In the wake of shitty console ports and unoptimized games being released on PC lately, let's have a thread dedicated to games that are well optimized.
I'll start with this classic.
Surprisingly, Dark Souls 2 runs great on toasters.
>Tfw downscaled 4k resolution at 45-60FPS on my R9 270X
It's not so much well optimized as it developed for PC and then properly ported to consoles instead of being developed for consoles and then lazily ported to PCs like they all are today.
coming from dark souls 1 to dark souls 2 felt like a massive improvement for what they did with the new game engine.
such a shame that dark souls 2 wasn't as great as the first one though.
>Shadows of Mordor requires 6GB of VRAM for Ultra textures
>Ultra textures barely look better than high settings
>Meanwhile, older games like FEAR and Left 4 Dead 2 manage to look better and run better
I know that newer games make use of more intense post-effects and other visual tricks, but they don't look or perform as good as some other games.
Yeah, look at all those games on next gen consoles that run better than on an equivalent PC. Oh wait.
The only thing either console is better at is that they can use more vram than the average GPU at the moment. Which isn't going to last long.
Just Cause 2, amazing how an open world game runs fucking great even on toasters.
MT Framework games are magic on PC, it's a damn shame that Dragon's Dogma still hasn't gotten a PC version yet.
That's the power of MT Frameworks, bro.
It's no wonder Ninja Theory wanted to stick to shitty, clunky Unreal Engine. They didn't feel like dabbling in the dark arts to figure out how to get MT to work.
Even though Capcom offered to send a team over to England and run a workshop to teach them everything from top to bottom about MT.
Not that old actually, a year and a half.
The specs aren't that impressive but they're not that either:
dual core i5, nvidia GeForce GT730M with 2 GB of dedicated VRAM and 4GB DDR3
How about console games?
>65000 enemies on screen
>silky smooth 60fps
>Any MT Framework game
Not every game.
I didn't really think so. My friend and I did the game-sharing thing on steam, and my 560ti struggled to get 50fps constantly on World at War. Which is bizarre because it really shouldn't be that intensive.
I did something like that in Half Life but I didn't hear any coil whine.
Interestingly enough, Platinum's engine is optimized for 4 cores at least. Eurogamer's article about its performance said that MGR is very well multithreaded. The only time the performance will drop is if you cut things into too many pieces.
>Mfw cutting things into so many pieces that I can hear my fans speeding up
all Hitman games
>dem working mirrors
all lego games
Mirrors in late 90s/early 00s games were easy as fuck to implement and didn't really cause any performance hit, so the fact that those games have mirrors in them really doesn't mean anything about how optimized the games are.
>not being able to run JC2 on those specs
What are you, a pirate? I couldnt run torrented JC2 from TPB on anything, but when i bought it it never dropped below 24fps even on my 6year old laptop with core2duo and Radeon HD 3470M.
That's a modern game with functional mirrors, by the way.
Despite this sort of thing being literally impossible due to 3D being more 3D nowadays than it was in the past, rendering such complex concepts as secondary viewports unimplementable. Maybe it runs on magic.
More recent one is Sleeping Dogs.
Runs like a god damn champ even on a toaster.
the source engine has been amazing since the day it was released
It's also one of the few games I've played that doesn't have screen tearing with vsync off. I just set the framerate limit (which isn't vsync) in the game to 60 fps and it never drops below and the screen never tears.
>People ITT thinking that their 0-2 year old cards getting 120fps on an 8 year old engine is proof that the game is optimised
Quite often these older mirrors are done by just making a copy of the room behind the "mirror". There wasn't too much in the terms of physics, so there was barely any object behavior that might not match well.
Currently we have two big types of mirrors in recent games. The one type is water surfaces that don't show anything new, think about oblivion type water reflections. These reflections are all post processing. First you render everything, than you take a part, flip it and put a water filter over it. These are pretty cheap but can't be used in situations where reflection will show you something new. For example these will never show your face or the underside of a bridge from a location where you can't see it.
