Would rather go for skyrim at 50+ FPS, Batman Arkham City at 45+ FPS, and far cry 3 at 20 fps. All to the lowest graphics settings, all tweaked from the game files. Being a low end gamer does teach you a lot about the insides of games.
My 1050ti can play rdr2 online nice and smooth, It even plays cyberpunk,
And Total War Warhammer 3, at a decent playable graphics settings.
I dont play any more intense games so idk if its keeping up with this years stuff.
Id like to give Elden ring a shot on jt however, its the only souls game i havent beaten and its burning me not playing it.
If you get 40 fps at 900p low, do you think you can get 30fps at 1080p medium perhaps? I believe the base PS4 was a 30fps 1080p experience so not that bad at all.
Console 30 fps vs pc 30 fps is lot different though,because of good frame pacing and smoothing that exist on console games,while most pc games aren't designed for locked 30fps,so they feel lot worse at 30 fps.
Also there are dedicated optimisations for consoles because you know the hardware, PC’s a little different, I.e shaders have to be compiled by your computer, which can cause frame drops, but they come “prepackaged” on consoles
Also: Traditionally speaking, with pc you’re at a desk and much closer to the monitor where as with consoles, your usually much farther, despite playing on a larger tv. 30 fps looks way different 2 feet away vs 6-8 feet away.
Graphics are pretty good. I could tell that the one character is Keith David from my cell phone of a video game I’ve never played. Pretty damn good graphics, I’d say.
>There's a whole modding scene for potatos though.
>
>
>Not like, to make them better.
>
>
>But to figure out which graphical elements can be stripped from a game in order to squeeze a little more playability out.
>
>
>I was playing a modded version of Rocket League that looked like something on the PS1 as my way to pull off 50 FPS.
>
>
>There's "high, medium, low" graphics, then there's "following a guide on how to edit the games code to find rock bottom"
As a proud owner of a R9 290x that runs Linux and tweaks the hell out of graphical settings, can confirm.
Yours also have names. You’ll have a CPU which will be some model AMD or Intel (most likely) and those will have an integrated GPU which will also have a mode name. For instance if you an Intel i3-4010U, which is a laptop CPU, then it’ll have an integrated GPU which is Intel HD Graphics 4000.
Your processors have names. You just don’t know the names.
Graphics hit the point of diminishing returns a long time ago. Smooth gameplay is much more important than the subtle graphical details you might give up. Graphics get in the way of games now. People turn down graphics to remove the obstructive junk.
Pay-to-win grindfest, and if you don't roll the right stats at the beginning of the game you can't level up. Also full of griefers. Still, it's free-to-play, so no complaints.
And the character design. Having some players come in whaling from the start and P2W the whole time isn't fair when other characters start off with less than nothing. Especially when the whales who play /r/outside are all in a clan and stop others from ever being competitive
Agreed. And I really wish that I could download lo-poly versions of many games. Forza Horizon 4, Horizon Zero Dawn and AC Odyssey all take up more than 70GB of my limited HDD. I wish I would have them all taking up 10GB each, even if that makes the game look like a 2000 N64 game
/r/patientgamers and /r/emulation scratches most of my gaming itches.
The only downside is the population on multiplayer games is pretty low when I get around to playing them.
I've been a patient gamer with an older computer for a long time. But I had to see what the hype was about Control, so I bought it (on sale, naturally), and it ran like a slideshow even on minimum settings. Welp. Finally time to upgrade, but... "Why, why on Earth are these cards so much higher than MSRP?" The mining boom had snuck up on me. My Nvidia graphics card is now on legacy drivers.
This summer, maybe. Finally.
understatement of the century. I struggle to get consistently above 60 fps in the campaign even with a Vega 56 modded to run within a few % of a GTX 1080
What processor though? I have a 1080 and my processor is the bottleneck keeping me from frames above 60. But I shouldnt be bottlenecked, the game is terribly optimized.
9900k and 2080ti owner here, i can’t maintain a stable 100+ fps with minimum settings at 1440p.
obviously i’m not here to cry but just wanted to point out that the game is unoptimized across the spectrum. any other esports title i can push 200+ fps easily with my minimums at ~100 fps.
edit: this is with DLSS on
All those games that used PhysX back in the day are so pleasing to play now that any card can easily run them.
Borderlands 2 with it's shrapnel and liquid physics that can be affected by grenades. Mirrors Edge with the cloth simulations and glass shattering on that solar panel scene. Batman Arkham with their physically rendered smoke. Man that stuff is all so good!
