Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

PC Gaming, General & Off Topic Chat

15681011201

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,497 ✭✭✭✭ dreamers75




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,946 Links234




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,291 ✭✭✭✭ wotzgoingon


    Links234 wrote: »

    A prank call is a prank call but that is a seriously bad thing to do. What happens if they keep getting them type of calls then when someone really needs the police for a serious offence. They be like don't bother going probably another prank call. Boy who called wolf springs to mind.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭ jaffusmax


    Links234 wrote: »

    Not surprising, I had a mate put face down in the dirt in some NY alleyway with a gun to his head by a NYPD officer. He was drunk and singing loudly and the police officer took ACTION!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,373 ✭✭✭ EoinHef


    That's it cheers :)

    Haven't seen any news on it in ages , I guess there putting all there efforts into witcher 3?

    I read somewhere the other day that they said they have two teams working on both games independently so 2077 should not be affected but who knows really,id imagine it has to have some effect on the release date.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,393 ✭✭✭✭ Skerries


    A prank call is a prank call but that is a seriously bad thing to do. What happens if they keep getting them type of calls then when someone really needs the police for a serious offence. They be like don't bother going probably another prank call. Boy who called wolf springs to mind.

    it is totally a dick move by some gamers doing it, this guy was recording when they invaded his business


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭✭✭ Conriocht


    Greetings boardsies! I'm returning to PC gaming after years away, and thought I'd say hello. I have to say, a lot has changed in the last few years - there was no such thing as early bleeding access back in the day, for a start! There was no PC gaming sub-forum here either iirc, so that's a nice change. Glad I stumbled upon the place :)

    So is this forum active enough? Is there a boards Steam group? Any other oul lads here? :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭ jaffusmax


    Conriocht wrote: »
    Greetings boardsies! I'm returning to PC gaming after years away, and thought I'd say hello. I have to say, a lot has changed in the last few years - there was no such thing as early bleeding access back in the day, for a start! There was no PC gaming sub-forum here either iirc, so that's a nice change. Glad I stumbled upon the place :)

    So is this forum active enough? Is there a boards Steam group? Any other oul lads here? :p

    What do you define as old? I'm 35......I think!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭✭✭ Conriocht


    Yeah, the "old" was tongue in cheek somewhat! I turn 39 in a few weeks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭ nesf


    **** me, those minimum specs for Witcher 3: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt_pc_system_requirements_are_here/page1

    Minimum doesn't mean "barely runs" here but it's an interestingly high bar nonetheless.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 21,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Kiith


    Not that much of a surprise. They've always had really high specs. I still shudder at the Ubersampling setting in Witcher 2.


  • Registered Users Posts: 768 ✭✭✭ abbir


    nesf wrote: »
    **** me, those minimum specs for Witcher 3: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt_pc_system_requirements_are_here/page1

    Minimum doesn't mean "barely runs" here but it's an interestingly high bar nonetheless.

    Are they really that high though? The minimum processor is 4 years old and the graphics card is 3 years old. The graphics card certainly wasn't top end when it came out.

    It's a game that's supposed to be really pushing the hardware after all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭ nesf


    abbir wrote: »
    Are they really that high though? The minimum processor is 4 years old and the graphics card is 3 years old. The graphics card certainly wasn't top end when it came out.

    It's a game that's supposed to be really pushing the hardware after all.

    The graphics card was better than the top single GPU graphics card that AMD had 4 years ago. If you bought the top end i5 and the top end AMD (sane) GPU then you'd expect better than minimum now, no? CPU especially.


  • Registered Users Posts: 768 ✭✭✭ abbir


    nesf wrote: »
    The graphics card was better than the top single GPU graphics card that AMD had 4 years ago. If you bought the top end i5 and the top end AMD (sane) GPU then you'd expect better than minimum now, no? CPU especially.

    I have that processor, it has served me very well. Has great overclocking abilities. But it is 4 years old. The 7870 and 660 are both almost 3 years old and neither of them were high end when released.

    Whether to expect "minimum" or not depends greatly on what the developers actually accept as minimum. I think the game will run quite well but if you want all the bells and whistles, in a game that is going to really push hardware, you're going to need newer parts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭ nesf


    abbir wrote: »
    I have that processor, it has served me very well. Has great overclocking abilities. But it is 4 years old. The 7870 and 660 are both almost 3 years old and neither of them were high end when released.

    Whether to expect "minimum" or not depends greatly on what the developers actually accept as minimum. I think the game will run quite well but if you want all the bells and whistles, in a game that is going to really push hardware, you're going to need newer parts.

    I feel pretty much the same, it's more the sticker shock of seeing a Sandy Bridge i5 as a minimum for the first time for me. Then I think about the equivalently aged laptop specs and I feel very sorry for some people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 768 ✭✭✭ abbir


    nesf wrote: »
    I feel pretty much the same, it's more the sticker shock of seeing a Sandy Bridge i5 as a minimum for the first time for me. Then I think about the equivalently aged laptop specs and I feel very sorry for some people.