The other way is to have a second camera from which you render the room again. This is very expensive, you will sometimes find these in smaller areas like toilets. Some examples are portals in portal and fear has some very basic such reflections. For portal, I guess they can get away with doing it in bigger rooms because much of their rooms have relatively simple layouts. There are barely any organic shapes most of the time (many items/rooms are pretty square) so the render time is probably pretty low. Although I am not sure, there is a link to how these things are done in portal but I can't find it now.
Mirrors usually have little to do with optimization of the game. But they can show at least some extra attention from the dev side, even if they aren't used often.
What about Portal games? Aren't they basically "enterable" mirrors? What stops devs using similar techniques for other games? The ammount of coding?
I don't even ask for big ones. Just small enough to fit in a bathroom. So many games try to find excuses, why there are no mirrors in bathrooms or anywhere else it's pathetic.
And yet DNF managed to fit one literary in the first minute of the game.
>What stops devs using similar techniques for other games?
Laziness and the fact that people love to excuse said laziness by making shit up about mirrors being too complex to be implemented in modern games.
Games do have mirrors. And Portal typically takes place in small rooms so perfectly reflecting shit isn't very difficult. It also helps that Portal (and Source in general) doesn't have anywhere near as much stuff going on as in other games, so "reflecting" all of that isn't difficult because the game doesn't have any of it. Lack of mirrors in bathrooms and other small rooms is laziness and/or engine limitations (like in the new Deus Ex game, I think their engine just wasn't designed to allow real time reflections, though I could be wrong).
Not having good real time reflections in Watch Dogs however is most likely because doing that would tank performance for a game that is already struggling to run (because of poor optimization). Having good quality real time reflections on every building and car in an open world game just isn't feasible at the moment without getting poor performance. The best I've seen is Sleeping Dogs and those reflections look pretty shitty.
It's a combination of advanced lighting, post processing, and other effects making reflecting things in modern games a lot more intensive than in older games, but games that just completely lack reflections even in small rooms is just laziness which might be combined with engine limitations, though it's hard to say whether engine limitations exist.
It's main problem is actually its lighting engine; CDProjekt handled the port and couldn't into engines. On older cards, if you disable the dynamic lighting the speed increases drastically
Gentlemen of the Row also fixes most of the lighting issues. Interiors still take a performance hit though
Netcode still a shit though
Still, even gimped as it was, SR2 on PC was my first foray into the series and it was fun as fuck
Kojima personally oversaw the betatesting and PC optimization quality
I can only hope the same happens to MGS5
Really? I don't remember anything about that. All I remember is his tweet that the shadows look good, which they really don't. Fox is designed to be multiplatform though so screwing up the PC version would probably hurt the engine's reputation. On the other hand,
this is PC only, who cares
Fox Engine was made with PC in mind so probably
The old MGS1 and MGS2 PC ports ran well too, I wonder if Konami plans to re-release those or release some new collection on the PC in the future.
It ran on my geforce 2 mx 400. It wasn't rock solid 60 FPS of cource. It probably wasn't even 30? but I was still able to finish the game.
On the other hand Unreal Engine 2 games always told me to go fuck myself because they were too good for my PC.
Shame MGS1 was locked at 1024x768 30 fps. And actually it does have framerate drops on my setup. MGS2 runs great though.
>the fucking controls for MGS2 for PC
I couldn't even know how to modify them without fucking up
Consoles don't run better, devs just make the games with the drivers/settings on the disc.
The game is made FOR the console, then we get the port (in many cases).
Console hardware doesn't do anything better or run anything better, because it just does what the drivers tell it to.
>I wish people would stop posting that fucking picture
>tfw still stuck with my Vista powered abacus.
Good thing I've still got such a massive backlog to get through.
It's best to just delete all of them and start from scratch. I played with a controller though but using the keyboard would probably be fine other than aiming in first person. The PC version even has keys so you can walk and emulate the pressure sensitivity with a keyboard.
