Support NeoGAF

[Fahzgoolin]

Original game has a better look IMO.

They also screwed up the RAAM fight with the krill. Areas that are supposed to be dark are lit up, causing you to get killed by krill over and over.

EPIC fail.

 

[nOoblet16]

Does the PC version use more particles there? That was the main problem on xb1 IIRC. I mean, it was coming down as a light drizzle in the remaster instead of in thick torrential sheets.

GPU particles on console probably cannot be too thick in number.

Arkham Knight has quite thick rain.
I think Watch Dogs did as well but I could be wrong on this one.

 

[nkarafo]

This game is anything but "plain looking". And yeah, you probably have to go for "low" textures on 2GB card. Why is that surprise you in 2016 on PC?

Because it doesn't look like a game that needs so much memory. I have eyes and seen enough of it. I don't need to be a programmer to form an opinion. Games like Witcher 3, GTAV and Dying Light make more intense use of textures (both in quality and quantity) and work in 2GB cards at max settings just fine.

Also, what does the release date have to do with anything? You are saying that even games that should have low system requirements must be forced to use more recourses than needed just to be in sync with "the times" or something? I guess Undertale had to require a 970 too then, despite it's visuals.

 

[GrazGamer]

People still amazed about the requirement, a 980Ti is recommended if you want max settings at 4K/60FPS.
970 if you want max at 1080P/60. Xbone is medium settings at 1080P/30FPS...when you consider all of that it makes sense.




Someone will tell you it doesn't matter how many iteration UE3 had because it is still UE3 and as such the same engine since engines can only belong to different generations if they have a different number at the end of their name.

But this is what I don't get when people say Gears UE is a remaster like Zelda HD or Twilight Princess HD. Gears UE is a remake with Gears 1 gameplay code, a remake does not necessarily has to change gameplay. It is a remake by the virtue that they had to remake every single bit and corner of the game except the gameplay engine (which has been tweaked and modified as well)

You don't get 60fps at 4K with a 980ti. I am sure that recommendation is for 30fps, which is what it runs at.

 

[nOoblet16]

You don't get 60fps at 4K with a 980ti. I am sure that recommendation is for 30fps, which is what it runs at.

Check again the recommendation was 980TI for 4K/60FPS

 

[GrazGamer]

Check again the recommendation was 980TI for 4K/60FPS

I have a 980ti, believe me it's not running at 60fps at 4K.

 

[tuna_love]

Check again the recommendation was 980TI for 4K/60FPS

yeah it only runs at 30

 

[knerl]

This game is anything but "plain looking". And yeah, you probably have to go for "low" textures on 2GB card. Why is that surprise you in 2016 on PC?

Plain looking or not is highly subjective. I agree though. The DX12 features I expected to impress me are completely missing. There's probably a reason to why MS released this silently. From the looks of it it runs like crap based on the visual features we're given. Especially considering the high requirements. I'm all for successive steps in power required as long as that power is put to good use, but this game doesn't seem to do anything so advanced that it would take a a 980Ti to max it out with a stable 60+fps. Barely keeping 60fps for this game with todays high-end specs seems low.

 

[GrazGamer]

Plain looking or not is highly subjective. I agree though. The DX12 features I expected to impress me are completely missing. There's probably a reason to why MS released this silently. From the looks of it it runs like crap based on the visual features we're given. Especially considering the high requirements. I'm all for successive steps in power required as long as that power is put to good use, but this game doesn't seem to do anything so advanced that it would take a a 980Ti to max it out with a stable 60+fps. Barely keeping 60fps for this game with todays high-end specs seems low.

From my experience with a 980ti it runs on par with most games from this gen, 2K at 60fps maxed out.

 

[rjc571]

I'm talking about the general feeling that because this game is running bad on AMD "DX12 is doomed" while the fact that it's running more or less fine on NV is completely ignored for some reason.


Seriously?

