360 or PC?

  • 116 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

mouse.

#52 Posted by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@ProfessorEss said:

mouse.

EEK!!

#53 Posted by SirPsychoSexy (1328 posts) -

It is rumored the console versions fps hangs around the mid 20s, so yea...

#54 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

@ProfessorEss said:

mouse.

EEK!!

Haha, 4 internet points for you my friend.

#55 Posted by Jazzycola (662 posts) -

@david3cm said:

Heres my question, and I know it may be hard to know but after looking at that graph showing my 560ti would run around 7 frames per second with the graphics turned up, should I buy the PC or the 360 version? Would I get enough of a graphical and frame rate bump playing on PC, or would I need to turn down the settings so much that I should just buy it on 360? Any help would be great, especially from the European (or the people getting it early) Bombers so I know what to pick up come the 4th.

That chart is(probably) using DX11 effects and max-AA which kills nearly every GPU. All you really need to do to get to 40-60 range is just turn off DX11 effects. Proof of this can be indicated by Metro 2033 DX11 vs No DX11 effects. Just because you can't run a game completely maxed out doesn't mean the game is going to look worse than the console version. I can't run Witcher 2 completely maxed(with Ubersampling) with 2 GTX 460s, but that doesn't mean the game looks worse than the console version. It's still actually being displayed at 1080p and not just being upscaled from 720p(or lower) to 1080p. If you have a mid-end to high-end GPU within the last 3-4 years there's really no reason to worry about performance. The remedy to lower than wanted framerate is turn down some of the certain bells and whistles that kill performance(Antialiasing, DX11, PhysX etc). At worst, you'll have a game that looks identical to the console version displaying at a better resolution. Also it should be said that even the 360 version has framerate issues.

#56 Posted by Blastroid (257 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

One word:

I add this picture so you can own with a mouse/keyboard on a PS3:

#57 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Watch the Quick Look. That frame rate is kind of gross for most of it. But it still looks playable, an if you're OK with that and you really want the game, then go for it - and if you like it enough, get it on PC when it goes on sale for crazy cheap a few months from now and play it in all its gorgeous 60FPS glory.

I love how you've become such a PC fanatic, it's awesome! I'm serious not sarcastic :)

@Yummylee said:

I can at the very least confirm that, when given an alternative, people may want to ward away from the PS3 version... framerate is pretty shoddy overall and it's down right atrocious during some of the cutscenes. Guess I should have expected as much, but consoles are all I've got so I decided to give it a chance =/ Being poor sucks.

You know dude, I've been seeing you say the same thing for more than a year now, and I think if you save all the 60 dollar stacks you spend on all the PS3 games you buy, and you buy a lot of them, you'd pretty much have enough money for a moderate gaming PC in a matter of months.. Then it's all love and sex with Steam's and GMG's fabulous prices.

It's actually a conservation plan because you will no longer be spending 60 bucks on every game you want like the console forces you to.

@Klei said:

I'd rather get HBAO, 60fps and perfect controls than a couch and TV.

You can have all that while also sitting on a couch, connected to a TV, and using a mouse and a keyboard if you choose to! It's not a matter of either or.

I mean, I can do it whenever I please, I just don't do it because monitors are far better looking than TVs, and my gaming chair is more comfortable and "gaming-spirited," if you will, than a fat couch that makes me wanna take a nap.

#58 Posted by fox01313 (5061 posts) -

Really depends on where your friends are at that will be playing this (if you want to get in the multiplayer), I'd say pc if wanting just the single player unless your pc might not be able to handle it.

#59 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2682 posts) -

Seems pretty obvious. PC if you can, otherwise 360. It seems a lot like Skyrim. The PC version is waaaaay better looking, but the 360 version is mostly fine.

#60 Posted by Subject2Change (2966 posts) -

PC if you can wait, otherwise XBOX will be fine.

#61 Posted by Humanity (8834 posts) -

@bagrm said:

@Kraznor said:

Neither? This game seems so focused on being "fun" it doesn't give a moments thought to immersion or thoughtful storytelling. Yeah, Vaas seems mad crazy, but if you and your friends are douchebags, who cares? Giant Bomb got this game for free, they can enjoy messing around with it a bit without any real loss. A sixty dollar investment with a likely lame payoff at the end? Nah, don't bother.