For me the only issues were that the textures didn't load and that the prerendered videos didn't play (also an audio issue that I personally didn't have but I used the fix anyway, most of this is on its PCgamingwiki page). Fixing the textures required hex editing the exe file but I never did figure out how to fix the videos. It seems to be similar to the issue Thief 1 and 2 had with their videos before NewDark. Some codec issue or something. The videos play in WMP though. The port isn't anywhere near as bad as people say, at the very least it's not unplayable and just has some issues that need fixed due to modern hardware.
The game even doesn't seem to have a resolution lock. You just have to set up a custom resolution but it'll go as high as you want as far as I can tell.
Let's hope they'll let us adjust the drawdistance though
The game runs better on PC than on an emulator and with the emulator I imagine you're stuck with the (at least I think) 30 fps locked cutscenes. Also not as easily able to use the pressure sensitive functions, lowering a pistol without shooting especially.
>I always thought the MGS series was supposed to be realistic
You were wrong.
Yes, with bee shitting people, floating ghosts, exoskeletons that let you oppose a walking tank and russian electric wizards.
>have decent machine
>downscaling from whatever resolution absolutely kills the framerate
i was doubtful
i guess it does run on anything
Well, at least so the popping wouldn't be that jarring. If there's gonna be travel, that shit's gonna stand out.
Diseases/nanomachines that can target specific genetic code doesn't really seem all that far-fetched. Some diseases work like that in real life to. Not to target specific people, but certain genetic traits. I don't see any reason targeting specific people wouldn't work.
When the game is open world and the pop in looks awful it really does matter. It doesn't make the game unplayable, but if the game doesn't stress my machine very much I'd like to crank up the draw distance.
The thing I don't get is how can game run smooth on Xbox-360 and my specs are listed as worse than minimum. While I think I have much better than X-360. Is there something I don't know ?
Your PC has to run an OS besides the game itself. The game isn't custom built for your specs, so it doesn't utilize them to full potential.
Other tech savvy anons probalby can expand this further.
For one I don't think PC versions of games often let you go as low as the 360 version of a game would be. Games most likely use a ton of shortcuts in console versions of games too that aren't available on the PC versions.
on a PC, you have the processor and RAM overhead of an OS and the necessity of an all-purpose engine that can run on many different kinds of hardware.
Getting it to run on all hardware is typically a matter of funneling the instructions through a general graphics library such as DirectX or OpenGL, which in turn knows exactly what to send to your video card's drivers which in turn know what to send to the GPU
on console, the game sends info straight to the GPU
>on console, the game sends info straight to the GPU
Of course this isn't true anymore. Both the Xbone and the PS4 use APIs as well as having OS overhead and stuff. And it doesn't help that they're less powerful in comparison to PC hardware at their launch than the 360 was at its launch.
What would they do if they didn't have their musicTVTVTVmoviesNetflixWaterCooler functions?
Okay, that makes sense.
So, why isn't there OS specifically designed for gaming ?
Also, if I want to go as low as 360 version of the game, can I do it by editing config files or I have to rewrite the code ?
directx is lagging behind by years
but no one ever bothers to properly use it since its not as easy or comfortable to use as directx
serious sam 3 for example runs amazing on linux
funnily enough the dx implementaton of wine is
fasterthan on windows albait not as compatible
Working mirrors have nothing to do with age. It has everything to do with what engine is being used.
Some engines do mirrors in 2014 without a single frame drop while some engines can't do mirrors and never have had mirrors.
Nobody wants to make one. And PCs typically are bought for doing other things than playing games. A gaming OS to boot into would be cool if it improved performance but I would still want an OS to do other things on. It would be better if one OS could do both but that would be hard to do without requiring killing all unneeded processes, which would still require everything else to be closed before playing games. Valve's SteamOS is supposed to be doing something similar, being a gaming OS.
Some games allow you to go super low through config tweaks but most modern games really don't. In fact graphics options have gotten less and less useful as time has gone on.