Original:

"Minimally improved":

Thanks for proving his point. Based on those shots the new version a minimal improvement at best, and actually looks WORSE in some ways (missing background geometry)!

 

[nOoblet16]

I have a 980ti, believe me it's not running at 60fps at 4K.

I stand corrected. It was just 4K with a 980Ti not 4K/60FPS.

Plain looking or not is highly subjective. I agree though. The DX12 features I expected to impress me are completely missing. There's probably a reason to why MS released this silently. From the looks of it it runs like crap based on the visual features we're given. Especially considering the high requirements. I'm all for successive steps in power required as long as that power is put to good use, but this game doesn't seem to do anything so advanced that it would take a a 980Ti to max it out with a stable 60+fps. Barely keeping 60fps for this game with todays high-end specs seems low.

What are these features you are talking about?
Considering DX12 is more about changes to the internal workings of the API than externally visible "visual features" like Tessellation was for Dx11.

A 980Ti seem to run 1080P/900P and 30FPS games released for this console gen at around 4K/30FPS or 2K/60FPS...I don't see what's the issue here.
Performance doesn't really scale linearly and also varies across from games to games and platform to platform, and despite that we have this sort of consistency in performance between multi platform games and that tells you something.

It doesn't matter if you think the game doesn't look like it's doing a lot because at the end of it the campaign is infact running at 30FPS for a reason on Xbox One, and not 60FPS like the MP. Being a 1080P/30FPS title (even if it's an Xbox One title) would make it a fairly demanding game on PC at resolutions above 1080P.

 

[Nostremitus]

yep

Thanks, if Microsoft can fix the more damning issues with their store and game performance I may give it a try. To be honest, though, no real full screen mode is a deal breaker for me. I could turn off Freesync, but then my monitor's refresh rate drops to 60Hz.

 

[Mohasus]

Thanks for proving his point. Based on those shots the new version a minimal improvement at best, and actually looks WORSE in some ways (missing background geometry)!

You may as well play on low if you think that is minimal.

 

[nOoblet16]

Thanks for proving his point. Based on those shots the new version a minimal improvement at best, and actually looks WORSE in some ways (missing background geometry)!

How about this? With proper resolution difference to boot because keep in mind UE is also running at over twice the resolution and at a more stable framerate. It's amazing that anyone can even think this is "marginally improved"...lol

 

[nkarafo]

Ignore the difference with the original for a moment. Just look at the graphics of the new version on their own.

Do they look like the kind of graphics that could bring a 980ti to it's knees? Do these visuals justify a 4GB VRAM use?

 

[nOoblet16]

Ignore the difference with the original for a moment. Just look at the graphics of the new version on their own.

Do they look like the kind of graphics that could bring a 980ti to it's knees? Do these visuals justify a 4GB VRAM use?

Instead of that, think of it this way, how many 1080P/30FPS console games can you think of that the 980Ti can run at 4K/60FPS on higher than console settings?
Running a high end console game on settings that are superior to the console settings, at a stable 30FPS is hardly "bringing it to its knees" when the resolution is 4K !

As to answer your question, I already said that it makes sense at 4K resolution it makes sense the game would run like that on that card.

 

[napata]

Running a high end console game on settings that are superior to the console settings, at a stable 30FPS is hardly "bringing it to its knees" when the resolution is 4K !

As to answer your question, I already said that it makes sense at 4K resolution it makes sense the game would run like that on that card.

It still looks worse than a lot of last gen games if you would up their resolution to 1080p. Games that run fine on 512mb of vram.

 

[nOoblet16]

It still looks worse than a lot of last gen games if you would up their resolution to 1080p. Games that run fine on 512mb of vram.

Now this is just hyperbolic bullshit.
Equivalent to those "This looks like a PS2 game" comments that you see around in some threads for some games.

You do realise that by simply using a physically based renderer it is already ahead of almost 99% of games last gen on a purely technical level. Not even considering the lighting and geometry.

