Why are the ultra settings almost the same as low nowadays? I

>>389853324
Because games are usually so well-optimized that even Low settings look good and the setting scale generally controls post-processing or shading rather than overall quality.

As shitty as their new games are DICE does a good job at optimization and graphical fidelity, undeniably.

File: 1460765628527.jpg (104KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 400x300px

>>389853458
>games are usually so well-optimized

>>389853458
I won't dispute that DICE know their shit but there are plenty of games coming out with zero effort ports that run like garbage

They generally design things for high settings and then have to reduce things for low settings. Draw distance, shaders, lighting and particle effects, texture resolution, these are the "easy" things to reduce and that's what most developers do.

If you wanted to see a more substantial difference you'd have to bake a whole new set of assets designed to be easier on your computer. Every model would have a low-poly version and such. This is extremely costly of everything; development time, installation size, development costs.

It's a good thing to do but generally optimization occurs so late into development that they don't even bother with making a decent low settings option because they're coming up to their deadline and need to get the project out.

Some developers do it well though. Unreal engines (shit on them all you want) are always incredibly well optimized and scale well to systems. The same is true with Source games although that's also because they're so old. Crysis was a system destroyed when it came out but it was really well optimized too.

File: Clipboard02.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

Did someone say ULTRA?

>>389853324
>>389853458
because the games either work on your machine or just don't

Because games are made for consoles and whatever extra fluff is on the PC version is just slider options and nothing more.

File: graphics.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

Because everyone with a PC is rich nowadays.

>>389853324
peecee settings are a meme, just get a fucking console where every game actually runs properly and be done with it

"settings" are a meme to sell more expensive hardware, the software does all the work, and it's designed to run on weak hardware

you're remembering incorrectly, for nearly all games, the difference between settings is minimal

your brain tricks itself into thinking that different appearances on shadows, saturation, jaggies, etc are much better looking

it's the same reason people pay several dollars for ordinary coffee

>>389854416

Horrible fps and resolution make it unplayable for me.

File: Horizon-Zero-Dawn-E3-2015-Stormbringer.jpg (138KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 800x450px

>>389854416
this

>>389854445
I disagree. It wasn't always the case. but nowadays I'm 100% sure -ANY- videogame whatsoever could run flawlessly on a gtx560 if not for software bloat designed to sell you l33t 1080tis

>>389853324

Mostly due to shaders. It's not even that taxing to make games with huge polygon counts and massive textures anymore.
The real problem is shaders. These things are literally the closest Humans will ever come to real magic. They're insanely complex to write, almost impossible to optimise and when you look at what they actually do, you'll wonder how in the fuck is that possible?

Take for example something like bloom. We all know what it is, but a shader for bloom is taking literally every single pixel on screen, applying math to this pixel to alter it's RGB value, then sending it to be displayed on your screen.
A shader is going this to every pixel on your screen, every frame per second constantly. At 1920x1080 running at 60 FPS, this means it's doing this 124,416,000 times per second.

These days almost every single fancy effect you've see in a video game is handled by a shader and even some of the more mundane ones you probably didn't realise are also shaders.

Shaders are literally fucking miracles.

>>389854604
>two more memes

If you think whatever you just said makes a game "unplayable", you're either being deliberately retarded, or you're actually retarded. Unfortunately for you, there is no difference

Probably cuz overall computing power has increased and they're more than enough for 1080p right now. Ultra settings do look better but I don't think they're worth the fps they take away. I'd rather run games at lower settings for 144fps than ultra with 50-60.

Here come all the PCfats to meme about fps

>>389854673
this is why all new games look like fucking boilerplate right? MUH REALISM

you are demented if you think the horrible hollywood tier graphics we have now are an improvement over the stuff from 10 years ago

god people like you make my fucking skin crawl, I can only take comfort in the knowledge that you're like 14 and are predisposed to saying cringy things

>>389854205
What game is that?

>>389854995
not him but I think mass effect andromeda

at 1080p its not very noticeable. Get yourself a 4k monitor and a 1080 Ti then you'll understand.

>>389854154
good post, thanks anon

>>389854992

Even cartoony games use shaders anon. Shaders are literally responsible for everything you see on your screen while playing a video game. Without a shader all you'd see is a black screen.