Really? The staff has been reviewing games publishers sent them for a long time, and they review games based on their experience playing the game, not price point. I highly doubt their opinion of the game is skewed because they got it for free.

It's not really that - I understand where he is coming from. I worked in movie theatres for several years in projection and watched nearly every movie that would come out each week for 3+ years. I watched everything from Aliens VS Predator, Valentines Day to Shrek - basically anything we got. As such I noticed that my tolerance, or value of the whole experience changed. I wouldn't say "oh man that looks dumb I'm not gonna bother" I was like eh..it's here, might as well watch it. When I'd ask friends to go see movies they all seemed very picky with comments such as "I'm not wasting money to see that" but I just wanted to see it and since I saw so much for free I didn't really care about paying.

After having access to something for free for such a long time and buying the product from time to time is purely optional, it definitely does warp your sense of enjoyment a lot. I would be a lot more forgiving and welcoming of other games if I got 90% of them for free, before they're officially released.

Online
#62 Edited by Yummylee (21276 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic: Haha, you're right, and it's become a very bad habit of mine to continually whine and curse that I can't get the same experiences PC gamers have. Truth is I'm shit at saving up, though, and I'm also just a little worrisome in buying a decent PC because I'm trying to prepare for a PS4.

#63 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4330 posts) -

I don't even know how someone could ask themselves that question when they have the choice. Just look at that QL of the game, fuck playing that on consoles.

#64 Posted by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@Colourful_Hippie said:

I don't even know how someone could ask themselves that question when they have the choice. Just look at that QL of the game, fuck playing that on consoles.

It breaks down like this:

1. I want to play it now.

2. I want to play it on my bigscreen tv, with a controller on the couch.

3. I don't have all the gear or the time to get my PC set up in my living room right now.

4. I'm more than willing to trade some degree of performance/fidelity for comfort.

All that being established I think almost definitely going to go with the PC version mainly because I'm fed up with screen-tearing, and though I don't know for sure if this is an issue with Far Cry 3 I'm assuming (based on most newer releases) that it will be.

#65 Posted by believer258 (11663 posts) -
@AhmadMetallic

@believer258 said:

Watch the Quick Look. That frame rate is kind of gross for most of it. But it still looks playable, an if you're OK with that and you really want the game, then go for it - and if you like it enough, get it on PC when it goes on sale for crazy cheap a few months from now and play it in all its gorgeous 60FPS glory.

I love how you've become such a PC fanatic, it's awesome! I'm serious not sarcastic :)

@Yummylee said:

I can at the very least confirm that, when given an alternative, people may want to ward away from the PS3 version... framerate is pretty shoddy overall and it's down right atrocious during some of the cutscenes. Guess I should have expected as much, but consoles are all I've got so I decided to give it a chance =/ Being poor sucks.

You know dude, I've been seeing you say the same thing for more than a year now, and I think if you save all the 60 dollar stacks you spend on all the PS3 games you buy, and you buy a lot of them, you'd pretty much have enough money for a moderate gaming PC in a matter of months.. Then it's all love and sex with Steam's and GMG's fabulous prices.

It's actually a conservation plan because you will no longer be spending 60 bucks on every game you want like the console forces you to.

@Klei said:

I'd rather get HBAO, 60fps and perfect controls than a couch and TV.

You can have all that while also sitting on a couch, connected to a TV, and using a mouse and a keyboard if you choose to! It's not a matter of either or.

I mean, I can do it whenever I please, I just don't do it because monitors are far better looking than TVs, and my gaming chair is more comfortable and "gaming-spirited," if you will, than a fat couch that makes me wanna take a nap.