 

[nkarafo]

Running a high end console game on settings that are superior to the console settings, at a stable 30FPS is hardly "bringing it to its knees" when the resolution is 4K !

As to answer your question, I already said that it makes sense at 4K resolution it makes sense the game would run like that on that card.

At 4K sure. But what about more "sensible" resolutions? Does the game require 4GB VRAM even then? Does it also run at 30fps?

 

[Kezen]

At 4K sure. But what about more "sensible" resolutions? Does the game require 4GB VRAM even then?

Like other games yes. I would not say this is justified.

Caching as much data is a sensible practice.

 

[jediyoshi]

It still looks worse than a lot of last gen games if you would up their resolution to 1080p. Games that run fine on 512mb of vram.

I don't think you understand the implication of the qualifier "if" in that first sentence.

 

[Ninja Sharingan]

How about this? With proper resolution difference to boot because keep in mind UE is also running at over twice the resolution and at a more stable framerate. It's amazing that anyone can even think this is "marginally improved"...lol

It looks the same, maybea little better. Get out of here with that!

/s

I am playing this at the minute and I am a fan of the original. It looks miles better than Gears one on 360. Like a massive leap. The cutscene models etc. The environments. Its amazing, but everyone will judge off compressed screens on the net.

Now this is just hyperbolic bullshit.
Equivalent to those "This looks like a PS2 game" comments that you see around in some threads for some games.

You do realise that by simply using a physically based renderer it is already ahead of almost 99% of games last gen on a purely technical level. Not even considering the lighting and geometry.

i wouldn't even entertain that. They are clearly just saying that with no actual knowledge

 

[Gbraga]

How is the in-game 30fps cap?

 

[Dreathlock]

Is the G-Sync problem resolved with the new nvidia drivers?

 

[Dictator93]

Instead of that, think of it this way, how many 1080P/30FPS console games can you think of that the 980Ti can run at 4K/60FPS on higher than console settings?

Very few if any!

Arkham Knight has quite thick rain.
I think Watch Dogs did as well but I could be wrong on this one.

True. But that is 900p on xb1 at least.

GPU particles has not been used with large particle counts in general on console, at least, in comparison to those big vector field demos seen in a number of UE4 previews. Or something like PhysX particles.

I imagine it is more of an art thing though in most cases than performance considerations.

 

[c0Zm1c]

How about this? With proper resolution difference to boot because keep in mind UE is also running at over twice the resolution and at a more stable framerate. It's amazing that anyone can even think this is "marginally improved"...lol

It looks good, and a significant step up technically. But it's a shame it's not in keeping with the original aesthetic; a similar approach to the RE4 HD Project (which pays great respect the original) would have been better, though that topic is for a different thread I guess.

 

[holygeesus]

Surely the reason this game is so demanding is because it is a quick port from a version designed from the ground up for console architecture? I'm just guessing, but the GPU on the PC version is likely to be doing far more work than the console's because of how consoles are designed for sharing the load.

If MS are able to bang out ports quickly and cheaply, that would otherwise need massive overhauls, then they are always likely to take that route for a game like this, which isn't guaranteed to do massive business.

I don't appear to be having the performance issues some on here do though, I must say - game is a solid 60fps on my 980ti.

 

[JJKillaNOLE]

Is the G-Sync problem resolved with the new nvidia drivers?

Gsync works but you need to hit Win + G keys every time there is a loading screen or cutscene.

 

[Afro]

I wonder when we'll get our first patch.

 

[scitek]

I have a 980ti, believe me it's not running at 60fps at 4K.

It's also not running stably at 1080p with max settings on my 970. The recommended specs are useless.

 

[Kezen]

It's also not running stably at 1080p with max settings on my 970. The recommended specs are useless.

Recommended requirements don't have to target max settings at a stable 60fps. There is no mislead here.

 

[scitek]

Recommended requirements don't have to target max settings at a stable 60fps. There is no mislead here.