Someone obviously has no fucking clue about anything because shaders have a trillion different uses.

>>389854759
eat more cocks, you seem really good at it

>>389854205
I know people said the game looked bad but holy fuck, that is pathetic.

>>389855139
CRINGY holy shit you got a second one from me

gold fucking star

you know what else? faggots placing their dicks into assholes, that can generate a trillion different diseases

>>389855271
>>389854992
who let you out of your cage?

>>389855209
Oh, I get it, you're 14 or younger. I suppose that gives you SOME excuse, but you really should let the adults do the posting around here.

>>389854759
To be fair, some console games last gen did play pretty shittily, especially for ports like Quake 4 or Crysis which dipped into the 20fps range, so its easy for people to treat consoles with suspicion. Its also because some console games now just dont feel good to control on top of that, it honestly seems like devs forgot how to make smooth, tight controls instead of a weighty character that moves with the elegance of a retard because of realism.

>>389853324
Maybe its so low players dont feel left out? Also I would assume low resolution and a lack of AA would make it more clear.

File: Clipboard03.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>389855231
ENHANCE

>>389854992
>>389855271
kys you are litteraly the most stupid cunt I have seen this week

DICE are masters of pre-baked textures. It's how their games look so good. While the first Mirror's Edge was still an absolutely static environment they took it a step further in Battlefront and then managed to include terrain deformation and destructible environments in otherwise baked maps for BF1. Movable parts (effects and stuff from the destructivlble environment) will look incredibly bad on low settings though. The biggest factor is texture quality, followed by mesh quality - if you have enough VRAM to keep the first on the highest setting and the second on anything but low you will have a fairly decent looking game - special effects and destructible bits aside.

>>389853324
>that hand
Fuck off Rugarell.

>>389854995

Clipboard 2

>>389854759
I can't got back to below 60 my dude. 30 feels like a slideshow for me. It didn't some years ago, but I've tasted the fruit of good performance.

>>389853539
he's not far wrong, nowadays my list for well optomised games is probably longer than my list for shit ones, and battlefield especially is quite good

>>389854416
>>389854759
>"runs properly"
>'no framerate doesn't mattteeerrrrr'

What the fuck are you even referring to then?

In MP games it makes sense, a lot of faggots turn games to their absolute minimum to get an advantage over other players doing things like hiding in grass and such.
So devs make it impossible to do things like reduce grass rendered and such in order to combat this kind of shit.
As for SP games, I don't know, a lot of games barely look different moving from medium to ultra.

>>389853324
Dice prebakes a lot of their shit.

>>389854759
t. a guy who has never played on a gaming PC.

>>389855683
C&C tiberian sun hasn't aged well

>>389857185
and yet he can actually enjoy all games

that's telling

>>389857448
Nah, plenty of "gamers" on all platforms don't actually enjoy any games, they're the guys you see playing games with those blank stares that freak the fuck out when they die/lose.
They don't actually like games, they just don't have anything else going on in their lives.

>>389857448
I can enjoy all games too, but I enjoy some games more when I play them on PC.

>>389853324
dev here, some weird answers itt.

Long story short, we work towards one target that it the 'goal' and that becomes medium/high. The problem though is that for resolution, samples, etc these things don't scale linearly.

So if we take high as the baseline, to get it looking 30% better (for ultra or whatever) it might make it run 50% slower. For medium, we might want to make it run 30% faster, but to do that we make it look 50% worse.

A lot of this is due to increased resolution. We're doing a lot in screen space and it hurts performance like a motherfucker.

>>389853458
sort of. See above.

>>389854154
We reuse things fairly well. Since we have to do 3-5 LOD's for most things we just change the distance ranges each one appears. They're work already done, but you don't notice the barrel becoming box-shaped because on high it happens at 100m and it's too far away to notice for most people. On low it might happen at 30m.

>>389854445
wat

Most games, the most obvious change is shadows. Some people are more sensitive to this than others, and this is a setting that stands out in that way, but you should be able to notice even a single step in the cascade (1024 shadow map over 5m square, vs 1024 shadow map over 10m square).