People really do need to start using OpenGL. Hopefully when DX12 requires Windows 9 and it sucks and nobody wants to use it there will be more of a spur.
Can I alter/optimize code/game (not OS) to improve performance for my specs ? I hear the game source code or something like that are given to NVDIA and AMD to optimize their drivers.
I screwed with my grafix card settings to cap it at 30 to avoid the dumbass durability bug
Still looks nice though
I bought it for steam, I dunno what's wrong with my laptop. I read that some people also had trouble with getting it to run, but I don't want to update my nvidia drivers because sometimes it fucks it up even more.
while not impossible you'd have to either get your hands on the code or be playing a game with high modability (bethesda games often enjoy performance increases along with fanmade bugfix packs)
I have a dream that one day they will release MTF for free since they have no use for it anymore
never go below x60. x50 might be acceptable on desktops if you are poor slav or br. on laptops 760m should be the lower to go if you are talking gaming and even then it will be double the price for half the power
The Evil Within, Shadow of Mordor, Sims 3
b8. Treyarch are braindead monkey's when it comes to PC releases. I remember running CoD 4 and MW2 near max settings on a 6450 yet Black Ops wouldn't even boot up even when its visuals are dogshit compared to even fucking MW2.
It would require rendering the lighting, shaders, post processing, etc twice for every frame where you're looking at the mirror. That's not cheap. Also it doesn't allow you to scale the resolution of the rendering in the mirror while doing it with a separate camera (I'm not sure where cubemaps come into this but I think they play a part) allows you to do this.
>It would require rendering the lighting, shaders, post processing, etc twice for every frame where you're looking at the mirror
How so? Duplicating geometry means you render all of the shading and lighting in the very same pass. On top of that, you only render it once per screen pixel. While rendering the mirrored view into a new viewport means you render pixels that won't be relevant in the final output
>Also it doesn't allow you to scale the resolution of the rendering in the mirror
Correct, it would be native resolution of the viewport, the best quality you can have.
I'm not convinced yet
MP3 wasn't a port and neither is GTAV going to be.
You can compare games with their graphics and performance and if one game runs like twice as well as the other game with similar graphics quality you can at least assume it's because of optimization.
>I'm not convinced yet
They're lazy, simple as that.
When was the last game where you entered an ingame bathroom, looked around and thought that the devs really did give a fuck about their game?
There is a lot of overhead on PC, not to mention console games use a SHITTON of shortcuts in development and most PC games won't even have the option for that. For example, most post processing is pre-baked on consoles but on PC its dynamic.
It was also cool that they included this in a demo.
Why do we never see these kind of benchmarks anymore?
I'm not a game dev so I'm not 100% sure. Still, if rendering a separate room behind a mirror was the best way of doing things you'd think that it would still be used. Some games still do it (Metro LL for example) but most games use a separate viewport. And being able to scale the resolution does help because perhaps a full quality reflection would be too intensive. They should still have the option though.
Also I think using a separate viewport fixes the character in the mirror not 100% being a correct reflection.
Sleeping Dogs and Max Payne 3 mostly. I'd like to hear what games you're thinking of.
the best method for mirror rendering in the way it was done in Duke Nukem 3D
the problem is this method was too good; you could place two mirrors across from eachother and it would crash even today's machines
Heres to hoping someone on the team gets disgruntled and leaks the PC version.
calm down not everyone can be a richfag like you
I keep hearing that it was ray tracing but I still don't believe a game in whatever year DN3D came out had ray traced reflections. And if it could be done back then it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to do today.
Also setting a maximum ray bounce depth (I think Brigade uses 8) would solve the crashing caused by too many reflections.
Turn off msaa and use fxaa or no aa. The msaa in the game is awful and 4x msaa will more than halve your framerate while eliminating less aliasing than fxaa will.
That was because it was basically a 2d engine and what you were looking at weren't walls or polygons, but stretched out rectangles. It would be impossible to do this with a fulyl 3d engine.
>using FXAA on PC
FXAA is consoleshit.
