By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fps_d0minat0r on 17 May 2015
Edit Thread
TheJimbo1234 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
TheJimbo1234 said:

When did downgrading = optimising?

Optimising would be to give PC users the actual high end versio they showed last summer and consoles the current version. Also a mid range PC will run this game at an easy 60fps 1080p so what you mean is low end pcs. This is why I complain - the majority of pc owners are getting stuck with low end games for yet another generation and it is due to lazy developers who don't know what option settings are in a game engine. Hell, the new consoles were even made to make porting to PCs easy and allow for option boosts. There is no excuse nowadays for a bad pc port.

There is a myth out there that anything that looks great must run on some multi $1000 dollar machine. That is simply wrong. A very good gpu only costs about £120 now (a gpu at least x2 more powerful tahn the ps4), and a very high end gpu costs £220. So in short, a cheap pc will run rings around any game at 1080p and has done so for years. 

After what you said about low and mid range PC's, you have even less of a reason to complain.

If they are getting a better product than the gamers who will be generating more revenue (consoles), then theres no question of a bad port.

I may be wrong, but I believe the PC version was the lead platform.

Back to the point, the downgrade issue was about the trailer they initially showed and yes, it would require a $1000+ PC to run it like that, so im glad they didnt bother with that for the minority who need to justify how much they paid for their PC, and instead cared more about the consoles and low/mid range PC's.

http://i.imgur.com/fHs9WgH.jpg

The top version could be ran on a modern mid range pc at 1080p 30fps, with a top gpu(so that's only a £230 gpu, not a £500-£1000 gpu like people think) running it at 60+fps at 1080p. If you want to argue about price, then post the specs CD R said the pc was (or are you just guessing?). The top image also looks like a next gen game. 

The bottom image is a joke; poor lightning, low res textures, terrible draw distance, no tesselation or any surface variation for that matter etc. A company that can't make a decent graphics engine makes you wonder about their competency as programmers. If they couldn't do that, then how buggy will this game be? How much effort have they actually put in etc? How much of what they are claiming is in fact more rubbish and PR lying to fans.

At the end of the day, good graphics make a game more immersive so this is a big loss to a lot of people and I won't be buying a game that looks so bad.

Yeah because all a PC needs is a £230 GPU (already almost as much as a console costs) isnt it?

And I never mentioned a $500-1000 GPU, I mentioned a $1000 PC which is what you would need if you wanted to run the game as it looked originally. No guessing, just an obvious statement to make.

You might consider the bottom image to be a 'joke', but thats what most games look like to most PC gamers. Just because devs showed you the max capabilities of the games engine, it doesnt mean most people were going to play it at that setting, and the only point im making... im glad that they didnt consume resources in pleasing the minority which would have either led to another delay, or sacrificing optimisation on the hardware most people will be playing the game on.