>>389854673
Bloom is one of the easiest shaders known to man. Basic version as follows.

You draw textures with coordinates, think pixels in X and Y on your screen. For bloom, you drw the screen 9 times, one with no offset and the other 8 offset by one pixel in each direction (up, down, left, right, diagonals). Add the 9 together, then divide by 9 to get an average. Then you remap the image (apply brightness curves, or just multiply it by itself if you're cheap) to make just the bright bits bright and the medium and dark bits dark. Repeat as needed. Add that to your base image and the bright bits glow.

You can also do things like adjust the blur to be gaussian, add more samples (the next step up from 9 is 25, then 49.

>>389853324
Consoles don't leave any room for good graphical range. They just create the assets optimized for consoles.

>>389857727
So are you a console/multiplat dev or one of those PC indie devs?

>>389853324
Consoles

>>389853324
They don't bother with making things run in low end PCs and thus bait people to buy more expensive hardware.

File: 1449382515130.jpg (61KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 960x720px

>>389858164
>good graphics are a conspiracy

>>389857727
that last bit about samples is sort of the importand part.

If I wanted to increase the quality of some rendering effect, you generally go up in powers of 2.

So if for example, you go from rendering bloom a half-res to full res so even a ingle pixel can bloom, you increase the performance cost of that effect by 4.

If you're doing SSAO or SSR or something that might use 16 or 32 samples, you might want to go up to 32 or 64 samples, but sometimes even then you go from noisy to a bit noisy, and players might expect max to be almost noise-free, so you go up to 128 samples.

See how this isn't linear, and can get out of hand or at the very least into the realm of vastly diminishing returns very quickly?

Other big performance sucking things include rendering a fuckload of vegetation. renderers like it when they can hit something solid and then just stop, job done. For things like trees, even when the leaves are 1 or 2 bit alpha tested (transparent or solid) it then has to view it as a solid plane, cut the leaves out, and render more planes behind that. repeat until there's no more branch polygons in that direction.

Crysis 1 was a marvel of engineering to do that well. Everyone gave it shit for bringing PCs to their knees, but it tool everyone else another 5 years before they could think of running those forrests on their engines as a good idea.

>>389857329
Frankly, it doesn't even run good. Unless they actually patched performance since 1.4

>>389857727
is there a reason you have to use odd numbers instead of even for bloom?
Seems like if you could get away with bitshifts it'd be better.

>>389857894
both

Once youunderstand the problem, the only difference if how you work with the problem. With consoles, the hardware is set, any limitations, you work around the problem. It will always be a problem, find some other solution.
With PCs you have a chance because you can do some autodetect magic based around a handful of key points.

For example, the PS3 had an expected operating output of 720p60 or some types of 1080p30/60. Compare that to the PS2 and how many pixels per second it had to push and it's a massive gain. However, proportionally the PS2 was more powerful in that regard, as weird as that sounds, because the extra resolution meant you couldn't hide things, your materials/shaders had to be good, etc.

The end result is that more PS2 games had things like heat haze (that shimmer you see over hot surfaces) than PS3 games. That sort of effect that relied on resolution, and cost x amount per-pixel, was just a more viable choice for ps2 than ps3.

On a PC you might include a shitty version, that can, if it thinks it can due to detecting loads of vram and a smaller monitor resolution, crank itself up to good quality.

Also, it's nice to put in what look like insane qualityh options, because you're thinking about your players down the line. You all probably have some game you can go back to now and with more power than available in 2004 you can iron out a few rough edges by maxing graphics. It' just nice.

>>389853458
>As shitty as their new games are DICE does a good job at optimization
Explains why everything below a 6700k requires near 100% usage regardless of settings.

>>389859172
>Also, it's nice to put in what look like insane qualityh options, because you're thinking about your players down the line
Except then you get idiots trying to max out games with subpar hardware and complaining
Remember Witcher 2 ubersampling?

>>389858739
They're grids.

If you want just one sample, it's 1

A 1 pixel blur can be the center, plus up/down/left/right, or the four diagonals, so that's 5

For up/down/left/right + diagonals, that's a 3x3 grid with the center in the middle pixel, so 9.