    Assassin's Creed unity had a 2500k as its minimum CPU too but I hear that game doesn't run very well on anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭✭✭ TMG11


    Sorry, not allowed to sell games here. Use Adverts.ie if you want to sell these.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,946 Links234


    I'm not even worried about Witcher 3, I still need to play the first two :o


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,913 ✭✭✭✭ ShadowHearth


    Okay, so Origin is being Retarded on me... And they EA wonders why people hate it... :rolleyes:

    So I reinstalled Alice Madness Returns as I want to finish it, but it is trying to do that "release date check" and it always fails... Any ideas lads? I love owning games that I cant play...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,373 ✭✭✭ EoinHef


    That's it cheers :)

    Haven't seen any news on it in ages , I guess there putting all there efforts into witcher 3?


    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/cyberpunk-2077-staying-in-the-shadows-for-now/1100-6424517/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,972 ✭✭✭ Korvanica


    Okay, so Origin is being Retarded on me... And they EA wonders why people hate it... :rolleyes:

    So I reinstalled Alice Madness Returns as I want to finish it, but it is trying to do that "release date check" and it always fails... Any ideas lads? I love owning games that I cant play...

    Yarr :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,935 ✭✭✭✭ TerrorFirmer


    Those requirements are horse****. An i5 2500K or a Phenom X4? Considering the 2500K is light years ahead of the ancient Phenom....

    Metal Gear: Ground Zeroes also has an i5 as it's 'minimum' despite the fact that the game runs fine on my 60 euro Pentium G3258, which is a dual core (it doesn't even have hyper threading).

    Call of Duty Advanced Warfare wouldn't even start, giving a message 'your processor does not meet requirements' and closing - once I installed the work around it ran perfectly at 60fps rock solid. Remember COD: Ghosts at launch as well? Refused to start unless you had 6GB ram, even though the game never needed anything remotely near that. :rolleyes:

    A 2500K and a 7870 is still a good gaming machine today for games at high settings.

    Minimum used to mean if you wanted to run the game at decent framerate at lowish settings....these days minimums actually mostly means if you want to run the game at decent framerate at decent settings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,913 ✭✭✭✭ ShadowHearth


    Korvanica wrote: »
    Yarr :D

    Actually, I think I am going to have to do it that way now... Still does not work and I could not be ****ed waiting 45min for EA customer support.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,946 Links234


    Honestly, I think the "arms race" of more powerful specs, etc has really slowed down over the years, if you follow me? like, it used to be like if your PC was a few years old, it'd really struggle to keep up with current games, but mine's a good 3 years old now I think and it's still a beast that handles anything I can throw at it. I'm looking to get another 2 years out of it before having to upgrade, fingers crossed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,972 ✭✭✭ Korvanica


    Links234 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think the "arms race" of more powerful specs, etc has really slowed down over the years, if you follow me? like, it used to be like if your PC was a few years old, it'd really struggle to keep up with current games, but mine's a good 3 years old now I think and it's still a beast that handles anything I can throw at it. I'm looking to get another 2 years out of it before having to upgrade, fingers crossed.

    Agreed, I built my current PC in December 2011. It still runs everything i have thrown at it fine, although not at top graphics but that's a moot point for me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭ jaffusmax


    Links234 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think the "arms race" of more powerful specs, etc has really slowed down over the years, if you follow me? like, it used to be like if your PC was a few years old, it'd really struggle to keep up with current games, but mine's a good 3 years old now I think and it's still a beast that handles anything I can throw at it. I'm looking to get another 2 years out of it before having to upgrade, fingers crossed.

    Agreed, I have noticed NVIDIA are more interested in improved power consumption and implementing things like MFAA, DSR and other Features to make their newer cards more attractive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭ nesf


    Links234 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think the "arms race" of more powerful specs, etc has really slowed down over the years, if you follow me? like, it used to be like if your PC was a few years old, it'd really struggle to keep up with current games, but mine's a good 3 years old now I think and it's still a beast that handles anything I can throw at it. I'm looking to get another 2 years out of it before having to upgrade, fingers crossed.

    I'm not sure it's changed that much for CPUs. I remember in the 90s there were issues when you needed a 486DX not 486SX for a tiny number of games (this was a rare example of their being current CPUs that couldn't run particular games at all) and again in the 00s when gaming finally moved to dual core processors as standard (though people still could play most games on Pentium 4s for a long time afterwards), but the dual core change happened long after the average CPU was dual core, a lot more than 3 years after their introduction. We're starting to see the move to quad core being standard but again, quad cores have been around forever and I'd be extremely surprised if you couldn't play almost all games on a dual core CPU next year (though it'll steadily become more and more of a limiting factor for performance).

    GPUs though, yeah I'd agree that's slowed down a lot.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 21,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Kiith


    It's been a long time since we've needed more powerful specs tbh. We've been stuck games that were designed for an aging (ancient?) console generation, and even a bog standard pc could play anything released on them.

    I'm a bit worried that a lot of developers have lost the ability to properly optimise games now. We've had hardware that was 3-4 times more powerful for so long, optimisation wasn't that big a deal. But now as we see good looking games come out on consoles more often, unless they get properly optimised, minimum specs are going to keep rising.

    Hopefully the fact that the consoles are practically pc's anyway, will help keep things reasonable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭ nesf


    I'd disagree to some extent, I think if you played certain strategy games you wanted to upgrade to a quad core a few years back to get decent performance. Not absolutely necessary but you'd really notice playing on a dual core the last while. If you were chasing the FPS dragon then you probably wanted one for most games.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 77,762 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sephiroth_dude




Advertisement