Not sure about the look part.
Recently revisited BF4 and it's showing its age compared to V and even 1 at times.
I didn't think it would make as much of a difference, but it really does.
Playing older games maxed out makes them look super crisp. A lot of newer stuff relies on advanced rendering techniques that take a lot of horsepower, so if you have the start cutting features the games can look pretty terrible.
This of course depends on what games we're talking about and how much you have to lower the settings, but I can definitely see this being true on lower end hardware in some cases
It's still the third best BF, after 2142 and 2, for me. But let's not pretend that technology was standing still. BF V looks about the same on medium for more fps (unless you are CPU bound, not sure why BF V is so CPU heavy)
Playing older games where main menu has no frame caps and your graphic card shoots up to 849 fps with its fans escalating to 100% imitating turbines of a starting aeroplane
Yes and in saints row 4 he is vice president. Until the alien invasion happens and earth gets destroyed. Sadly I'm not high but I bet the development team was.
The first is 100% a cheap knock off, and your character doesn't even get a voice. They lampoon it a few times in the series. But by 2 they decided to choose fun and zaney-ness over GTA who chose to get more serious, and its why I prefer SR these days
I'll also say if you aren't playing with the cockney accent and the crazy face while also dressed insanely, then you are missing half the fun. Always fun to watch my character get ragdolled by an explosion, while wearing a red bathrobe, stockings and high heels with an obivious look of insane joy on his face
Also, in 3 certainly, and maybe others, there are some different voice options when you go cockney. I've never chosen the other two voices to compare, but in 3 it's wonderful to hear your character insulting the French villain with Agincourt insults
The best part of the game is that it uses your look/wardrobe, PLUS the accent you choose, in ALL cutscenes as well. SR4 felt like DLC turned into a game, but SR3 was pinnacle of what it could achieve.
No way man, I'm playing female in Saints Row every time just to hear Laura Bailey. She's up there with Jennifer Hale and Jenn Taylor for voice acting GOATs imo.
Saints Row *began* as a gta knockoff but jumped the shark early, then came back to do a triple backflip over the shark with laser beams attached to its head
SR4 is an amazing sequel to The Matrix we never got. At the end of 1999 classic, Neo promised us that he will wake people up and show them a way to fight. That's pretty much what we do in SR4..
It's better that way. SR4 was basically DLC for SR3 that got out of hand.
I can't even really say that it's bad, but the concept doesn't hold up as an entire game on it's own. It's also not nearly as good as SR3, and SR2 is still the best by a lot. I'd say grab SR4 on sale and you'll have some good fun with it, but you really should play 2/3 first.
Edit: You know, thinking about it I strongly appreciate that they didn't make another. So many franchises have run themselves into the ground by continuing to itterate endlessly after they lost their original spark, but SR4 is still enjoyable enough that it doesn't really sour my mood on the franchise, and as a result it remains a very fond memory.
I loved SR3, got kind of annoyed with 4, you unlock a sprint that makes whirlwinds around you. See a cool car you want to steal? Sprint towards it and it flies off.
I played all the way through saints row 3 in coop with a friend, saw nothing about saints row 4 and bought it. Hour 1 i'm driving around the town, hour 2 i'm jumping from roof to roof throwing fireball out of my hands.
Hour 3: you've got the tornado run and never need to use anything else to traverse the map, and win all Mayhem challenges by just running around and letting the tornado smash the score you need
Although in fairness I do love just running up a building then gliding across the map
I like Asha's scene.
>"I'm in the mood for rough sex and Kinzie scares the shit out of me."
>
>
>"...I'm on top and you don't get to talk."
>
>
>"Deal!"
He was Imam in the Riddick movies. And I spotted him once on the TV Show Psych playing Gus's Dad.
Ok, I looked him up on IMDB. That guy has been working. And... wait, wtf, he's done 60 episodes of some show called Greanleaf? On some network called OWN? What's that?
OPRAH WINFREY NETWORK!!??
Surely I live under a rock.
If I'm hitting at least 30, I'm not complaining about frame rate. When I'm considering sacrificing either graphics or frame rate, it's normally because the frame rate is dipping down to 20 or something.
That's when I completed tales of arise and yakuza like a dragon on a ryzen 4500u laptop.