5x5 (for 25 samples) is the center pixels, plus all samples within 2 pixels distance.

I'm sure you can guess how I got to 49 and 81.

You can trim off the outer corners, so you're sampling in a radius, rather than 1 pixel jumps, but you still end up with an odd number because of that 1 center sample.

The exception to this is MSAA, where you have 2x, 4x, etc. But even then it's not quite 'right'. Imagine your pixel is divided into 4, 2x msaa renders what's in your top right and the bottom left parts, then averages them. 4x msaa takes all 4. You can't really have a nice grid of 8 equal sized and shapes, so it 'isn't right' either. But it's faster than trying to get a computer to do 9x msaa....

Everyone claiming they turn their msaa up to 11 is trolling "but for $20k I'll build you a renderer that does 12x msaa" - some old bloke

>>389859178
What you are essentially asking for here is that games should not fully utilize available hardware resources. You can limit your framerate if you need more CPU clock cycles available for other applications.
DICE titles scale very well with hardware - you can run them on lousy systems and have a playable experience but still get great returns if you invest in better gear.

>>389859712
>>389859172
>>389858498
>>389857727

Anyway, hopefully that answers a few and/or most of your questions.

>>389859349
yeah I dunno why people thought it would be a good idea to turn that on back then with their 560Ti's and what not. Maybe there needs to be a tooltip that says (reccommended for 2013+ machines or something), or in a 2017 game it would read (save this option for 2020-era computers).

>>389860354
Or simply add tooltips that specify what settings are resource heavy
So for something like ubersampling it says: extreme performance impact
For AA it specifies how much of an impact each setting has and so on

>>389853324
You wanna improve your graphics? Play on 4k.

>>389860590
That's not how that works at all.

>>389854205
You know, I'm so glad this game is so mediocre and boring that it doesn't even have the staying power of ME3.

That game was a travesty, but was constantly talked about for years afterwards because of the dumbass ending. thank god andromeda put the nail in this dead series

>>389860667
Yes it is you stupid fuck. You are full of shit if you don't notice a huge difference between 1080p and 2160p.

>>389854205
You sure that's ultra? I don't remember Andromeda looking fantastic but I don't remember it looking THAT bad.

I was going to load it and look for myself but then I realized I had uninstalled it and fuck if I'm going to redownload all 55GB of it just to check.

>>389860743
>increased resolution != better graphics!

That's not how it works at all you retard. If a game has shit graphics at 480p it's going to have shit graphics at 2160p. Increasing resolution doesn't magically make the graphics better.

>>389854396
>rich
Just well off. Even poor people have 50 inch 4k TVs in the US.

>>389860354
>Maybe there needs to be a tooltip
Definitely. It's the same everything in life - you have to expect that someone who tries to work with your stuff doesn't know what it does or why it does it and this applies to any product, ever.

I generally also believe any highly demanding feature should be excluded from any (high/ultra) preset and come with an optional checkbox and disclaimer when enabling it that it's not meant for current hardware but one to come out down the line to keep the game's visuals fresh for the future.

A little anecdote: The PC version of Call of Duty Black Ops 3 had optional "ultra" textures which were nearly uncompressed ones for quality reasons, we're talking 11GB of textures that want to be squeezed into VRAM at times. One can now argue if that was necessary or wise for a console ported game released when a GTX970 was a mainstream PC card and not the GTX Titan the ultra textures were meant for, but guess what happened when people enabled them thinking they can handle it - they ran out of VRAM and RAM and the game or other applications crashed within seconds of launching a map. Now try explaining a braindead audience like the average CoD player that "high" is what they should go for and ultra was futureproofing - to this date new players on the forums are complaining about crashes when first setting up the game. Devs behidn the port didn't make the same mistake for the next COD and just shipped it with the muddy console textures as highest choice to avoid any and all complaints.

File: 20170908131845_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>389854396
Wow this game looks bad

>>389861462
Every fucking game released nowdays take full advantage of 4k with 4k textures or HDR you oldfag.

>>389861679
Is it bait?
This looks like a ps3 game. Oh wait, it's running on Idtech 3!

File: 20170909164544_1.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>389861462
But it does. Sharper image and less aliasing.

