Metro 2033 and other PC games which can only be maxed out with hardware from the distant future.
- Thread starter ph0b0s123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I won't argue this point. I disagree with it, but don't have any references to games that have not been helped by this. My memory is not what it used to be. But there have been games that even 3 gens of GPU later still were not playable at maxed games settings. By the time they were, ironically their graphics were so dated, that they were not worth the effort.Nutcase said:
Erm, no I am asking for that best graphics they can do that still makes the game playable on hardware that is available at launch or just afterwards. Stop making the game only playable fully on hardware that is not available until years after the games release. Crysis was available in 2007, but was not fully playable until 2009. That's dumb. I am not discounting those who quite happily played it through on lower settings before that. I am purely taking about playing games with all settings maxed and it never going under 35 FPS.
How can you properly test a game running at slide show speeds of 5fps. How can you check the controls are not doing anything weird at that speed. And yes fine you may think that the risk of having bugs in there is worth the risk of 'experimental' graphics settings. But in that case put them in under the name 'experimental' rather than 'very high'.
Look I understand people coming from the yay let publishers go mental with the graphics for the PC. I was with you, but over time this to me has become annoying. Again let me explain that I have been going through this cycle since I got my first PC in 88.
Now when making this thread I was in no way saying that developers could not take risks with the graphics in games, but I get the idea that a lot of the time rather than getting their estimates of how powerful future GPU's will be. They just dump in as much as they can assuming that some magical GPU at some point in the future will be able to play it. Ask any who had Ultima 9 if that was a great idea. A game set to run only fully on a 3DFX card that never was released.
Sorry missed this the first time around. I don't know how consoles deal with this, but when frame rates start going under 30 FPS the slow down / stuttering to me, is very noticeable. I assume that even though my FPS meter might be reading just over 30 FPS some frames are going under 30 but the fluctuation is to quick for the meter to keep up with. So to be 100% sure of no stuttering the FPS has to be over 40 FPS in my experience.The Madman said:
But if 30 FPS is fine why do Nvidia say you must have a 120 hz / FPS capable screen for 3D gaming, so you get 60 FPS for each eye. If the 30 FPS was OK, then any old 60HZ lcd screen would do......
Erm yes I know, being gaming on PC's since 88. Hence why I thought I would start a discussion about this very common thing to PC gaming.Chibz said:
Thanks for contributing. And also not true as DX 11 was supposed to make tasks done in DX 10 be more efficient in DX 11. DICE stated that BFBC 2 was faster in DX 11 than in DX 10 on the same hardware due to DX 11's efficiencies. Will dig out the article if you doubt me.Alexxandere said:
Unless you meant vs DX9 of course.
Think you missed the /scarcasm from the end of your comment. Crysis was infamous for not being able to be maxed for at least a year if not more after it's release.ciortas1 said:
My PC is 4 years old, with a Radeon 4850 (1GB ram)
No problems running Metro2033 (I run it on medium, but I could probably run it higher)
No problems running Metro2033 (I run it on medium, but I could probably run it higher)
Sorry if my comments confused you. I have updated the thread heading to make it clearer for you.....ciortas1 said:
Always this thread has been a discussion about some games max settings being completely unplayable. Sorry if this was not clear before. But I though that would be hard to miss as I explained the point of the thread in the first sentence. Why don't people ever read stuff...
And to back up my crysis claims. From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis#Game_engineph0b0s123 said:
"Crysis is often used as a benchmark in computer tests, as Crysis at the highest settings and resolutions required processing power from computers that was unfeasible when it was first released. In its time the game was so demanding on previous computer hardware that the catchphrase "Yeah, but can it run Crysis?" was frequently added to graphics card reviews.[23]"
This is a article from Anandtech titled: NVIDIA's 3-way SLI: Can we finally play Crysis?ciortas1 said:
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 12/17/2007
Lately we've had some great games that run absolutely poorly on the latest hardware. What if we could SLI three GeForce 8800 Ultras together? nForce 680i and 780i owners will be able to do just that, and we find out if it's worth it.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2403
As is typical the site is going through maintance at the moment so I cannot quote directly from the story. But it looks like you needed to have 3 8800 ultra's to stand a chance of the game being playable at max settings.
My GTX 285 SLI setup was only just able to keep the frame rate above 30 FPS at certain parts of certain levels.
And it does not matter if that card could handle all the other games of the time as Crysis was a different beast being about the first DX 10 game available.
But either way I give up. I cannot believe that I am having to argue the point that Crysis could not be played at max setting on any hardware that existed at launch or for quite a while afterwards.....
I must make a correction to an earlier post about your eye's capabilities in seeing a certain number of Frames Per Second. The human eyes can see a lot more FPS than that. Although to be honest, nobody knows how much we can. You can't just say "anything over 30FPS is too much."
For some games, running at 30FPS is just fine. You can take Transformers: War for Cybertron as a great example. Other games need a much higher FPS to be enjoyable, Quake Live is a good example. You want 60fps or more, and you can definitely feel the difference between 30fps and 60fps..
For the most part, having a stable 30fps is a fine in most games. What is not good is when your FPS fluctuates. The best thing to do is to cap the FPS at 30fps.
As others have said. Adaptive Anti Aliasing + Depth of Field are two things that DO NOT go together well. Don't cross the streams!
Also: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
For some games, running at 30FPS is just fine. You can take Transformers: War for Cybertron as a great example. Other games need a much higher FPS to be enjoyable, Quake Live is a good example. You want 60fps or more, and you can definitely feel the difference between 30fps and 60fps..
For the most part, having a stable 30fps is a fine in most games. What is not good is when your FPS fluctuates. The best thing to do is to cap the FPS at 30fps.
As others have said. Adaptive Anti Aliasing + Depth of Field are two things that DO NOT go together well. Don't cross the streams!
Also: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm