PC & Video Games

PC Gaming General Discussion

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 21st, 2017 9:41 pm
Tags:
None
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
5270 posts
1719 upvotes
Toronto
SpicYMchaggis wrote:
Dec 29th, 2016 8:51 pm
Well I decided to go with the 3GB version and it was pretty disappointing so I returned it. I only had Windows stores games (KI, Gears 4, Recore, FH3, Quantem Break, Halo Wars) to really test it on but it didnt seem to run anything I threw at it very well with the exception of Recore & Halo Wars (which ran pretty decent on my GTX660. I guess my expectations were probably higher then they realistically should have been but I thought I could get something that would run these games a lot better then my XBO does (granted all these games are probably pretty well optimized for XBO).
Wouldn't be surprised if Quantum Break and Horizon 3 didn't run great on that card but I would be surprised if Gears 4 didn't run great on it. That game is one of the best optimized PC ports ever and should run at 60fps with high settings at 1080p on that card
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
5270 posts
1719 upvotes
Toronto
Anyone ever play Homefront? Really nice feeling shooting mechanics and the maxed out visuals hold up very well. It's only like 4-5 hours long and seems it got ripped apart by people who paid full price for it, can't blame them, but I picked it up for $5 during the winter sale and I'm really enjoying it. Great SP shooter imo
Deal Fanatic
Feb 11, 2007
5970 posts
1272 upvotes
Didn't you also really like CoD Infinite Warfare? That turned out to be the most hated Call of Duty game in years.

I think the best FPS games of last year are Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2.
ReeGee wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2017 11:49 am
Anyone ever play Homefront? Really nice feeling shooting mechanics and the maxed out visuals hold up very well. It's only like 4-5 hours long and seems it got ripped apart by people who paid full price for it, can't blame them, but I picked it up for $5 during the winter sale and I'm really enjoying it. Great SP shooter imo
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
5270 posts
1719 upvotes
Toronto
XFactor11 wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2017 11:59 am
Didn't you also really like CoD Infinite Warfare? That turned out to be the most hated Call of Duty game in years.

I think the best FPS games of last year are Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2.
If rating it 6/10 in this years COD thread means I really like it then ya sure I really liked it lol

For context, the Homefront I'm talking about came out in 2011
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 12, 2007
2000 posts
47 upvotes
Toronto
Ascott wrote:
Jan 1st, 2017 3:16 pm
O.o

Is the way controller support is implemented into X-com 2 how it plays on consoles? It's... completely incompetent. Why doesn't the movement snap to grid? Why are there keys to switch action types when half the controller buttons go unused? Since you lock yourself out of movement when you switch to the action commands anyway, why can't they be selected with the left stick? Just... wtf. I tried to play on my Steam Link just now, but this is a train wreck.
Yeah it does feel a little off. Figure that since the thing is turn based they kinda got lazy on mapping the gamepad. It doesn't feel too different from how Enemy Unknown was, but it gets the job done well enough. Still miles ahead of keyboard and mouse if you're playing on a couch.
Steam: Sir Boors
PSN: Sir_Boors

It's a great time to be a nerd.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 25, 2009
7796 posts
868 upvotes
Redmask wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2017 10:23 am
Nice, congrats. Give that thing a workout sometime in Battlefield 1, gorgeous game.
Thanks, not really into Battlefield, currently playing Deus Ex Mankind Divided.
"God's in His heaven. All's right with the world." - Robert Browning (1812-1889)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
5930 posts
775 upvotes
Grimsby
It's funny that you picked the one game where the 1070 struggles at Ultra. Great game but the optimization needed more work. I should really do another run through of that.

I've taken a break from Watch_Dogs 2 (most underrated title of 2016) and FFXV to play some Civ 6.

Civ 6 and I are not meshing well. Huge barbarian spam in the early game, you can't leave any fog of war otherwise they pretty much spawn a new camp in there within 3 turns. This forces you to churn out a lot of military units early instead of working on Civ progression. The AI is the worst I've ever seen it. Diplomacy is a joke, rulers have "traits" that often conflict with context and force the player into unfavorable scenarios. Longtime allies will declare war for no reason despite them having zero chance of winning, they will lose handily and then the player suffers warmonger penalties when they didn't pick the fight in the first place. The warmonger penalties are incredibly annoying and overboard. AI seems to prioritize certain wonders and techs regardless of game context too which means they are predictable. Wartime AI is the worst its ever been, they can't even take walled cities properly. Barbarians are totally ineffective, just throwing themselves against the unit they will do the most damage to with no regard to other factors. This makes them a nuisance but not a real threat.

Civ 6 does a lot of stuff right too (districts are cool, no more stacking, great graphics, civics system is fantastic, etc) but the things it does wrong piss you off so much that you'll be throwing up your hands and wanting to play something else. A game with a lot of potential that needs significant patching, as per the usual with Civ games. Definitely wait for an expansion or two. It still has that Civ addictive charm but man some of the design decisions make me wonder if it was play tested at all.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 25, 2009
7796 posts
868 upvotes
I need to get Civ 6, waiting for a good sale though.

I'm enjoying Watch Dogs 2 as well, got it free with my card but yeah taking a break from it.