File: 20170907183307_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>389861825
AW has amazing graphics, you shitposter.

>>389861534
Not to mention that AW had crazy supersampling options and people complained that it destroyed their fps without knowing what they were doing
Fucking idiots
>guys help why is my game lagging?
>turn off the supersampling the game is running at 8k right now
>that can't be, my screen is 1080p

File: screenshots-of-fallout-4-textu-image-8642.jpg (892KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 3840x2160px

>>389861863
Quantum Break's already a good looking game. It's only gonna look better with better resolution.

Games like, say, Fallout 4 looks like shit, and the shitty model and texture work is just gonna be more apparent with higher resolution.

>>389860108
>should not fully utilize available hardware resources
That's bullshit. There are multiple reports of players looking at certain areas of the map with no more assets than others and seeing their cpu usage spike/fps tank, meaning there's something going on that players can't see, which is something that doesn't need to be going on.

>distant shot
>every picture is different
try harder retard

>>389858418
It's literally a measure to counter piracy and at the same time a strategy to make people spend more. Why else would these people get so obsessed with graphics after all? PS3 was the peak of graphics/performance ratio.

>>389862004
w/e. Just don't compare your quake3 tier graphic game to one of the most beautiful game of this gen.

>>389853324
Why doesn't anybody still think this is a good way of comparing graphics?

File: 20170908191429_1.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>389862124
It would still look better at 4k than 480p.

It won't make bad games look amazing, but they'll still look better.

>>389853324
Because in multiplayer games, low settings can give you an advantage.

>>389862124
By your logic we should play fallout4 at 720p to hide the horrible graphics.
Great point.

>>389861218
Those are the highest possible settings for everything that's not resolution. No i don't have AA enabled since the game has no AA, only blur filter

>>389862423
Alan Wake is cheating
An x360 that looked so good that it had to run at 540p

File: 20170907175849_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>389862276
I played both AW and BF1 at 4k and I honestly like AWs visuals more. BF is just boring looking.

>>389862590
Then excuse me but you have shit in your eyes. This must be the first time i've seen someone praising the graphics of AW while BF1 is regularly cited in graphic threads. Same for benchmarks.

>>389860108
>Can run Battlefront WQHD maxed out 100fps+ smooth as butter
>Battlefield 1 stutters and hitches every 30 seconds
Literally the only difference is the destruction physics.

Guess it's time to upgrade my 2500k

File: 1504372511097.jpg (58KB, 307x405px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 307x405px

>havent had any income for almost 2 years
>i play games on a 5 year old laptop
>Nvidia GeForce 675MX card
>most of the new games i play shouldnt technically be able to run on it but i try to play anyway because friends have them
>always on low settings, games all look like shit, rendering always fucks up and i get texture/object popping and a sometimes i straight up hit the render wall and the game crashes
>games generally run ~15fps, goes even lower if too much happens at once, sometimes the frames drop so hard I get <1fps for 10-15 seconds
>friends wonder why im so shit at some games and great at others
>finally got a job and it gives me a 4k sign on bonus
>now I can afford to buy a new computer I'll be too busy at work to use

>>389853324
Remember when they didn't set a limit on the dynamic resolution on consoles and it dropped all the way to a crisp 160p?

>>389862590
im not sure if you're serious but AW legit looks like a unity game

File: bf1_2017_08_20_00_52_41_256.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>389859178
>Explains why everything below a 6700k requires near 100% usage regardless of settings.
Mmm, I cap out at like 60-70% usage on an i7 4790.

File: 1482194991114.jpg (51KB, 525x481px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 525x481px

>>389863451
But you'll enjoy the brief times that you can play more than having it all the time

>>389853324
i usually like to tweak individual graphic settings

>Play game on release
>AA makes the game run horrendously
>Play game 5 years later with brand new high budget PC
>AA makes the game run just as bad

>>389862004
AW has some pretty low-tier AAA visuals, and CoD hasn't really progressed since.
That said, it looks better than 2017 AAA games like Destiny 2.

File: 20170907225656_1.jpg (740KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 3840x2160px

>>389862828
Cool sci-fi environments vs boring forests and a dumb mountain with some aliased grass

>>389857894
I have a game idea on kickstarter right now. Hoping for consoles and steam ea.

