I think a remake of Titanfall 1&2 in to one package would work. 1 was Xbox/PC exclusive so never released on playstation. And 2 never got the traction it deserved. I think there are enough people used to the style now from apex that it would do well.
As someone else pointed out elsewhere, that's probably a good thing. Hopefully by the time they get to do Titanfall 3 the market will have moved on from BR's, MT's and season passes. That could/would ruin a Titanfall game, so giving it more time may not be a bad thing.
Funnily enough the head of Respawn said he'd love to do Titanfall 3 as recently as last week. They've the Star Wars FPS to do first though.
Ah, I was not aware. And I do see Respawn have basically been releasing on Windows since they were formed, so they maybe have less of an excuse compared to others. And there are some issues on consoles for Survivor too. No doubt plenty of EA pressure to hit release dates/targets, etc. Let 'em back to Titanfall!
They don't have to. Sony uses specialist studios to do their porting; Jetpack Interactive did GoW, Iron Galaxy did TLOU, Nixxes did Spider-Man etc. And some of those ports have been quite well received. I bet their staff didn't think they were wasting their time.
Redfall releasing tomorrow, ACG said it's the worst game if 2023 so far. I sense... i sense a tweet from the devs saying they are working hard to get a patch to fix it asap.
So, what they said is correct then. It is harder to optimise for PC compared to consoles, especially for companies who have usually just done console releases. I'd hate to be Sony Santa Monica right now, working on the Ragnarok PC port. It was, for me, flawless on PS5. Not a single issue. And no doubt it will have issues on PC because of the variance. I'd bet a lot wouldn't bother if they didn't have to.
It makes me think AMD have the upper hand when it comes to optimization and performance of PC ports because the consoles use AMD. In theory at least there should be less effort to get them running smoothly on an AMD Gpu.
Also the argument over whether we need more vram should well and truly be put to bed this year. Absolutely, the more vram the better!
Honestly I feel the issue with pc ports is the lack of proper software engineers. The latest APIs on PC give developers a massive amount of control but you've got have very good coders and software engineers. Coders have gotten soft lately as they are used to consoles and older pc APIs that pretty much do everything for you. Publishers will cheap out on this area or not take into account how much more effort they now need to put into this area and they fall back on stop gap features like unreal has. Unreal engine takes a lot of flak for shader comp issues but it's because devs are using what is essentially a fall back debugging compilation routine instead of coding their own. Hifi Rush is a great example of a game that ran on unreal but used its own shader comp solution and had no issues.
Why don't they release the specs of the machines used for testing? They give minimum and recommended specs so they should've tested on those setups. But they probably don't provide the details because they know someone out there would be able to test on the same setup and still have the same problems.
Watching a few YouTubers talking about the PC version and saying it should have been delayed and now they have to wait for it to be patched.
Aren't you just waiting to play in both scenarios?? The only difference is they now have a stream of data from the different PC issues that are impossible to find during normal QV testing.
I enjoy anticipating new releases, chatting about them, getting hyped, getting them on launch day and finally being able to play them, I've always been like that. But, it's getting so much harder to do when an 80 euro game releases broken and/or missing features. By the time bugs get fixed and features get added, it can be gotten for half price so I've had to really hold back on purchases because whatever about being guinea pigs testing the game for bugs, it wrecked that whole build I've enjoyed as a gamer all my life.
The price drop us a bonus but i want to play a game the way it was meant to be.
Saying that, i will still buy launch games and be disappointed, one step at a time.
It's a **** answer, but it's complicated. There's no one reason, but consoles do get priority, and have for a long time. These games are getting pushed out too soon, they're still suffering the effects of the covid shut downs, games and game engines are more complicated than ever (even though some are also easier than ever too, it's just that what's expected or delivered has also gone up dramatically). It's no surprise that developers will focus first on consoles, when yes, the set configurations will make it easier to test and optimise.
Game development is hard all round, not just on PC though, so I'm not overly surprised by the state of some games these days. I myself am not really effected by any of this, as years ago I gave up buying the latest and greatest, and normally wait until games are on a steep discount. By this time, most of the issues are ironed out. I'd recommend this method to anyone, as I've played more games than ever, at a fraction of the price, with few of the issues that plague early adopters (I say early adopters for lack of a better term. It shouldn't apply here, a game being officially released should be finished, but this is the reality).
Played about 5-6 hours of Horizon Forbidden West and I don't think I can do anymore. It's fairly fecking terrible. Really enjoyed Zero Dawn when it came out and had a great time with the dlc so I was looking forward to finally playing this. Aloy's constant chatter is unbelievably annoying, the platforming elements are just plain shït and the story is horrendously boring with constant overlong cut scenes. Ice left the have irritated every time I've played it. I don't know if I was just willing to indulge all of this nonsense when playing the first game but it ruins it for me this time.