Who said anything about 60fps? It doesn't even run at a stable 30.

 

[Kezen]

Who said anything about 60fps? It doesn't even run at a stable 30.

Could be you have selected the wrong texture setting for your card. I think the highest setting require 4gb but I could be wrong.

 

[The Janitor]

Instead of that, think of it this way, how many 1080P/30FPS console games can you think of that the 980Ti can run at 4K/60FPS on higher than console settings?

Alien Isolation and Mad Max

 

[scitek]

Could be you have selected the wrong texture setting for your card. I think the highest setting require 4gb but I could be wrong.

My point is, typically, recommended specs at least get you 30fps at 1080p (with max settings minus things like SSAA). Here, they don't even do that, much like them saying a 980Ti should get 4K/60fps and it won't. RIse of the Tomb Raider has the same problem.

 

[Carlius]

Because it doesn't look like a game that needs so much memory. I have eyes and seen enough of it. I don't need to be a programmer to form an opinion. Games like Witcher 3, GTAV and Dying Light make more intense use of textures (both in quality and quantity) and work in 2GB cards at max settings just fine.

Also, what does the release date have to do with anything? You are saying that even games that should have low system requirements must be forced to use more recourses than needed just to be in sync with "the times" or something? I guess Undertale had to require a 970 too then, despite it's visuals.

come on man, 2gb cards are the new 1gb cards...its jsut not gonna cut it for next gen. game is completely revamped, it def requires more gpu power. hell, ill go as far as to say it even looks better than most games that need 4gb vram.

 

[Carlius]

Who said anything about 60fps? It doesn't even run at a stable 30.

thats just not true, at least for me, i am runnning the game buttery smooth with my 970. granted i have a 6700k and 16gb ddr4, but i havent had one single issue with the game so far.

 

[scitek]

thats just not true, at least for me, i am runnning the game buttery smooth with my 970. granted i have a 6700k and 16gb ddr4, but i havent had one single issue with the game so far.

You have textures set to Highest?

 

[Kezen]

My point is, typically, recommended specs at least get you 30fps at 1080p (with max settings minus things like SSAA). Here, they don't even do that, much like them saying a 980Ti should get 4K/60fps and it won't. RIse of the Tomb Raider has the same problem.

I think this game should run a bit better on a 970 but thus far on my 980 no issues. 60fps locked max settings, the "locked framerate" option is unchecked, no tearing.

Still, I'm not really in awe before the perf to visuals ratio. Maybe The Coalition will address this.

 

[scitek]

This is what it's like on my 970 at 1080p with High and Highest textures. I have to drop it to Medium just to play the game at all.

 

[Lockjaw333]

This is what it's like on my 970 at 1080p with High and Highest textures. I have to drop it to Medium just to play the game at all.

It's a vram issue. I max out at 3.5gb vram in afterburner on high and highest texture settings. On medium it uses about 2.7gb and the game runs perfecry at 60fps.

The vram requirements are insane and don't seem to match the IQ.

 

[napata]

come on man, 2gb cards are the new 1gb cards...its jsut not gonna cut it for next gen. game is completely revamped, it def requires more gpu power. hell, ill go as far as to say it even looks better than most games that need 4gb vram.

Really? You think this game looks better than say Crysis 3, Metro LL, Tomb Raider or even the first Crysis?

It's fine for games to use lots of vram if it actually means that it'll use better textures. That doesn't seem to be the case here at all. Rebuilt or not.

 

[velociraptor]

How about this? With proper resolution difference to boot because keep in mind UE is also running at over twice the resolution and at a more stable framerate. It's amazing that anyone can even think this is "marginally improved"...lol

You're right. These shots better showcase the improvements of this remake. Still puzzled at the high GPU requirements though. Looks decent, nothing more.

 

[Carlius]

You have textures set to Highest?

yes i have everything on max and its buttery smooth. i put framerate lock to off. i can even set it to a higer reoslution and while the fps drop is evident there its still very much playable.

but at 1080p the game runs buttery smooth on both sp and mp.