I've played my 360 some. But my PC has already paid for itself in the money I've saved on games, and I don't have to deal with motion blur cheaply covering up the lower framerate, so I'm essentially in hog heaven and I'm not going back!
Yes, a PC itself is expensive, but with some patience and a good eye anyone will find that the premium cost of entry is quicklymade up for by the much cheaper games
#66 Posted by BlatantNinja23 (930 posts) -

@Kraznor said:

Neither? This game seems so focused on being "fun" it doesn't give a moments thought to immersion or thoughtful storytelling. Yeah, Vaas seems mad crazy, but if you and your friends are douchebags, who cares? Giant Bomb got this game for free, they can enjoy messing around with it a bit without any real loss. A sixty dollar investment with a likely lame payoff at the end? Nah, don't bother.

I don't know about you, but I uh play games to you know, have fun.

also the PC version is only $49.99 :)

#67 Edited by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@BlatantNinja23 said:

also the PC version is only $49.99 :)

I'm just trying to decide now if I want to pay 49.99 or if the Deluxe Edition with Far Cry 1 (which I don't have and have never played) and all the pre-order bonuses is worth the extra ten smacks.

#68 Edited by RenegadeDoppelganger (406 posts) -

I think Jeff stated pretty emphatically during that quick look that the frame rate on the 360 was pretty bad at times. Graphics/Environment were always big selling points for Far Cry games so having a bad frame rate, limited draw distance or janky shadows tends to take away from a truly immersive FC experience.

On the other hand recent benchmarks have shown current GPUs on the PC not faring too much better. Jeff mentioned on twitter that despite having recently bought a 670GTX (~$400), he was now selling that card to Brad for a loss and buying a new 680GTX (~$500) for Far Cry 3 although to be fair he mentioned that he was aiming to play it at 2560x1440.

So yeah, unless you already have top-tier PC, concessions will likely need to be made if you intend to play this game upon release. However if you intend to wait I imagine by around Spring 2013 you'll be able to pick FC3 up on sale and GPUs which can handle that game at full spec will be more affordable.

#69 Posted by Superfriend (1528 posts) -

@Kraznor said:

Neither? This game seems so focused on being "fun" it doesn't give a moments thought to immersion or thoughtful storytelling. Yeah, Vaas seems mad crazy, but if you and your friends are douchebags, who cares? Giant Bomb got this game for free, they can enjoy messing around with it a bit without any real loss. A sixty dollar investment with a likely lame payoff at the end? Nah, don't bother.

Holy shit. People like you are the reason this industry is going downhill. "Immersion" and "thoughtful storytelling" can eat my fucking dick if I have a ton of fun with a game.

Seriously. Games are good if the playing part is fun. That´s what they are for. Sure, "interactive experiences" have a place in this industry, but sitting down with a controller and just having fun is still something no other medium can give you. Don´t let fucking trolls or wannabe movie critics rob you of these fine experiences.

On Topic: Far Cry 3 is a damn fine game. I´d say it´s one of the best open world games I´ve played in the last years. The shooting is fun, the driving is crazy and most importantly: The stealth is AWESOME. It´s also pretty demanding PC wise.. idk, but I can run Max Payne 3 and BF3 on high at 1080p with no problems.. this however, I had to turn the resolution down.

So, if you only have a decent PC, be prepared to turn down a few settings.. I also feel like this game was made with a controller in mind, so if you have a way of playing it like that (Xbox wired controller or whatever), that would be the ideal setup. Don´t be afraid if it´s not gonna look super awesome.. this game is a ton of fun, not just because of the graphics.

#70 Posted by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@Superfriend said:

Holy shit. People like you are the reason this industry is going downhill. "Immersion" and "thoughtful storytelling" can eat my fucking dick if I have a ton of fun with a game.

For me personally "thoughtful story-telling" usually breaks the immersion more than anything else.

I often find I have trouble getting immersed in a game when the "thoughtful story-telling" is constantly telling me who my character is supposed to be.

#71 Edited by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

Is anyone checking this thread well versed in videocards?

Can anyone give me an idea of what type of performance I can get out of a AMD Radeon 6900?

I don't mind playing with some lower settings if I means getting a smoother framerate.

#72 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

Is anyone checking this thread well versed in videocards?

Can anyone give me an idea of what type of performance I can get out of a AMD Radeon 6900?

I don't mind playing with some lower settings if I means getting a smoother framerate.

I'm running this game on lowest settings on an ancient rig with a GeForce 8600 GT and an AMD Athlon dual core, and its running at a steady 30-35 FPS.