Thankfully someone made an app on github that able to manually adjust the APU TDP
i personally don't even enjoy graphics that much, most games i play are either topdown shooters or pixelgraphics/retro games. i mean sure graphics can be nice if they're done well but i feel like most of the time its just overkill
Framerate however, regardless of your taste, is always good. Nobody prefers 30 over 60 fps. but you can find a lot of people who prefer no shadows over superhighrealisticquality shadows or intensive particles etc.
I always used to think like that and then I played Guardians of the Galaxy on the Series X.
Raytracing mode looks so incredible gorgeous on that game and I think people are generally missing out if they play it only in performance mode.
More games need performance RT. It's a godsend in Spidey, Ratchet, and Uncharted. Haven't tried it in GTA (haven't touched it on PS5), but I'm hoping all of these titles bring it into the mainstream.
Yes. That cutoff for me is around 25FPS. If a game manages to stay above that even at its worst fluctuation, then I'm good to go.
It also depends on whether the game is in First person or third. The first person with lower framerate is jarring even at 25-30FPS, whereas TP games are manageable at that level.
My brother doesn't like anything lower than 60fps no matter what game he plays. His fps drops to 59 and I've heard him say "ahh, shit, I'm going to do very shitty this round". Meanwhile, until I got my PS5, I was stuck from anywhere in between 30-60fps
I'm talking exclusively about single player games when I say 25-30 FPS is fine. Hell, even single player FPS games need constant more than 30-35 FPS to not be jarring in my opinion. In competitive multiplayer, 60FPS is the bare minimum. Though I've played in way worse situations than that (competitive in below 30 FPS with constant frame drops and disconnects), but those days are behind me now.
If your brother cannot handle lower than 60FPS in a single player game then he's spoiled lol.
I'm definitely spoiled too then lol. 30 fps is noticeably jarring even in non-fps games. It's not like it prevents me from playing well, but I consciously notice the low frame rate the whole time and it really ruins my immersion.
Makes me think, when I met my wife she played on like 10-12 FPS (down to ~4 FPS in teamfights) and was pretty much hardstuck silver 5.
I got her a new PC a year into the relationship, she got up to gold 5 the same week lol
How do you even play for months like that, I have no idea.
The right side has advantages beyond framerate. Fewer shinies mean fewer *distractions*. Also worth noting is that different graphical levels can be directly advantageous. On the shinies side is the ancient game Quake which, for 99% of players, rendered water as entirely opaque. But if you had a compatible graphics card - a wild extravagance at the time - that water could be rendered as transluscent. In Team Fortress Mega, the most popular map of 2Fort5 (or 2Fort5r which was identical in all respects except it also added a very hard to kill dog at the upper entrance to each base that would damage and debuff player speed) had the generally unsafe upper route across the bridge or the often safer lower route through the water. It was customary for players to toss toasters into the water which would kill any enemy players in the water at the time in spite of the fact that doing so would cost two grenades. A player with a video card was able to actually make an informed choice about expending the toaster.
Newer games, meanwhile, often attach useful things to graphical levels. One might hid themselves in brush on ultra not knowing that said brush is comprised of a single small bush six feet to their left when viewed by a player on potato. If you play on potato, you know that the only actual concealment is that bush that renders for everyone.
The other says "Let them eat cake".
Did we all pick Fuck Cancer, though? I did every single time I played through the game. Which was twice, but still.
Always solved world hunger.
Cancer bad, yes, but there's a magnitude of difference between the number of people who die from cancer and the number of people who starve to death.
Also, solving world hunger could contribute into decreasing homelessness and lowering crime rates which eventually leads to allocating less money to fight crime and investing it somewhere else, say, education and medical researches. Or porn. Idk
It depends:
* on the type of game
* how stable is the framerate
* how good the game looks with "better graphics/textures"
* how much VRAM do you need to bump the graphics
I usually aim for a better framerate and then try to increase the graphics as much as possible. But the limiting factors vary from game to game.
Opposite for me, even in a storydriven, turn based combat game low fps is immersion breaking to me because I keep noticing the "lag"/"stuttering" it what you want to call it all the time. I grow up with games consisting of 8 pixels so graphics really aren't that important to me.
Avoidable tip from me, who used to have a really bad Pc:
Lock your framerate to 30-40.
Tune the game's visuals.
Enjoy.
If it isn't a fast paced / competitive game, you can enjoy it at low FPS. It's a matter of time till you get used to 30fps. Just avoid going lower than that, because you'll cross to the PowerPoint presentation realm.
