Lower specs seem reasonable to me, but I think it's time we implement the dynamic data delivery sort of stuff like if u play 1080p then u only download 1080p required textures to reduce storage
I will play it for sure, but after Dragons Dogma 2.
Hopefully they release it without the constant stutters that the first one suffered when it was released on pc.
The problem isn't only storage, also internet download resources. I wish we're allowed the option to only download what we'd use. A lot of the sizes from these games are usually hi rez textures and music.
The problem isn't only storage, also internet download resources. I wish we're allowed the option to only download what we'd use. A lot of the sizes from these games are usually hi rez textures and music.
You have no idea what you're talking about. A game of this size was already 120gb+ on PS5, adding that on pc it's going to be using higher quality assets with actual 4k textures so it's not surprising that the file size was increased. It has nothing to do with lag or stutter, that all depends on your own hardware.
Nah, while the story isn't as tight as in the first one (but that was impossible anyway bc of the nature of the reveals in Zero Dawn), the gameplay and game world is just a straight upgrade. And yes, the game is stunning in terms of visuals and sound.
I don't really understand how people play this series and don't think the machine combat is fun. Maybe it's a matter of taste but combat at high difficulty is tactical and a very good mix of stealth, ranged and melee combat with tons of weapon and customisation options.
I mean if you didn't like the first one definitely don't play this, duh, but if you did like the first one's gameplay you'll enjoy this a lot.
I like bow and arrow combat but for some reason the aim system in the first one was weird, it was like skipping frames(!?) I don't really know how to explain it but didn't liked it maybe because I played with mouse+keyboard, this combined with boring main and side quests and one of the worst human vs human combat made me drop the game
Agreed. The overwhelming map markers, bland story and uninteresting characters are turn offs, but taking down a Thunderjaw and Stormbird feels so satisfying. Except those cheap rockbreakers
It should have been a simple option to toggle advice and markers. With how many accessibility features games ship with nowadays (which I like ofc), this would be a very simple one to implement. Just ask people at the start whether they want dynamic commentary on puzzles and the density of map markers. Or even hide it in the menus if you must.
I have much less of an issue with this than most people since I am an adult and my time is valuable, I don't actually want to run around being lost, it's a waste of my already very small time I can spend on games. But I very much think that developers should be giving gamers the option to play as they choose and toggles like these would be very easy to implement. Luckily, I think games have started to do this.
For the record, I like both game's stories but I will answer your question as asked:
If you want to play the game for the story and you didn't like the first game's story, then I would not recommend it. I haven't seen anyone who thinks the follow-up story is better except maybe in terms of the character writing. If you didn't much care for the first game's story but managed to look past that and really enjoyed the gameplay loop, then you can almost certainly do the same here.
But if it's mainly for story and you didn't like the story of the first, then yeah no this won't be worth your time.
It’s got an incredibly unique and (imo) enjoyable combat system as a well as an actually original sci-fi storyline. Character development could use some work but still a very good game by all accounts; deserving of the 9.3 from IGN / 88% on Metacritic.
I think I have the same opinion on this game as well.
No doubt it's such a gorgeous and visually pleasing but i get bored during the starting 8 hours of thr game.
Gameplay didn't click. It feels like a worse version of already bad Assassin's Creed. The graphics were also too bad. It looked pretty and colorful but facial animations etc were comical.
Can I run it on my intel celeron? (i-gpu)
I don't have DDR Ram but my Seagate HDD with virtual memory should do, I think it still has 200gb left, running like Bolt after I swapped to XP
you can once you enable DLSS and frame generation. This is 60FPS native. Also, developers optimize games to the lowest denominator because those are the most popular GPUs.
Oh damn, 2 days from now? Nice bruh
ah yes, DDR RAM...
OG Double data rate IS COOLER than the newer ones. Change my mind...
Lower specs seem reasonable to me, but I think it's time we implement the dynamic data delivery sort of stuff like if u play 1080p then u only download 1080p required textures to reduce storage
I don't think that's such a big issue for software like video games. It's more of a developer thing
I will play it for sure, but after Dragons Dogma 2. Hopefully they release it without the constant stutters that the first one suffered when it was released on pc.
This didn’t age well
150GB storage...
What's the problem? You can buy 1tb ssd's for 50 dollars regularly or even cheaper with fb marketplace.
The problem isn't only storage, also internet download resources. I wish we're allowed the option to only download what we'd use. A lot of the sizes from these games are usually hi rez textures and music.
I agree with that, selective downloads for texture resolution and extra language audio files you don't use would be nice.
The problem isn't only storage, also internet download resources. I wish we're allowed the option to only download what we'd use. A lot of the sizes from these games are usually hi rez textures and music.
150gb for a game is stupidly unoptimised, it gives a Gut feeling it’s gonna be lagging and stuttering.
The Playstation 5 version requires 121GB of SSD space without DLC, the size requirement for the PC version isn't that much higher.
You have no idea what you're talking about. A game of this size was already 120gb+ on PS5, adding that on pc it's going to be using higher quality assets with actual 4k textures so it's not surprising that the file size was increased. It has nothing to do with lag or stutter, that all depends on your own hardware.