I'm sure when I go back to my dorm room and run it on my newer PC (GTX 570, i5 2500K) it'll run just fine. You don't have to max out games to enjoy them, as you said yourself,so your 6900 will do pretty damn well.

#73 Edited by Jazzycola (662 posts) -

@RenegadeDoppelganger: Your own chart even says its being running maxed out with DX11 features. Just because you can't max out a game doesn't mean you can't play the game at a stable framerate. DX11 kills performance. Turn off DX11 and you'll run just fine with any mid-end to high end GPU that was released within the last 3-4 years at 1080p.

@ProfessorEss: See above. 6900 series is the higher end tier of gpus for Radeon. You'll be able to run it just fine with DX11 effects off and at worst maybe you'd have to turn down AA(also assuming at 1080p).

#74 Posted by theodacourt (520 posts) -

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

#75 Edited by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic: @Jazzycola: Thanks guys.

S'done I'm goin PC. Hopefully this will be the purchase to light a fire under my ass to get set up in my living room because I've also been dying to play the copy of Sleeping Dogs I bought for PC but haven't been able to establish a comfort level to truly enjoy it.

#76 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

Is anyone checking this thread well versed in videocards?

Can anyone give me an idea of what type of performance I can get out of a AMD Radeon 6900?

I don't mind playing with some lower settings if I means getting a smoother framerate.

You'll be just fine. For reference (posted it in the other thread):

@SlasherMan said:

HD 6850 here, running it 45-50 FPS average at high settings with shadows and post set to medium. DX11, HDAO, no MSAA @ 1920*1080.

#77 Posted by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@SlasherMan: Cool :)

#78 Edited by Icemo (642 posts) -

I love how people are still wondering if a PC version of a game will run any better than on a 7 year old console.

If your PC isn't ancient then yes, it will run smoother. You don't have to try to max out every setting. It will still look better.

#79 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

@ProfessorEss: It's kind of interesting how my only comfort zone for immersive "real ass" gaming is on a desk and chair(or in my bed.. Yes, I take my PC into my bed) whereas yours is the couch, and we view each other's comfort zones as uncomfortable alien locations.

All I can say is, once you get used to the amazing feel of a multilateral PC spread across a desk with your hands taking full control of the game through the keys and mouse, you'll be hooked. It feels very active and engaging compared to sinking in a comfy couch holding a small controller.

#80 Posted by Nals (75 posts) -

@Kraznor said:

Neither? This game seems so focused on being "fun" it doesn't give a moments thought to immersion or thoughtful storytelling. Yeah, Vaas seems mad crazy, but if you and your friends are douchebags, who cares? Giant Bomb got this game for free, they can enjoy messing around with it a bit without any real loss. A sixty dollar investment with a likely lame payoff at the end? Nah, don't bother.

With 30 or so hours in right now, I have to disagree completely.

Brody and co might be terrible people, but they are some of the more realized characters I've seen. Vaas, Volker, Dennis, Earnhardt all are extremely well done, and built up as realistic people.

The storyline is also far better then it has any right to be, turning from what Jeff feared straight into Heart of Darkness p2 near the end. They play around with a number of themes no games outside of Spec Ops have been willing to touch, and handle them expertly.

That's not even counting how troubling the game becomes, or how well done the island is. It's not "shoot all the mans" in any way, instead focusing on realizing the world, and how you fit into it. Several of the quests take you into large temples, giant compounds, or a variety of other areas, and the game makes every effort to make them fit in. It's not as immersive as it could be, but you do feel drawn in to the world.

#81 Edited by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

All I can say is, once you get used to the amazing feel of a multilateral PC spread across a desk with your hands taking full control of the game through the keys and mouse, you'll be hooked. It feels very active and engaging compared to sinking in a comfy couch holding a small controller.

I'm not sure if you mean to sound condescending but I know what a PC, and what PC gaming is my friend. I've been doing it since the C64 and I don't have to "get used" to a PC, I spend 40 hours a week, for over fifteen years working on one.