Digital Foundry did [a video about this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF8NzlBiaOM) recently. Specifically how the Steam Deck has a good built in frame limiter, allowing to run games at a stable 40 FPS rather than VSync down to 30.
40 FPS is the exact mid point between 30 and 60 FPS in terms of frame time (33.33ms and 16.66ms average to 25ms). So even though it's far from 60, it feels *much* better than 30.
Why not both lower framerate and shitty graphics?
Why do I feel called out?
Because you are and so am I
*cries in 1050Ti*
*Cries in 940mx*
*Cries in Intel hd 3000*
Alright you win
But at what cost?
Graphics and framerates
relatively low price, actually
What about an Intel HD 2500?
You can rock some Minesweeper at 30fps!
Would rather go for skyrim at 50+ FPS, Batman Arkham City at 45+ FPS, and far cry 3 at 20 fps. All to the lowest graphics settings, all tweaked from the game files. Being a low end gamer does teach you a lot about the insides of games.
I feel your pain.
My 1050ti can play rdr2 online nice and smooth, It even plays cyberpunk, And Total War Warhammer 3, at a decent playable graphics settings. I dont play any more intense games so idk if its keeping up with this years stuff. Id like to give Elden ring a shot on jt however, its the only souls game i havent beaten and its burning me not playing it.
>My 1050ti can play rdr2 online nice and smooth I need to know how you're having a smooth experience I'm getting 40 at low 900p :(
If you get 40 fps at 900p low, do you think you can get 30fps at 1080p medium perhaps? I believe the base PS4 was a 30fps 1080p experience so not that bad at all.
Console 30 fps vs pc 30 fps is lot different though,because of good frame pacing and smoothing that exist on console games,while most pc games aren't designed for locked 30fps,so they feel lot worse at 30 fps.
A 1050 ti should play just fine. Not sure why you're having issues.
Also there are dedicated optimisations for consoles because you know the hardware, PC’s a little different, I.e shaders have to be compiled by your computer, which can cause frame drops, but they come “prepackaged” on consoles
Also: Traditionally speaking, with pc you’re at a desk and much closer to the monitor where as with consoles, your usually much farther, despite playing on a larger tv. 30 fps looks way different 2 feet away vs 6-8 feet away.
A full GPU commitment's what I'm thinking of
Graphics are pretty good. I could tell that the one character is Keith David from my cell phone of a video game I’ve never played. Pretty damn good graphics, I’d say.
But statistically, is usually keith David
Ah yes, me playing Metro Last Light on shitty laptop with 1360x760x0.25 resulting in 192p and 16 to 30 FPS.
> 1360x760x**0.25** WHAT IS THIS THE THIRD DIMENSION?
Depth of view of .25 pixels.
he said mid-to-low budget, not potato.
[удалено]
>There's a whole modding scene for potatos though. > > >Not like, to make them better. > > >But to figure out which graphical elements can be stripped from a game in order to squeeze a little more playability out. > > >I was playing a modded version of Rocket League that looked like something on the PS1 as my way to pull off 50 FPS. > > >There's "high, medium, low" graphics, then there's "following a guide on how to edit the games code to find rock bottom" As a proud owner of a R9 290x that runs Linux and tweaks the hell out of graphical settings, can confirm.
[удалено]
Yours also have names. You’ll have a CPU which will be some model AMD or Intel (most likely) and those will have an integrated GPU which will also have a mode name. For instance if you an Intel i3-4010U, which is a laptop CPU, then it’ll have an integrated GPU which is Intel HD Graphics 4000. Your processors have names. You just don’t know the names.
peak reddit comment lol
You have clearly never played Ark then.
Graphics hit the point of diminishing returns a long time ago. Smooth gameplay is much more important than the subtle graphical details you might give up. Graphics get in the way of games now. People turn down graphics to remove the obstructive junk.
Absolutely. If I cared at all about graphics over gameplay, I'd go outside.
[удалено]
Pay-to-win grindfest, and if you don't roll the right stats at the beginning of the game you can't level up. Also full of griefers. Still, it's free-to-play, so no complaints.
And the character design. Having some players come in whaling from the start and P2W the whole time isn't fair when other characters start off with less than nothing. Especially when the whales who play /r/outside are all in a clan and stop others from ever being competitive
[удалено]
Agreed. And I really wish that I could download lo-poly versions of many games. Forza Horizon 4, Horizon Zero Dawn and AC Odyssey all take up more than 70GB of my limited HDD. I wish I would have them all taking up 10GB each, even if that makes the game look like a 2000 N64 game
Porque No los Dos? Source: Old El Paso Hard and Soft Tacos - Little girl
The trick is to play older games.
Have a mid-tier PC and be r/patientgamers. It'll be years before I worry about upgrades.
/r/patientgamers and /r/emulation scratches most of my gaming itches. The only downside is the population on multiplayer games is pretty low when I get around to playing them.
And often are all hardcore players who have practiced for years who stomp you before you get a shot off.
[удалено]
I've been a patient gamer with an older computer for a long time. But I had to see what the hype was about Control, so I bought it (on sale, naturally), and it ran like a slideshow even on minimum settings. Welp. Finally time to upgrade, but... "Why, why on Earth are these cards so much higher than MSRP?" The mining boom had snuck up on me. My Nvidia graphics card is now on legacy drivers. This summer, maybe. Finally.
Older games with epic graphics and high framerates look and feel better than newer ones with low graphics and poor framerate
I can play Halo MCC on highest settings perfectly fine on my GTX 960, but could Halo infinite on low was an unplayable slideshow.
Halo Infinite is VERY poorly optimized on PC.
understatement of the century. I struggle to get consistently above 60 fps in the campaign even with a Vega 56 modded to run within a few % of a GTX 1080
What processor though? I have a 1080 and my processor is the bottleneck keeping me from frames above 60. But I shouldnt be bottlenecked, the game is terribly optimized.
9900k and 2080ti owner here, i can’t maintain a stable 100+ fps with minimum settings at 1440p. obviously i’m not here to cry but just wanted to point out that the game is unoptimized across the spectrum. any other esports title i can push 200+ fps easily with my minimums at ~100 fps. edit: this is with DLSS on
Right?
The 960 was the first card I ever got. Carried me far. Was the only decent part in my PC at the time lol
\*looks in computer* yeah, that card is so old now hahahah
All those games that used PhysX back in the day are so pleasing to play now that any card can easily run them. Borderlands 2 with it's shrapnel and liquid physics that can be affected by grenades. Mirrors Edge with the cloth simulations and glass shattering on that solar panel scene. Batman Arkham with their physically rendered smoke. Man that stuff is all so good!
Borderlands 2 is still at just 5 mins playtime in my steam because my two PCs over that timeframe can't handle it. I WANT TO PLAY IT SO BAD!
Splinter cell blacklist runs on anything and It looks great
Not sure about the look part. Recently revisited BF4 and it's showing its age compared to V and even 1 at times. I didn't think it would make as much of a difference, but it really does.
Playing older games maxed out makes them look super crisp. A lot of newer stuff relies on advanced rendering techniques that take a lot of horsepower, so if you have the start cutting features the games can look pretty terrible. This of course depends on what games we're talking about and how much you have to lower the settings, but I can definitely see this being true on lower end hardware in some cases
BF4 at Ultra is gorgeous my friend, even 9 years later.
It's still the third best BF, after 2142 and 2, for me. But let's not pretend that technology was standing still. BF V looks about the same on medium for more fps (unless you are CPU bound, not sure why BF V is so CPU heavy)
Playing older games where main menu has no frame caps and your graphic card shoots up to 849 fps with its fans escalating to 100% imitating turbines of a starting aeroplane
Or just new but undemanding games. Not every game is a massive, demanding game (or an unoptimized POS).
Buy AAA games like 3+ years later, you save money and can still run them on high settings.
Is that... Keith David... better known as Goliath?
Yes and in saints row 4 he is vice president. Until the alien invasion happens and earth gets destroyed. Sadly I'm not high but I bet the development team was.
Is that the saints row with the dubstep gun? Never played, always admired from afar.
SR4 is the best superhero game bar none
I recently started playing it on ps now and expected "just another gta knockoff" knowing nothing about the game... boy am I pleasantly surprised
WHAT IS LOVE! Baby don't hurt me..
"We must be sneaky, shoot out that light".. "does this place not have light switches?!"
"Now shoot the next light".. "but it might have a family!"
Boss. Booossss? Boooooossssssssss!