>>389863451
I remember that feel, I used to play csgo with my friend on some hp from 2000.
I had to play in window mode at 500 something something resolution with 10fps.
I used the bizon a lot and managed to get to master guardian, weird that the game was funner like that then on the new pc I built.

File: 20170908133226_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>389865031
Wrong

>>389865510
Anon that looks awful.
Genuinely looks slightly better than Crysis 2.

File: 1453651086247.png (2MB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1152px

Are we dumping AW images?
Damn that game looked amazing, probably the 2nd best looking game of 2014 behind AC Unity, and it ran 2/3 times better

File: 2016-01-30_00002.jpg (515KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1920x1080px

>>389853324
consoles have only 1 level of details
that means one set of models and textures, unless we count LODs as such
so when game is made primarly on console, they change postpocessing, antialiasing, LOD distances and other secondary features

there's also other factor, which is that modern gaming computer is ridiculusly powerful machine, and things like model or texture details barely afect perfmance anyway. Their details are no longer matter of perfomance, but acceptable production cost. This is why not even dedicated PC games have actual ultra low textures.

File: 20161224184006_1.jpg (268KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1920x1080px

>>389864682
true, Doom 4 is case in point, it plays far better with most post-processing disabled, because it makes graphics clearer and easier to read.

>>389866028
>TXAA
Turn that shit off

>>389865173
Eww, that looks playdough.

File: 20170908133938_1.jpg (930KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 3840x2160px

>>389865624
And Crysis 2 looks awesome.

File: 20170905163504_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>389866393
Nice aliasing

>>389854673
>but a shader for bloom is taking literally every single pixel on screen, applying math to this pixel to alter it's RGB value, then sending it to be displayed on your screen.
Isn't this what happens with every single object in the game? Like, a 1998 3d scene with textures calculates the view window, takes the position of pixel 1, calculates what it's looking at (a wall), calculates the texture of that wall based on perspective math, calculates the lighting of that texture based on other math, applies it to the pixel. I fail to see how shaders are special.

>>389867219
Crysis 2 looks pretty terribly dated.

>>389867387
IIRC it was default low details setting

>>389868168
The official DX11 and HD patches make it look good. On launch it looked average since it was a 360 port

>>389854992
You having a seizure or something?

>>389856904
it looks good when I put it picture mode. how is that not the game running well?

>>389853324
Why do you feel the need to lie on the Internet?

>>389858418
All these poorfags trying to shift blame for their shitty pcs to studios

File: 1420320160843.jpg (45KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x640px

>>389853324
because people will set everything to max no matter what the requirements are or what their build is and then scream and complain about the game being terribly optimized if it doesn't run well.
so now we just get slight increases in visuals instead of huge differences.

>>389853324

Yeah but what the fuck is going on with his hand? It looks like it has melted around the gun.

>>389869075
this crazy ass thing called perception. you have to go to an ivy league university to learn about it though.

File: 20170905213632_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>389868213
Oh

It's good that they do this. I hate faggots who play on lowest settings to better see the other players.

>>389865173
that isnt a graphics issue, thats a setting issue(for you) you massive retard

>>389854205
i played this game on xbone and it didnt look this bad, i have some doubts about this screenshot

>>389862004
lmao

>>389870010
You did not

File: funny-pictures-auto-406804.jpg (129KB, 676x1417px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 676x1417px

No matter how powerful my pc is, I always turn shadows to the lowest settings. I found out that shadows are the fps killer #1 long ago and now it has become a standard procedure for me whenever I load up a new game.

>>389868872
Nvidia literally sends armies of engineers to game studios to rewrite half the game code to make it run like shit so more people upgrade their GPUs.
Just look at the Asscreed games.

>>389870214
>joyreactor.com
>filename
and I was actually happy at first to see that comic again.

You should see what low memory mode is like in Ark. Ark for toasters looks like a low budget 90s game.

File: 1503616160587.jpg (69KB, 638x639px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 638x639px

>>389854205
>>389855683
This struggles to run on ultra on $1k GPUs btw

>>389870885
dont bully bioware pls