I've mentioned this many times in threads discussing PC versus console gaming but a desk and chair PC setup is so intertwined with my concept of being at work that it just doesn't tend to work out for me. I sit at this desk and I'm instantly distracted by thoughts of projects and deadlines. I've actually had nights where I go to play a game, I sit down and see a work file that I left open in Photoshop and two hours later I realise SHIT, WHY AM I WORKING!! I SAT DOWN HERE TO PLAY!!

I get that you love PCs, and I get that they offer superior performance, but sometimes situations and tastes are little more nuanced.

#82 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

@ProfessorEss: No you got me all wrong... I simply replied to this:

Hopefully this will be the purchase to light a fire under my ass to get set up in my living room because I've also been dying to play the copy of Sleeping Dogs I bought for PC but haven't been able to establish a comfort level to truly enjoy it.

#83 Posted by BasketSnake (1165 posts) -

My pc recommended "optimal" settings for me. I'm running it in 1080 maxed out at around 50 fps. It's great. I did see it running on xbox earlier today and there was some screen tearing and the framerate was worse but it looked SHARP. If you don't got a pc for it just get the xbox version.

#84 Posted by RenegadeDoppelganger (406 posts) -

@Jazzycola said:

@RenegadeDoppelganger: Your own chart even says its being running maxed out with DX11 features. Just because you can't max out a game doesn't mean you can't play the game at a stable framerate. DX11 kills performance. Turn off DX11 and you'll run just fine with any mid-end to high end GPU that was released within the last 3-4 years at 1080p.

That chart isn't very clear what "maxed out" means. What quality setting is that in-game? Does that included SSAO?

Guru3D has a much more comprehensive benchmark so let's use that. Let's look at 1920x1200. They are running "Very High" DX11 2xMSAA & SSAO for all benches. I would consider this "maxed"

At this resolution and these quality settings, the 660Ti -a barely 3 month old GPU- averaged about 44FPS which is totally playable and probably looks quite nice given the settings. However, anything older or less powerful including some of the top Nvidia 500-series and ATI 6000-series GPUs from as few a 5 months ago, struggle to reach 40FPS. I would consider anything below 40FPS a little rough and certainly ~30FPS to be choppy.

Okay so let's theoretically turn off some graphics options here. We can see from an earlier chart what the MSAA performance hit is on a 680 (currently one of the most powerful and expensive single-GPUs on the market). Seems like going from 2xMSAA to 0xMSAA gains you about 15FPS at 1920.

So if we then go back to say, a 570 -about 5 months old- and apply a 10 FPS bump from turning off MSAA we go from 33 FPS (choppy) to 43 FPS (okay). Turning SSAO off will probably net you a further ~10FPS on average. which totals 53 FPS (good) but the 570 is still a mid-to-high-end video card made in the last 6 months. You mentioned being able to play "just fine" at 1080p with a 3-4 year old card. At that age you're talking about fossils:The 9800GTX - 280GTX. With cards as old as these -based on the above benchmarks for far more powerful cards- you'll have to play DX9, Medium or Low to get anywhere near 40FPS and at that point you're getting visuals comparable to or possibly worse than consoles so it kinda defeats the point of playing it on PC if you have access to the console version.

#85 Edited by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@ProfessorEss: No you got me all wrong... I simply replied to this:

Hopefully this will be the purchase to light a fire under my ass to get set up in my living room because I've also been dying to play the copy of Sleeping Dogs I bought for PC but haven't been able to establish a comfort level to truly enjoy it.

Oh, well to clarify, that comfort level I'm trying to establish (and to be clear I'm talking for single-player action/wandering) is me flopped out on a couch with a tiny controller in my hand :)

(ps: With little to no em-effing screen-tearing!)

#86 Posted by bagrm (51 posts) -

@Humanity said:

@bagrm said:

@Kraznor said:

Neither? This game seems so focused on being "fun" it doesn't give a moments thought to immersion or thoughtful storytelling. Yeah, Vaas seems mad crazy, but if you and your friends are douchebags, who cares? Giant Bomb got this game for free, they can enjoy messing around with it a bit without any real loss. A sixty dollar investment with a likely lame payoff at the end? Nah, don't bother.

