newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 28,472 (4.24/day)
- Location
- Indiana, USA
| Processor | Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz |
|---|---|
| Motherboard | AsRock Z470 Taichi |
| Cooling | Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans |
| Memory | 32GB DDR4-3600 |
| Video Card(s) | RTX 2070 Super |
| Storage | 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache |
| Display(s) | Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28" |
| Case | Fractal Design Define S |
| Audio Device(s) | Onboard is good enough for me |
| Power Supply | eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3 |
| Software | Windows 10 Pro x64 |
I picked the game up last night, and I think the problem is that PC gamers expect more from PC games than consoles.
On my setup(Q6600, 4GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12, SLI-9600GSO's) the game is smooth, looks better than the PS3 version and maintains better framerates. I wouldn't call that a crappy port, I would consider that a good port.
Resolution plays a huge part in this issue. If you look at the resolution the game is being rendered at on the consoles, it is 720p, or 1366x768. Thats only 1,049,088 pixels that need to be rendered. Now you have people starting to play the game on PCs, a standard 1280x1024 LCD means you are now rendering 1,310,720 pixels. Thats 25% more pixels rendered on the PC vs. the Consoles. So even with the settings lowered to make the PC version look like the Console version(which for me seemed to be all medium or low settings), the PC version is still rendering more pixels, so of course it is going to be more demanding. Moving up to 1680x1050 means you are rendering ~68% more pixels.
Add to that, the fact that it is much harder to optimize games for PCs than it is for Consoles. With Consoles, you have to optimize the game for, maybe, 3 different setups. With PCs there is an infinite number of configurations.
Of course PC gamers expect a little bit more. They expect to play all their games at high settings, at much higher resolutions than console gamers. So many will complain if they can't play the game at maximum resolutions and high settings and call it a shitty port.
Any port that looks better than the console and runs as smooth or smoother on mid-range PCs at 1366x768 is a sucessful port, IMO. From what I have experienced in the GTA:IV on the PC, Rockstar has managed to do this.
On my setup(Q6600, 4GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12, SLI-9600GSO's) the game is smooth, looks better than the PS3 version and maintains better framerates. I wouldn't call that a crappy port, I would consider that a good port.
Resolution plays a huge part in this issue. If you look at the resolution the game is being rendered at on the consoles, it is 720p, or 1366x768. Thats only 1,049,088 pixels that need to be rendered. Now you have people starting to play the game on PCs, a standard 1280x1024 LCD means you are now rendering 1,310,720 pixels. Thats 25% more pixels rendered on the PC vs. the Consoles. So even with the settings lowered to make the PC version look like the Console version(which for me seemed to be all medium or low settings), the PC version is still rendering more pixels, so of course it is going to be more demanding. Moving up to 1680x1050 means you are rendering ~68% more pixels.
Add to that, the fact that it is much harder to optimize games for PCs than it is for Consoles. With Consoles, you have to optimize the game for, maybe, 3 different setups. With PCs there is an infinite number of configurations.
Of course PC gamers expect a little bit more. They expect to play all their games at high settings, at much higher resolutions than console gamers. So many will complain if they can't play the game at maximum resolutions and high settings and call it a shitty port.
Any port that looks better than the console and runs as smooth or smoother on mid-range PCs at 1366x768 is a sucessful port, IMO. From what I have experienced in the GTA:IV on the PC, Rockstar has managed to do this.