Well, there are drawbacks to the duplicate geometry method. It only works if the mirror surface is planar, or close to it. Even worse, it only works if the mirror surface does not ever move. Because dynamic level geometry would be a real bitch to handle. Also, duplicate geometry requires a bit of extra game logic, because when the player is in that room, any physics and player movements in the original room must be replicated in the mirrored room. If the physics engine does not account for that, you're in trouble.
>And being able to scale the resolution does help because perhaps a full quality reflection would be too intensive. They should still have the option though.
Just so it's clear: When duplicated geometry is involved, the mirror surface is nothing but a transparent polygon, or a hole. There is NO difference between rendering a cityscape in front of the player, or rendering a room through a mirror.
>fixes the character in the mirror not 100% being a correct reflection.
That ties into the mirrored geometry mentioned above. Most first person games do not have any player geometry, or very little. So it can not be just duplicated in the mirror room. Instead new geometry needs to be added for that "NPC" that reacts to all player input. It would be possible to get a 100% correct reflection if you were to really just duplicate the meshes and hook them up to the same transforms. That needs support from the engine though, which means work for the developer. Meanwhile rendering a mirror through a render target requires no additional work from the engine, because all the work happens in shaders. It's lazier for sure
>Building games and engines on PC rather than console devkits will never be standard despite consoles using PC architecture
>Engines will never properly utilize all that CPU power for realistic AI and physics in modern PCs
>Publishers will never stop bloating the specs in favor of pleasing Sony and Nvidia suits
>Microsoft will never stop being retarded about shitty overhead
There's so many things wrong.
For OP, LoS2 runs like a fucking dream on PC. Looks great too.
>has never seen FXAA used correctly
Well you only have fxaa or msaa unless you downsample. In any case the msaa in the game shouldn't be used. So if you'd rather have aliasing than use fxaa just turn off the msaa. The fxaa in MP3 is pretty good though. It gets rid of more aliasing than the msaa and while it does cause some blurring it's not too bad.
Downsampling works fine but I find that the cutscenes for some reason run pretty badly at higher resolutions than the gameplay does.
Well, they could have the option of not using them. Morrowind had. Half-Life 2 had.
Prince of Persia: SoT and Silent hill 3 demanded shader support, but I think there were fan patches to disable that.
Resident Evil 5.
RE6 runs well too, but it has PS2 textures so it's not surprising.
It's Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2
runs like a charm and has very nice texture work overall, though some shit is a little bit too low poly, but it was made for last gen, so what can you do
Lords of Shadows 2. Game is so-so though.
>I keep hearing that it was ray tracing but I still don't believe a game in whatever year DN3D came out had ray traced reflections.
It was raycasting. The difference in naming is subtle, but the difference in what actually happens is huge. For raycasting you basically act on a flat 2D map of a level. You do the same ray-into-scenery thing, and reflect it on mirrors. Eventually the mirrored ray may hit a wall. When it does, you compute the distance from camera to that wall. Now here's the trick: That wall that the ray hit, has an upper and lower height declared (floor and ceiling). From the length of the ray and the elevation of floor and ceiling you can compute two points on the screen, which match the ceiling and floor of that segment of wall at that distance. Then you fill the column of pixels in between with the texture of that wall. That is, very simplified, the rayCASTING mechanism that Doom, Duke 3D and many others used. In the worst case you case one ray for each column of pixels on screen. So, 640 rays for a single frame of Duke Nukem 3D. That's not bad at all. Much less math than raytracing.
By the way, because of the column thing I casually mentioned, tilting your head up and down or to the side was extremely limited, since wall segments always had to be perfectly vertical.
fxaa and msaa are poor man's AA, and they're both pretty good at what they're doing.
FXAA will cost you almost no performance, and msaa will get you a sharper image
Cheapest way to AA is just use 17-19" 1080p monitor
I was wondering how porting works ? Does anybody who knows how to code can do it or you need to have source codes and shit.
Some guy ported The Dishwasher: Vampire Smile to PC. it works but it's very buggy.
Well now I feel like a silly goat.
I heard it's supposedly better than the first one, I haven't played either. Do I need to play all Castlevania games to get the story or does it only share the name with the old games?
GoldSrc is even more impressive if you compare them in retrospect.
Seriously, that shit is legit magic, its one part Carmack, one part Valve, and 10 parts magic.
Valve are kings with optimization and there engine, Portal 2 is fucking god damn amazing.
People dont realize theres A LOT of in map optimization with Source as with most games, but its very prevalent in source.
So you could make the exact same area, 1:1 down the the smallest details, and it would be worse than Valves.
MSAA is dogshit now days due to deferred rendering. FSAA or post process AA's are your best friends now. SMAA is pretty fucking great, wish more games used it. MLAA is dogshit.
i think bluepoint games talked about that in some interview. i don't remember every detail, but i remember them saying that using the source code may not be the best way to go about porting. what they are doing is literally rebuilding the code for the game or something like that. i wish i could find the article
Ideally you would need the source code. It's conceivable that with enough time someone could completely build a game from the bottom up on another platform without having the source code but it would take forever and most likely not 100% replicate the code so it could have some issues and other things different than the version that was trying to be replicated.
The game that that guy ported to PC was a pretty simple 2D game so it probably wasn't as difficult as other games. If you wanted to completely build Dragon's Dogma up from the ground that would be much much more difficult. Most likely possible give enough time while probably not 100% replicating the code but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
lords of shadow is independent story wise. it has some namedropping of noteable npcs from the other games but nothing important really. and last i checked, the first LoS was considered a better game overall. LoS 2 will make you feel with the soundtrack and the castle though
story in both games is pretty shitty. to top it off, LoS 2 is based on the dlc ending in LoS 1, where gabriel earns his demonic powers which make him dracula etc.
Im almost positive the actual tech behind Portal and its portal optimization are locked down and secret.
But there are these
Portals are based off that tech in Source to an extent, theres some other really fucking insane shit you can do with Areaportals
Also remember how in those SUPER detailed parts in Portal 2 you always had to use your portal in specific places?
That was a cute little trick to avoid people finding spots in those areas where a portal would lag like ass.
I don't think the guy who ported Dish Washer rebuild the code for the game and neither did he had access to source code. He explains what he did but I don't understand anything
Well, maybe I'm dumb, but why would Silent Hill 3 run much worse than 2? Why would textures depend on shaders? Also, as far as I remember PS2 didn't even use shaders. Why would PC ports of it's games require them? Used as a bonus, sure, but not require.
Also, I never actually seen those patches. Maybe they don't even exist.
>Im almost positive the actual tech behind Portal and its portal optimization are locked down and secret.
Documented and white paper'd. Valve is quite open about their research
Portal 1 and 2 are super simple, and portal 2 doesnt let you make portals everywhere in those super detailed areas.
Also its based off existing technology in Source , Valve is godly at optimization, and was the FOCUS OF THE ENTIRE GAME.
When something like that is the full on focus then yes, it better be optimized and work.
Not 1 mirror in the bathroom to sate your lust for mirrors.
A standard gaming CPU is already several times more powerful than that underclocked Jaguar APU in a PS4. So even if he's statement is true, a medium rig is still ahead of a PS4.
Sounds like he figured out how the container files worked (stuff that holds information or whatever) and was able to code stuff that would decompile them, edited the code to make them more friendly to Windows, then recompiled them. He did this for the containers, the exe, shaders, etc. So he was somewhat working with the actual game files (not sure about source code).
to break it down to an extremely simplistic view, games exist in 3 big portions
you have the graphical/audio resources (whose function is obvious), the behavior code resources (which control events and gameplay), and the engine
the engine is built to interpret the behavior code and feed the graphical/audio resources to the target hardware in such a way that that hardware can interpret it correctly
when porting, you rewrite the engine so that it can be read by and feed data to the new target hardware. Sometimes this doesn't go so well
To be fair it was because of their stupidity while porting it.
>Hey guys you know what would be great?
>If every time a player tried to use matchmaking it'd make the other players DDOS him!
Really? Where is it at I really wanna read that.
I was saying that because you cannot make a standalone mod of portal 1 and portal 2(you cannot do the create a mod thing in the tools as you can for others)
You instead have to be creative and generally are locked down to mapping and some third party stuff you can do. But you dont have nearly the control you would if you could do the standalone mod shit. Thats why I figured the tech behind it was so locked down, they dont even give it to you so you can fuck around with it. L4D falls in the same category, you cannot use it as a base for a mod(as in actually control the stuff like the Director AI and etc...)
Instead it once again comes to a makeover with maps/textures/models/etc... but never able to really mod it.
>tfw seeing framerate hit 400
>started playing this yesterday
>fun but feels hard to get combo points
Am I just not meant to feel incredible until further into the game when I have more moves and abilities unlocked, and then replay levels for style and score?
I heard the driver setting doesn't work very well though. Have you tried using it?
That was coded entirely in Assembly right? There was a 3DS game that did that too and managed to run at 60 fps while looking like a late gen PS2/Xbox game.
>I heard the driver setting doesn't work very well though. Have you tried using it?
My vga is AMD actually.
To use Nvidia's limiting thing you need to use Inspector. And as far as I know, D3DOverrider only uses vsync/triple buffering, no just play framerate limitations.
Yep, The Youtube video doesn't do it justice though. Should really download the 60 fps video on their site.
It greatly depends on the platforms being ported from and to. Usually the source code is what they will start with, and optimise from there. If you read some of the interviews with Naughty Dog about porting TLOU to PS4, turns out they had to do a lot of work just to get it running.
>All those engine 'features'
>Still looks like shit
Nothing is going to save you from 240p unfortunately. Can't use detailed textures at all or else shit will shimmer horribly, and mip-map will turn it to soup five feet away.
>And as far as I know, D3DOverrider only uses vsync/triple buffering, no just play framerate limitations.
D3DOverrider doesn't limit FPS, but it gives you all the benefits of V-sync without giving input lag or weird performance.
>turns out they had to do a lot of work just to get it running.
That's mostly because TLoU had a shitload of code that was specific to the Cell architecture that needed rewriting for the traditional X64 processor.
>but why would Silent Hill 3 run much worse than 2?
Old SH games are notorious for being lazy ports
>PS2 didn't even use shaders
OG Xbox used shaders. And I'm pretty sure PS2 had some other techology similar to pixel shaders.
>Why would PC ports of it's games require them?
ported using DirectX 8&9? Also PS support was standard at the time(only nvidia went full retard and sold cards without it)
>newfag generation cant comprehend next gen games requiring next gen hardware
Since we're talking about optimization, what is it with multiplat ports on Ps3? Take Bayonetta for example. it runs 60 on the 360/WiiU but around 20 on ps3? Is this because of the split memory the Ps3 uses?
Rushed port job on a console that hardly any developers had real time devoted to figuring out how to get performance from it.
That and Platinum outsourced the PS3 port to SEGA to handle, who was publishing both console version anyhow.
>an Xbone game that runs at 720p 30 fps with drops can't run much better on a fucking Titan
That's poor optimization. I'm not sure if the shitload of vram these games use is poor optimization or not but DR3 is a game with poor optimization. As is Watch Dogs and other Ubisoft games.
Programming for PS3 is pain.
Cell's architeture is alien. The PS3 emulator doesn't even run any games because emulating the Cell behavior still impossible, if things don't change the PS3 emulator might never be able to run any legit PS3 game.
>mfw capcom decided to ditch MTFramework
>an Xbone game that runs at 720p 30 fps with drops can't run much better on a fucking Titan
>That's poor optimization.
Or it's an engine hardcoded for 30fps, not uncommon. In that case, the amount of hardware you throw at it is secondary
They did a much better job with Vanquish and MGR - PS3 and 360 versions almost identical. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-face-off
>clinging to this tweet enough to save it to your hard drive to post later, knowing that its so out of context that it doesnt mean what you're trying to say it means
Behold the face of mental illness.
I don't get. Shouldn't optimization be number 1 priority for big publishers when making a PC game? People with high-end cards are very few. By optimizing your games, you're making sure the potential consumer base multiplies by a vast margin.Then why are big publishers the absolute worst when it comes to optimization? It seems so detrimental to their own business. Yet indie devs like those that made Vanishing of Ethan Carter are doing a hell of a nice job actually making sure their games are playable on a wide range of machines.
>Or it's an engine hardcoded for 30fps
Which I would consider poor optimization. It's poorly optimized for framerates above 30 fps. Also the cutscenes for some reason run really shitty, like half the framerate of the actual game.
Kojipro has god-tier programmers, can't wait to see what they can do with Fox Engine on PC.
You can either use extra performance to add more things the game can do or you can take it up with poor optimization. Guess which one takes less effort? People keep saying high end PC games aren't made anymore because lower end computers need to run games too while AAA devs are doing essentially the same thing a high end game would do except they're not using that performance for anything.
GZ PC fucking when
Funny, it's been the opposite for me. CoD4 ran fucking great, same with WaW. With MW2, it started to run like shit. With MW3, I didn't notice anymore since I had some better hardware.
I tried Ghosts once or twice though but it had some crazy stuttering going on which I couldn't fucking explain.
How late a game is has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.
What exactly do you mean by hardcoding? The game will run above 30 fps with pretty much no issue. It's only that the game runs so awfully on pretty much anything.
>Some diseases work like that in real life to. Not to target specific people, but certain genetic traits. I don't see any reason targeting specific people wouldn't work.
WoW was surprisingly the best optimized MMO I've ever played. Although I didn't manage to get constant 60+FPS everywhere, either, but that's probably improbable for any mmo anyway.
Other than that, I'd say FFXIV was one of the better ones optimization-wise, but that may be due to the small as fuck areas.
Arguments like this are used in contradiction a lot of the time. People don't make high end PC games because then only a few people would be able to play them well, but poorly optimized console ports aren't an issue because people with high end hardware are the only ones that buy the game?
>He could have just shot the guy
but then that would make for a boring webm, wouldn't it?
I don't think some of you PC users realize just how powerful current-gen is. When consoles are twice as powerful as equal PC hardware, they are very close to high-end PCs. With cloud for Xbone and further optimization for PS4, consoles will be at an equal level as high PCs for the next 3-4 years, minimum.
The real test I guess will be The Witcher 3. If the PC version looks years ahead of PS4, then we'll see.
I get theres 4k for PC as well, but it doesn't look that much better than 1080p. Its hard to tell any difference
They're not focusing on high end hardware, they're using their performance budget poorly. There is an issue with doing that if the same reason is used for why high end PC games aren't made anymore. Hardware is used to counteract developer laziness and not to do more things with the game.
Don't hate me. That's the actual reason why not many publishers/studios don't care about the PC ports. Also bulk of the money is made on consoles. PC sales (year one and steam sales) are just side money to them.
>Also bulk of the money is made on consoles
Lately it's seeming that a lot of games need as much money as they can get and so PC is helping a bit. It's still retarded to use that double standard that we won't actually make use of high end PC hardware because lower end cards need to run the game too while doing the exact same thing with poor optimization so lower end cards can't run the game.
I think you read it wrong, they had to modify the engine in order to remove certain features like Steamworks (game is Origin exclusive), dedicated server support (game runs on Azure cloud servers powered by Microsoft), and among other things. They also added DX11 support manually since the engine doesn't support it by itself.
A person that can't afford hardware would probably pirate the game anyway. So they don't care. Video card producers don't care because if you have to buy their flagship card to run a game they're profiting already and Nvidia programmers are famous for finding a way around ports's bad programming, so they use it as part of their marketing tactics.