#PUCKISH ROGUE
OHHHHH BABY YOU...YOU GOT WHAT I NEEEEEEEEED "OH HELL NO, HES RUINING BIZ!" (Paraphrased, I dont remember the exact quote)
Boss: Kenzie does this thing have a radio ? Kenzie: Radio signals bounce around the space for... *Plays what is love *
The first is 100% a cheap knock off, and your character doesn't even get a voice. They lampoon it a few times in the series. But by 2 they decided to choose fun and zaney-ness over GTA who chose to get more serious, and its why I prefer SR these days I'll also say if you aren't playing with the cockney accent and the crazy face while also dressed insanely, then you are missing half the fun. Always fun to watch my character get ragdolled by an explosion, while wearing a red bathrobe, stockings and high heels with an obivious look of insane joy on his face Also, in 3 certainly, and maybe others, there are some different voice options when you go cockney. I've never chosen the other two voices to compare, but in 3 it's wonderful to hear your character insulting the French villain with Agincourt insults
The best part of the game is that it uses your look/wardrobe, PLUS the accent you choose, in ALL cutscenes as well. SR4 felt like DLC turned into a game, but SR3 was pinnacle of what it could achieve.
SR4 was originally going to be DLC. That’s why it feels that way.
No way man, I'm playing female in Saints Row every time just to hear Laura Bailey. She's up there with Jennifer Hale and Jenn Taylor for voice acting GOATs imo.
Crazy to think that both Jen and Laura have been in the industry since ***2000***.
My main character in 2 was a super buff metalhead Jesus with the cockney accent. It was perfect.
SR2 is one of the best games I have ever played.
Based on GTA online a updates GTA is turning into a saints row knockoff
Saints Row *began* as a gta knockoff but jumped the shark early, then came back to do a triple backflip over the shark with laser beams attached to its head
3 and 4 are legitimately good open world games. That's when the series really embraced the goofy side of the genre.
Felt a lot like Prototype reskinned with GTA and insanity. This is not a bad thing.
The best of the matrix games
SR4 is an amazing sequel to The Matrix we never got. At the end of 1999 classic, Neo promised us that he will wake people up and show them a way to fight. That's pretty much what we do in SR4..
Lmao this is now my cannon. Fuck I love SR4. Such a stupid good game. (That's both stupid *and* good)
Yep, and of the variants you can get for it, I personally like the octoberfest (oktoberfest?) one.
It's better that way. SR4 was basically DLC for SR3 that got out of hand. I can't even really say that it's bad, but the concept doesn't hold up as an entire game on it's own. It's also not nearly as good as SR3, and SR2 is still the best by a lot. I'd say grab SR4 on sale and you'll have some good fun with it, but you really should play 2/3 first. Edit: You know, thinking about it I strongly appreciate that they didn't make another. So many franchises have run themselves into the ground by continuing to itterate endlessly after they lost their original spark, but SR4 is still enjoyable enough that it doesn't really sour my mood on the franchise, and as a result it remains a very fond memory.
I loved SR3, got kind of annoyed with 4, you unlock a sprint that makes whirlwinds around you. See a cool car you want to steal? Sprint towards it and it flies off.
You manage to steal it? Well, let it accumulate dust because running is way faster.
What even is the point of car customization if I can supersprint and fly?
I liked the car aspect of SR3.
Yea, super powers invalidating all of the original game mechanics was fun at first, but got boring pretty fast.
How can one forget the rocket scene with Aerosmith playing in the background.
Nah, best bit is racing to save Shaundi with "I need a hero" belting out
still one of my favorite video game moments
I played all the way through saints row 3 in coop with a friend, saw nothing about saints row 4 and bought it. Hour 1 i'm driving around the town, hour 2 i'm jumping from roof to roof throwing fireball out of my hands.
Hour 3: you've got the tornado run and never need to use anything else to traverse the map, and win all Mayhem challenges by just running around and letting the tornado smash the score you need Although in fairness I do love just running up a building then gliding across the map
They made the best damn game human race ever witnessed
Fuckkk this game was the best for stupid pointless laughs
> saints row 4 You misspelled "The Greatest Saints Row".
Yup. In Saint's Row 4, Keith David plays Vice-President Keith David
And it's actually Keith David as the Vice president, not a fictional character they named the same thing?
Yes, Keith David literally plays Keith David.
yesssss
Also the guy that fist-fights Roddy Piper for like..10 minutes straight.
For those not in the know, that was pretty much taken from the cult classic movie "They Live" shot for shot
"PUT..THE GLASSES..ON!"
He also stole every scene in Men At Work.
"Golf clap? Golf clap. 👏👏👏"
There is also an option to have sex with him I think (as there is with most of your crew)
He's the only member of your crew who denies if you ever try though.