Really? The staff has been reviewing games publishers sent them for a long time, and they review games based on their experience playing the game, not price point. I highly doubt their opinion of the game is skewed because they got it for free.

It's not really that - I understand where he is coming from. I worked in movie theatres for several years in projection and watched nearly every movie that would come out each week for 3+ years. I watched everything from Aliens VS Predator, Valentines Day to Shrek - basically anything we got. As such I noticed that my tolerance, or value of the whole experience changed. I wouldn't say "oh man that looks dumb I'm not gonna bother" I was like eh..it's here, might as well watch it. When I'd ask friends to go see movies they all seemed very picky with comments such as "I'm not wasting money to see that" but I just wanted to see it and since I saw so much for free I didn't really care about paying.

After having access to something for free for such a long time and buying the product from time to time is purely optional, it definitely does warp your sense of enjoyment a lot. I would be a lot more forgiving and welcoming of other games if I got 90% of them for free, before they're officially released.

I can definitely see where you are coming from. However, you saw all those movies for free as a side effect of your job. It is the GB crew's main job (besides creating entertaining content) to review games objectively whether or not they received the game for free. All of the staff has been reviewing games for 10+ years, so I think they can adjust for receiving stuff from publishers by now (at least I would hope). Since I have never really noticed any content on here that seemed skewed by free publisher stuff, I don't think that this is too great of an issue with GB. I see what you are saying though. I suppose subconsciously the staff's opinions on games could be warped from receiving free games for so long, but that is how the games journalism industry works for now.

I think my main point was that I doubt Brad, Ryan, and Jeff are all saying they like Far Cry 3 because they got the game for free. Also, Jeff has consistently said that if the story doesn't wrap up well he will be disappointed. That debunks the idea that they only care about how "fun" the game is, and don't care about anything else in the game.

#87 Posted by Xero0 (56 posts) -

i've been having a really crappy experience performance wise on pc running on:

660 ti sc, i5 2500k 4.4ghz, 16gb ddr3-1600 ram

i had to completely turn off dx11 features as well as vsync and msaa to make it run smoothly.

with that said, it runs smoothly on dx9 max setting. i just wish they would optimize the

dx11 stuff more before releasing the game

since these features are what makes it worth getting on the pc for.

#88 Posted by procrasturbate (277 posts) -

XBOSS.

#89 Posted by Mister_V (1210 posts) -

Running an i7 920, ATI 6970 and 6GB of ram and the game runs sweet almost maxed. I'm actually surprised by how well it runs.

#90 Edited by Jazzycola (662 posts) -

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Jazzycola said:

@RenegadeDoppelganger: Your own chart even says its being running maxed out with DX11 features. Just because you can't max out a game doesn't mean you can't play the game at a stable framerate. DX11 kills performance. Turn off DX11 and you'll run just fine with any mid-end to high end GPU that was released within the last 3-4 years at 1080p.

That chart isn't very clear what "maxed out" means. What quality setting is that in-game? Does that included SSAO?

Guru3D has a much more comprehensive benchmark so let's use that. Let's look at 1920x1200. They are running "Very High" DX11 2xMSAA & SSAO for all benches. I would consider this "maxed"

At this resolution and these quality settings, the 660Ti -a barely 3 month old GPU- averaged about 44FPS which is totally playable and probably looks quite nice given the settings. However, anything older or less powerful including some of the top Nvidia 500-series and ATI 6000-series GPUs from as few a 5 months ago, struggle to reach 40FPS. I would consider anything below 40FPS a little rough and certainly ~30FPS to be choppy.

Okay so let's theoretically turn off some graphics options here. We can see from an earlier chart what the MSAA performance hit is on a 680 (currently one of the most powerful and expensive single-GPUs on the market). Seems like going from 2xMSAA to 0xMSAA gains you about 15FPS at 1920.