 

[c0de]

I love these comparison shots that show the supposed big graphical leap between the original and this. As if it means anything.

Doesn't matter if the difference is big or small. The original is a 10 years old game. The new version still looks like a 2010 game at best. Should be able to run on a modest PC with ease.



Yeah, a plain looking game runs fine on one of the most powerful cards you can buy. You also have to turn textures DOWN to fit into 4GB. So a 2GB card can only handle, what, low?

You can't judge computational demand with how you think it looks.

 

[dr_rus]

He is right though - game looks plain, boring and flat. And DX12 flop don't help either.

Right. I'll take the games which will look as boring as this any day.

Because it doesn't look like a game that needs so much memory. I have eyes and seen enough of it. I don't need to be a programmer to form an opinion. Games like Witcher 3, GTAV and Dying Light make more intense use of textures (both in quality and quantity) and work in 2GB cards at max settings just fine.

It does look like a game which needs at least 4GBs.
And it does work on a 2GB cards - with textures set to low.

Also, what does the release date have to do with anything? You are saying that even games that should have low system requirements must be forced to use more recourses than needed just to be in sync with "the times" or something? I guess Undertale had to require a 970 too then, despite it's visuals.

I'm sorry, are we talking about Undertale? Or are we talking about a port of an AAA release from one of current gen consoles?

Plain looking or not is highly subjective. I agree though. The DX12 features I expected to impress me are completely missing. There's probably a reason to why MS released this silently. From the looks of it it runs like crap based on the visual features we're given. Especially considering the high requirements. I'm all for successive steps in power required as long as that power is put to good use, but this game doesn't seem to do anything so advanced that it would take a a 980Ti to max it out with a stable 60+fps. Barely keeping 60fps for this game with todays high-end specs seems low.

Then your expectations from DX12 were unrealistic. DX11.3 allow a dev to access the same features that DX12 has, the difference is that with DX12 you can achieve a better performance for a couple of reasons.

And again, I fail to see any "high requirements" in a game which is showing 80 fps on a 980Ti in 2560x1440 maxed out. This isn't high, this is pretty low to be honest. A game with high requirements won't be playable on one 980Ti maxed out in this resolution.

Who said anything about 60fps? It doesn't even run at a stable 30.

The game doesn't run stable anywhere because it has severe frame pacing issues right now. This is something which hopefully will be fixed with a patch.

 

[scitek]

It's a vram issue. I max out at 3.5gb vram in afterburner on high and highest texture settings. On medium it uses about 2.7gb and the game runs perfecry at 60fps.

The vram requirements are insane and don't seem to match the IQ.

The thing I'm taking issue with is they recommend a 970, and it's not enough for even High settings.

The game doesn't run stable anywhere because it has severe frame pacing issues right now. This is something which hopefully will be fixed with a patch.

I could fix it right now if they'd let me use Afterburner.

 

[Qassim]

The thing I'm taking issue with is they recommend a 970, and it's not enough for even High settings.

But it's enough for what they deem a good (recommended) experience? I dunno what the problem is. Recommended != High or Highest settings.

 

[IcyRhythms]

When the specs were originally announced, I made posts here on GAF about how they requirements seemed a little high for what was being offered. Many damage controlled and said I needed to wait and see how much different the PC version would be. This game has nice visuals, but not the kind that justify the requirements.

 

[nkarafo]

It does look like a game which needs at least 4GBs.

Not at 1080p. I'm playing Dying Light right now with textures on the highest setting / 1080p with a 2GB card (960). Looks much better than this. Better and more varied textures, more detail and geometry, etc. Like, there is no competition. Oh and it runs at 60fps (almost no stutter in Windows 10)

So no, it doesn't look like a game that needs at least 4GB VRAM (1080p). 4K, sure. Most games would need more than 2GB in that resolution.