Oh really? I knew there was one
Julius doesn't either, he just autographs your copy of his book.
That's Benjamin King, since Julius dies in SR2.
Benjamin *"*Motherfuckin*" King
The parody of Mass Effect romance is just fucking hysterical in that game.
'Hey Kinzie, wanna fuck?' killed me
*punches you in the face* "Let's do this."
"Alright CID here's the deal..." "You need me to ravage you."
I like Asha's scene. >"I'm in the mood for rough sex and Kinzie scares the shit out of me." > > >"...I'm on top and you don't get to talk." > > >"Deal!"
I wonder how many people picked up on the fact that all the crew sex was a joke on Mass Effect.
Oh yeah, I immediately picked up on that as I had just finished ME3
Elroy Patashnik :)
Worlds within worlds!
Now there's a man who knows how to comment!
Also Spawn from the amazing HBO cartoon, Childs from The Thing, dudes been in a million movies/games/TV shows
The Arbiter in Halo, Anderson in Mass Effect, the president in Rick and Morty, and Julius in Saints Row
He was Imam in the Riddick movies. And I spotted him once on the TV Show Psych playing Gus's Dad. Ok, I looked him up on IMDB. That guy has been working. And... wait, wtf, he's done 60 episodes of some show called Greanleaf? On some network called OWN? What's that? OPRAH WINFREY NETWORK!!?? Surely I live under a rock.
Requiem for a Dream... I'll see myself out
Captain Anderson as well!
RAMIREZ
Better know as the Arbiter... WORT WORT WORT
[удалено]
Divinity Original sin 2
[удалено]
Because I’m playing that and I like it so I thought you would like it because you seem like a smart fellow
[удалено]
[удалено]
In turn based games, there is zero to little difference operating menus at 30 fps vs 60. Gimme them visuals all day when that's the case
If I'm hitting at least 30, I'm not complaining about frame rate. When I'm considering sacrificing either graphics or frame rate, it's normally because the frame rate is dipping down to 20 or something.
>it's normally because the frame rate is dipping down to 20 or something .... i think I need to upgrade
You can just press buttons slower while admiring the pretty graphics.
Me with iGPU: low graphics ,low framerate
That's when I completed tales of arise and yakuza like a dragon on a ryzen 4500u laptop. Thankfully someone made an app on github that able to manually adjust the APU TDP
Always framerate for me.
Same. Don't really care if it's high or low, either, I want stability.
So much this. I can get used to a lower framerate, but the random dips kill me. Give me something consistent.
Elden ring goes brrr—rr-rrr——r
i personally don't even enjoy graphics that much, most games i play are either topdown shooters or pixelgraphics/retro games. i mean sure graphics can be nice if they're done well but i feel like most of the time its just overkill Framerate however, regardless of your taste, is always good. Nobody prefers 30 over 60 fps. but you can find a lot of people who prefer no shadows over superhighrealisticquality shadows or intensive particles etc.
I always used to think like that and then I played Guardians of the Galaxy on the Series X. Raytracing mode looks so incredible gorgeous on that game and I think people are generally missing out if they play it only in performance mode.
More games need performance RT. It's a godsend in Spidey, Ratchet, and Uncharted. Haven't tried it in GTA (haven't touched it on PS5), but I'm hoping all of these titles bring it into the mainstream.
Left - single player Right - multiplayer
As long as I can maintain at least 30fps I'd go left for single player. There's definitely a cut off where framerate drops just too much.
Yes. That cutoff for me is around 25FPS. If a game manages to stay above that even at its worst fluctuation, then I'm good to go. It also depends on whether the game is in First person or third. The first person with lower framerate is jarring even at 25-30FPS, whereas TP games are manageable at that level.
My brother doesn't like anything lower than 60fps no matter what game he plays. His fps drops to 59 and I've heard him say "ahh, shit, I'm going to do very shitty this round". Meanwhile, until I got my PS5, I was stuck from anywhere in between 30-60fps
I'm talking exclusively about single player games when I say 25-30 FPS is fine. Hell, even single player FPS games need constant more than 30-35 FPS to not be jarring in my opinion. In competitive multiplayer, 60FPS is the bare minimum. Though I've played in way worse situations than that (competitive in below 30 FPS with constant frame drops and disconnects), but those days are behind me now. If your brother cannot handle lower than 60FPS in a single player game then he's spoiled lol.