So if we then go back to say, a 570 -about 5 months old- and apply a 10 FPS bump from turning off MSAA we go from 33 FPS (choppy) to 43 FPS (okay). Turning SSAO off will probably net you a further ~10FPS on average. which totals 53 FPS (good) but the 570 is still a mid-to-high-end video card made in the last 6 months. You mentioned being able to play "just fine" at 1080p with a 3-4 year old card. At that age you're talking about fossils:The 9800GTX - 280GTX. With cards as old as these -based on the above benchmarks for far more powerful cards- you'll have to play DX9, Medium or Low to get anywhere near 40FPS and at that point you're getting visuals comparable to or possibly worse than consoles so it kinda defeats the point of playing it on PC if you have access to the console version.

Again, you are using charts that have DX11 on. DX11 kills performance. The main problem with having tessellation on(aka DX11 features) or AA or higher resolutions is not a matter of how fast the GPU is, but a matter of the amount of memory the GPU has.

And really, How do you think they get consoles running Far Cry 3? They're running on what...8 year old technology at the point(remember console manufacturers have to order and design hardware about 6 months to a year before launch). So again, if you have a mid-end to high-end GPU from within the last 3 - 4 years you'll be able to run it fine if you don't have some sort of "max it out" complex. GTX 9800GTX+ is not DX11 compatible hence why it would be able to run it. You can keep trying convince people you're right, but you're not.

Edit: Oh and if you are posting charts that you believe aren't clear to you in the first place then why are you posting them as proof. Not to mention if you read the top of the chart it says what it means by maxed out. Edit2: For proof.

#91 Posted by Humanity (8834 posts) -

@bagrm said:

@Humanity said:

@bagrm said:

@Kraznor said:

Neither? This game seems so focused on being "fun" it doesn't give a moments thought to immersion or thoughtful storytelling. Yeah, Vaas seems mad crazy, but if you and your friends are douchebags, who cares? Giant Bomb got this game for free, they can enjoy messing around with it a bit without any real loss. A sixty dollar investment with a likely lame payoff at the end? Nah, don't bother.

Really? The staff has been reviewing games publishers sent them for a long time, and they review games based on their experience playing the game, not price point. I highly doubt their opinion of the game is skewed because they got it for free.

It's not really that - I understand where he is coming from. I worked in movie theatres for several years in projection and watched nearly every movie that would come out each week for 3+ years. I watched everything from Aliens VS Predator, Valentines Day to Shrek - basically anything we got. As such I noticed that my tolerance, or value of the whole experience changed. I wouldn't say "oh man that looks dumb I'm not gonna bother" I was like eh..it's here, might as well watch it. When I'd ask friends to go see movies they all seemed very picky with comments such as "I'm not wasting money to see that" but I just wanted to see it and since I saw so much for free I didn't really care about paying.

After having access to something for free for such a long time and buying the product from time to time is purely optional, it definitely does warp your sense of enjoyment a lot. I would be a lot more forgiving and welcoming of other games if I got 90% of them for free, before they're officially released.

I can definitely see where you are coming from. However, you saw all those movies for free as a side effect of your job. It is the GB crew's main job (besides creating entertaining content) to review games objectively whether or not they received the game for free. All of the staff has been reviewing games for 10+ years, so I think they can adjust for receiving stuff from publishers by now (at least I would hope). Since I have never really noticed any content on here that seemed skewed by free publisher stuff, I don't think that this is too great of an issue with GB. I see what you are saying though. I suppose subconsciously the staff's opinions on games could be warped from receiving free games for so long, but that is how the games journalism industry works for now.

I think my main point was that I doubt Brad, Ryan, and Jeff are all saying they like Far Cry 3 because they got the game for free. Also, Jeff has consistently said that if the story doesn't wrap up well he will be disappointed. That debunks the idea that they only care about how "fun" the game is, and don't care about anything else in the game.

I agree that they definitely have all that initial awe of free schwag under wraps as displayed by their ever present and vocal disdain for E3 giftbags. I do think that when they don't think much of a game, and then it just shows up on their desk and they say "eh might as well pop it in" - that will completely affect how you enjoy the game rather than if you would have anticipated it, went to the store, picked it out, paid full price and were not 100% satisfied with it. Theres a very different mindset in action when you are given something for free without asking for it and it turns out alright, than if you actively picked this item out yourself and it turns out to be JUST alright.

Online
#92 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5249 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

@TooWalrus said:

I'll be playing on the PC. On a TV. Probably with a Dualshock... I'm a monster.

