excellent game to play on the handheld.

I haven't historically been much of a platformer guy (outside of the old Commander Keen and Earthworm Jim games in my early years), but Celeste is an absolute gem.

I also recently very much enjoyed The Messenger and Ori and the Blind Forest (more Metroidvania I suppose), so I guess the 2D sidescrolling platforming-style games are making a comeback for me.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

I realized ray tracing is legit with Metro Exodus but the prices are still silly. Surprised to hear that people are happy paying the same price for the same performance in a new generation though.

I should give Celeste another go, I didn't see the hype which surprised me since I do really enjoy platformers.