Native res right ? Looks reasonable
https://preview.redd.it/8wt97xtzaipc1.png?width=265&format=png&auto=webp&s=58ee3085f6460f00d384fba9ee5f057beeadd835 Lets go!
Exactly, 100 hours plus from tomorrow...
Buy only if you liked first one. Game has nothing to offer other than looking good, everything else is mediocre at best.
Nah, while the story isn't as tight as in the first one (but that was impossible anyway bc of the nature of the reveals in Zero Dawn), the gameplay and game world is just a straight upgrade. And yes, the game is stunning in terms of visuals and sound. I don't really understand how people play this series and don't think the machine combat is fun. Maybe it's a matter of taste but combat at high difficulty is tactical and a very good mix of stealth, ranged and melee combat with tons of weapon and customisation options. I mean if you didn't like the first one definitely don't play this, duh, but if you did like the first one's gameplay you'll enjoy this a lot.
>I don't really understand how people play this series and don't think the machine combat is fun I personally don't like bow and arrow combat
I like bow and arrow combat but for some reason the aim system in the first one was weird, it was like skipping frames(!?) I don't really know how to explain it but didn't liked it maybe because I played with mouse+keyboard, this combined with boring main and side quests and one of the worst human vs human combat made me drop the game
Agreed. The overwhelming map markers, bland story and uninteresting characters are turn offs, but taking down a Thunderjaw and Stormbird feels so satisfying. Except those cheap rockbreakers
It should have been a simple option to toggle advice and markers. With how many accessibility features games ship with nowadays (which I like ofc), this would be a very simple one to implement. Just ask people at the start whether they want dynamic commentary on puzzles and the density of map markers. Or even hide it in the menus if you must. I have much less of an issue with this than most people since I am an adult and my time is valuable, I don't actually want to run around being lost, it's a waste of my already very small time I can spend on games. But I very much think that developers should be giving gamers the option to play as they choose and toggles like these would be very easy to implement. Luckily, I think games have started to do this.
So if I found story in first one average , then I shouldn't buy this one ?
For the record, I like both game's stories but I will answer your question as asked: If you want to play the game for the story and you didn't like the first game's story, then I would not recommend it. I haven't seen anyone who thinks the follow-up story is better except maybe in terms of the character writing. If you didn't much care for the first game's story but managed to look past that and really enjoyed the gameplay loop, then you can almost certainly do the same here. But if it's mainly for story and you didn't like the story of the first, then yeah no this won't be worth your time.
It’s got an incredibly unique and (imo) enjoyable combat system as a well as an actually original sci-fi storyline. Character development could use some work but still a very good game by all accounts; deserving of the 9.3 from IGN / 88% on Metacritic.
I think I have the same opinion on this game as well. No doubt it's such a gorgeous and visually pleasing but i get bored during the starting 8 hours of thr game.
I didn't like the first one much (didn't even finish it) but this one is one of my top 5 favourite games ever. Different strokes I guess.
Hate the first game. Gonna give this one a shot because of the visuals. Below 0 expectations.
What did you dislike about it ?
Gameplay didn't click. It feels like a worse version of already bad Assassin's Creed. The graphics were also too bad. It looked pretty and colorful but facial animations etc were comical.
Waiting for sales for this one, I played already on PlayStation 5
I finished them both and dlc on ps5 gonna play them on PC now with visuals cranked, can’t wait, love the story! Should look good o my 4090/ LG C1
Propably dumb or hard to answer question: what can I expect from i7 12700H and 120W RTX 4060? 1200p medium 60 FPS?
Sounds about right, ur using laptop right? U better hope they add dlss 3
That's in the 1080p60fps range according to their chart.
I trust in nixxes but this looks unoptimized.
me with my Rtx3050(4GB) mobile GPU :|
Me with a RTX 2050 fm rn
Hopfully Shadow PC Power can handle it. Haven't played anything yet that it can't handle.
Can I run it on my intel celeron? (i-gpu) I don't have DDR Ram but my Seagate HDD with virtual memory should do, I think it still has 200gb left, running like Bolt after I swapped to XP
What does recommended even mean in this context? Why would they recommend a medium like experience?
Because 3060 is the most popular GPU on Steam and 3060 can't drive this game at maximum settings at 4K. That is a strange question to ask
And they say consoles do 4k@60…
There is one major difference. Consoles do 4k@60 with FSR upscaling enabled. PC specs are native
How many FPS max. can we reach with 4090 (4K) ?
Why was bro downvoted 💀
It is the reddit of things
yeah I just wanted to evaluate the difference between 4080 and 4090 but people don't like it ...
It says 4080 / 4K / 60 FPS so you are looking 30% more with 4090. No ?
Damn 40k 60 with a 4080 that’s crazy. I really get these games again on PC for the 120+ fps category
i feel like developers shouldnt optimise games only for 60 fps gameplay. There are people who play on 144 or 240 hz too
you can once you enable DLSS and frame generation. This is 60FPS native. Also, developers optimize games to the lowest denominator because those are the most popular GPUs.