We are all monsters.... I'll be doing the same as you only with an xbox gamepad.

Same here.Gotta love Steam Big Picture Mode.

#93 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4330 posts) -

@TheManWithNoPlan said:

@Sackmanjones said:

@TooWalrus said:

I'll be playing on the PC. On a TV. Probably with a Dualshock... I'm a monster.

We are all monsters.... I'll be doing the same as you only with an xbox gamepad.

Same here.Gotta love Steam Big Picture Mode.

There's nothing wrong with using a gamepad on PC, it's the best of both worlds when you got that thing hooked up to a big screen and enjoying 60 fps with a controller. I'll only switch to KB&M for FPS multiplayer games.

#94 Edited by studnoth1n (222 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

I get that you love PCs, and I get that they offer superior performance, but sometimes situations and tastes are little more nuanced.

well said, but good luck convincing anyone of that here. both sides of the isles are filled with people who are only concerned in justifying THEIR situation exclusively. i still game on a pc, and given how often people indulge in posting their specs, apparently mine is still bigger than most... satisfying really, but it's all in vain. there are always other, more personal considerations to take into account, but that stuff rarely ever holds anyone's attention, especially here.

#95 Posted by mclakers (125 posts) -

The pc is almost always superior than the console version of a game, that is if your pc can run it? I tend to buy sports games and exclusive for consoles, everything else pc. But I do have a hefty pc. Gtx 680, 12g ram on ssd, last year i7 27k I think.

#96 Posted by Brad (2875 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Raven10 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@believer258 said:

Watch the Quick Look. That frame rate is kind of gross for most of it. But it still looks playable, an if you're OK with that and you really want the game, then go for it - and if you like it enough, get it on PC when it goes on sale for crazy cheap a few months from now and play it in all its gorgeous 60FPS glory.

Well not Max settings. The most high end cards are getting about 45 at the most with everything maxed out. Makes a 580 look outdated.

Brad looked like he was getting a pretty solid framerate on the quicklook and it looked significantly better than the console version, so even assuming that was not using DX11, I'm sure even a moderate PC can make the game look vastly superior and run far better than a console.

That was in 720p though.

No it wasn't. 1920x1080 with DX11 enabled, most settings at or near max, and vsync off. It's not hard to get this game looking fantastic and running smoothly on a decent machine, I was getting 40-50fps on my 560 at home with above-average quality settings.

Staff
#97 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@Brad said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@Raven10 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@believer258 said:

Watch the Quick Look. That frame rate is kind of gross for most of it. But it still looks playable, an if you're OK with that and you really want the game, then go for it - and if you like it enough, get it on PC when it goes on sale for crazy cheap a few months from now and play it in all its gorgeous 60FPS glory.

Well not Max settings. The most high end cards are getting about 45 at the most with everything maxed out. Makes a 580 look outdated.

Brad looked like he was getting a pretty solid framerate on the quicklook and it looked significantly better than the console version, so even assuming that was not using DX11, I'm sure even a moderate PC can make the game look vastly superior and run far better than a console.

That was in 720p though.

No it wasn't. 1920x1080 with DX11 enabled, most settings at or near max, and vsync off. It's not hard to get this game looking fantastic and running smoothly on a decent machine, I was getting 40-50fps on my 560 at home with above-average quality settings.

Oh Ok I was under the impression you had to use 720p for streaming, yeah I was messing with heaps of settings on my 5850 and all it took to get a decent framerate was turn off V Sync, and the screen tear isn't really noticeable. You doing the review?

#98 Posted by CrazyBagMan (836 posts) -

If I were in your situation I'd just get it on xbox. Sounds like it wou;d be a bit of a wait to play it on PC, so to me it would be worth the hit to performance or whatever to just play it as soon as possible. But I'm someone who doesn't really like to wait like that, so fit that into your personality.

#99 Posted by pandorasbox (302 posts) -

Do the 360. Patrick says it holds up fine and is entirely playable. Also, playing a game seems more fun while its current.

Online
#100 Posted by RidMad (7 posts) -

Definitely PC. Check out the graphics on ultra! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TaxydFGt8Y

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.