Saw this, reminded me of you :)
I'm not sure how true that is. The games are built using the Windows and GPU APIs which are common across all pc's.
It also kind of misses the point. We all know about gamer outrage, abuse and hatred Iis common. But let's not let them take away from the gamers who are genuinely sick of.paying money for an unfinished, broken product. It has become the accepted norm in the industry to release unfinished games and then patch later. I say accepted norm, I of course mean accepted norm with the industry that makes games but absolutely 100% unacceptable to its paying customers.
We know developers.l work very, very hard. But the games are still a broken mess and deserve criticism. I'm sorry they have to work so hard, but unfortunately despite their hard work the games are still released in an unacceptable condition.
Edit: There is another layer of abstraction on top of windows and GPu and that is the engine.
The issue to me is just bad software design. I'm a software engineer and we write software to be scalable. You make your UI scale to any size and largely do not need to worry about it. You write the software to meet a minimum spec and scale up and out, meaning the software just gets better the more resources you can give it.
Video games should be no different.
No doubt it’s a complex platform, but a lot of the issues cropping are up are avoidable (or at least possible to minimise) with enough care and attention paid. A big problem is definitely publishers rushing to get games out. It’d be better if they just held off on releasing the PC port til there was enough time to properly QA test it. There will always be problems with some configurations, but games shouldn’t be launching as utterly busted as they have been.
TBH though, between the bad ports and the ludicrous price of hardware, it’s a bad time for PC gaming - especially when there are two capable consoles offering pretty great / comparable experiences for many of the same games. That said, AAA games are only one part of PC gaming - the indie and enthusiast sphere is still the best reason to be on there, and it’s good at least to see the likes of Cyberpunk Overdrive pushing the graphical limits.
So, the pc master race is having a tough time lately with so many broken/buggy releases. Is it down to pc having hundreds of possible configurations, Devs favouring patching for consoles, bad port jobs, all of the above or something else?
I don't have a dynamic contrast on the monitor. I do on the TV though. It seems with auto-hdr windows takes care of.bumping up whatever needs to be.bumped up automatically.
You are not missing much. I have what is classed as a decent OLED a C2 and my old 120Hz Nanocell or NanoIPS(I keep mixing those two up as I had two different LG 4K TV's with each of the technology's, but I forget which technology went with each Tv) and each was just as good as the OLED I find anyway.
In my experience, you can still get a decent HDR experience (not the real deal of course) on non-OLEDs but you have to find the setting for Dynamic Contrast or it’s equivalent and turn it up to its highest setting. I have an LG SJ810v and I’m pretty happy with the HDR picture I’m getting, but I’ve never had an OLED so I can’t even imagine how much better it must be.
Found a fix for this. Enabled Auto-HDR in windows, it seems to kick in even with HDR enabled games. You can actually see the brightness go up in notches as the game loads. Now I have bright clear HDR :-)
Has anyone tried Bing chat to generate an avatar image? Pretty interesting results!
It uses DAL-E in the background.
Yeah HDR is not dull on my TV. Could be my monitor is not up to the job. The monitor is a Samsung Odyssey lc49rg90. It's a bit of a beast, I got it for work but turns out its pretty good at games too.
HDR wise it's a VA panel with HDR10. So brightness shouldn't be a problem. I think it might be I'm so used to playing on very, very bright SDR settings that I just need to adjust to it.
HDR was the buzz word for a while and lots of panels added it when they probably shouldn't have.
If the panel uses side light or even large zoned back lights then it tends to go darker to prevent the blacks from washing out. The result is a duller experience though.
HDR on a good oled is amazing. Blacks are inky black and bright spots are really bright as each individual pixel can be turned on or off.
I used HDR on my PS5 for about a year before realising it wasn't supposed to look like that, i thought some menu screens were supposed to be bright grey until i looked to a video and they were bright white. I turned off HDR on the PS5 and it looked way better. Turns out my LG 8500 does have HDR capability but it's not very good. Have to wait for a better TV before turning on HDR again. It's mad how dull it made every game look.
What monitor do you have? HDR isn't dark or dull.
HDR shouldn't be dark, I think. I don't use it much myself but when I do it's brighter than SDR with pretty high contrast.
I did not know of the existence of a Twisted Metal show, and while that teaser has very little, I'm liking the sound of it. This is how announcements should work. "Hey, we made this, it's out in 2 months". Unlike what crowd was it announcing a date for a teaser for a game due out next year or something.
Ha, curious case of benedict cumberbatch. I'm never going to get the name of that game right 😆
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7562dda32a4e3622cfd3a800d8bc4294.svg)