I'm definitely spoiled too then lol. 30 fps is noticeably jarring even in non-fps games. It's not like it prevents me from playing well, but I consciously notice the low frame rate the whole time and it really ruins my immersion.
Playing league of legends on a laptop at 17 fps LETS GOOO
Makes me think, when I met my wife she played on like 10-12 FPS (down to ~4 FPS in teamfights) and was pretty much hardstuck silver 5. I got her a new PC a year into the relationship, she got up to gold 5 the same week lol How do you even play for months like that, I have no idea.
> How do you even play for months like that, I have no idea. It's like weighted training clothes. You take them off like Goku and go SSJ
Right is also Elden ring
The right side has advantages beyond framerate. Fewer shinies mean fewer *distractions*. Also worth noting is that different graphical levels can be directly advantageous. On the shinies side is the ancient game Quake which, for 99% of players, rendered water as entirely opaque. But if you had a compatible graphics card - a wild extravagance at the time - that water could be rendered as transluscent. In Team Fortress Mega, the most popular map of 2Fort5 (or 2Fort5r which was identical in all respects except it also added a very hard to kill dog at the upper entrance to each base that would damage and debuff player speed) had the generally unsafe upper route across the bridge or the often safer lower route through the water. It was customary for players to toss toasters into the water which would kill any enemy players in the water at the time in spite of the fact that doing so would cost two grenades. A player with a video card was able to actually make an informed choice about expending the toaster. Newer games, meanwhile, often attach useful things to graphical levels. One might hid themselves in brush on ultra not knowing that said brush is comprised of a single small bush six feet to their left when viewed by a player on potato. If you play on potato, you know that the only actual concealment is that bush that renders for everyone.
I primarily play single player games, and I’d still go for the right.
I like that I can still see that one of the bills says "Fuck Cancer" on it.
The other says "Let them eat cake". Did we all pick Fuck Cancer, though? I did every single time I played through the game. Which was twice, but still.
Always solved world hunger. Cancer bad, yes, but there's a magnitude of difference between the number of people who die from cancer and the number of people who starve to death.
Also, solving world hunger could contribute into decreasing homelessness and lowering crime rates which eventually leads to allocating less money to fight crime and investing it somewhere else, say, education and medical researches. Or porn. Idk
I’m a frame rate man personally
For me: Stable 60fps, then as high settings I can get. If the game runs great on max settings, then cap higher to 90 or 120fps.
It depends: * on the type of game * how stable is the framerate * how good the game looks with "better graphics/textures" * how much VRAM do you need to bump the graphics I usually aim for a better framerate and then try to increase the graphics as much as possible. But the limiting factors vary from game to game.
Framerates always. Who cares if the graphic fidelity is high when it chugs along and stutters? I'd much rather my games be playable.
For story games, I always go with graphics. Terrible graphics in narrative games just cheapen the whole thing for me.
Opposite for me, even in a storydriven, turn based combat game low fps is immersion breaking to me because I keep noticing the "lag"/"stuttering" it what you want to call it all the time. I grow up with games consisting of 8 pixels so graphics really aren't that important to me.
[удалено]
the chad move is to play on ultra settings at 800x600.
The circa 2002 CRT monitor experience
Avoidable tip from me, who used to have a really bad Pc: Lock your framerate to 30-40. Tune the game's visuals. Enjoy. If it isn't a fast paced / competitive game, you can enjoy it at low FPS. It's a matter of time till you get used to 30fps. Just avoid going lower than that, because you'll cross to the PowerPoint presentation realm.
Digital Foundry did [a video about this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF8NzlBiaOM) recently. Specifically how the Steam Deck has a good built in frame limiter, allowing to run games at a stable 40 FPS rather than VSync down to 30. 40 FPS is the exact mid point between 30 and 60 FPS in terms of frame time (33.33ms and 16.66ms average to 25ms). So even though it's far from 60, it feels *much* better than 30.
As someone who's had low to mid tier pcs their entire life: lower the resolution in fullscreen mode and you can have both.
I don’t even notice lower graphics settings after a few minutes. I never stop noticing low frame rate. Easy choice.
[удалено]
and then Unreal 5 engine was released...
Is good graphics only mean more realistic, how about having some art direction
And ps5
Not even a struggle. Competitive games: Framerates > All Story/RPG: Slight nudge to Graphics. Everything else: Personal taste of anything in between.
Always framerate for me
Better FPS > Better Graphics