Deus Ex is actually running quite well for me on my 1070, I think they've fixed it up a bit with lots of patches since release. I run it on ultra with only two settings or so at a lower setting (can't remember which off the top of my head), with DX12 and I get solid 60 fps, only time it dips below that is when it's auto-saving. But I'm using a 1080p ultra wide screen though so only running it at 2560x1080 instead of standard 16:9 1440p or anything like that. Even then it has my 1070 going at 85-95% GPU load all the time and so far it's the only game I have that remotely taxes it.
"God's in His heaven. All's right with the world." - Robert Browning (1812-1889)
Deal Addict
Dec 12, 2006
4791 posts
617 upvotes
calgary
ReeGee wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2017 11:41 am
Wouldn't be surprised if Quantum Break and Horizon 3 didn't run great on that card but I would be surprised if Gears 4 didn't run great on it. That game is one of the best optimized PC ports ever and should run at 60fps with high settings at 1080p on that card
I was able to get a solid 60 FPS but at the expense of IQ, I dabbled a bit in campaign but I was mostly playing multiplayer and it was disappointing.

Honestly just looked and felt better on my XB1/TV then it did on my Computer/Monitor but there is a number of factors.

The same with FH3, I was able to get a fairly solid 30FPS in that game (which I was fine with) but the IQ was really really bad here (low draw distance, blurry textures, lots of pop in).

QB actually looked pretty good, about on par with the XB1 version but didnt run very smoothly from what I had played

Like I said though my expectations were probably too high for a 300$ GPU and/or I was simply playing the wrong games.

No big deal, Ill just hold out for a deal on a more expensive card
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
5270 posts
1719 upvotes
Toronto
SpicYMchaggis wrote:
Jan 4th, 2017 12:28 pm
I was able to get a solid 60 FPS but at the expense of IQ, I dabbled a bit in campaign but I was mostly playing multiplayer and it was disappointing.

Honestly just looked and felt better on my XB1/TV then it did on my Computer/Monitor but there is a number of factors.

The same with FH3, I was able to get a fairly solid 30FPS in that game (which I was fine with) but the IQ was really really bad here (low draw distance, blurry textures, lots of pop in).

QB actually looked pretty good, about on par with the XB1 version but didnt run very smoothly from what I had played

Like I said though my expectations were probably too high for a 300$ GPU and/or I was simply playing the wrong games.

No big deal, Ill just hold out for a deal on a more expensive card
Are you maybe due for a CPU/MB/RAM upgrade as well? It's well known that Forza and QB aren't the greatest ports but you may have a bottleneck if you got worse performance on a brand new 1060 than I get on a 970. The 1060 is about 10% faster than 970 in benchmarks and I was getting 60fps with minimal drops at 1080p with all high settings in FH3, and 60fps with a mix of med-high in QB. I could easily run FH3 on Ultra if I locked it to 30fps but preferred High/60fps. If you were only getting 30fps in FH3 with issues like low draw distance, bad textures and pop in it sounds like something was bottlenecking that card so a more expensive card may not be the answer
Deal Addict
Dec 12, 2006
4791 posts
617 upvotes
calgary
ReeGee wrote:
Jan 4th, 2017 2:03 pm
Are you maybe due for a CPU/MB/RAM upgrade as well? It's well known that Forza and QB aren't the greatest ports but you may have a bottleneck if you got worse performance on a brand new 1060 than I get on a 970. The 1060 is about 10% faster than 970 in benchmarks and I was getting 60fps with minimal drops at 1080p with all high settings in FH3, and 60fps with a mix of med-high in QB. I could easily run FH3 on Ultra if I locked it to 30fps but preferred High/60fps. If you were only getting 30fps in FH3 with issues like low draw distance, bad textures and pop in it sounds like something was bottlenecking that card so a more expensive card may not be the answer
Im running a fairly new (1.5 Year old) i5 processor (cant remember the exact make) and 8GB of ram and according to that handy benchmark tool in Gears 4 my GPU was indeed the bottleneck but I dont really know. It was the 3GB version of the 1060, Im not sure how that compares to the 970 (however it was about 375$ for the 6GB version). Forza definitely has issues, with everything set to ultra I was getting an extremely choppy 18-30FPS.

Im wondering if the textures just looked worse then they do on my XB1 because Im sitting much closer to my monitor then I am my TV to notice these things or maybe there was just a glitch with my video card. The player textures in Halo 5 looked worse as well and that was set at the highest settings.

If Im going to drop 300+$ on a video card it better be worth my while. In this case it really didn't feel worth it.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
5930 posts
775 upvotes
Grimsby
What monitor do you have? Many TVs have better panels than the average consumer monitor.

Too many other possibilities to list really. I have yet to see a multiplatform game look better on a console than on my gaming PC but to be fair its got insane specs so it should.
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
5270 posts
1719 upvotes
Toronto
SpicYMchaggis wrote:
Jan 4th, 2017 2:28 pm
Im running a fairly new (1.5 Year old) i5 processor (cant remember the exact make) and 8GB of ram and according to that handy benchmark tool in Gears 4 my GPU was indeed the bottleneck but I dont really know. It was the 3GB version of the 1060, Im not sure how that compares to the 970 (however it was about 375$ for the 6GB version). Forza definitely has issues, with everything set to ultra I was getting an extremely choppy 18-30FPS.

Im wondering if the textures just looked worse then they do on my XB1 because Im sitting much closer to my monitor then I am my TV to notice these things or maybe there was just a glitch with my video card. The player textures in Halo 5 looked worse as well and that was set at the highest settings.

If Im going to drop 300+$ on a video card it better be worth my while. In this case it really didn't feel worth it.
damn I could be overestimating how good a 3GB 1060 is and/or underestimating how bad the ports for Forza and QB actually are. Probably a combination of both tbh. It's too bad you didn't have anything outside of the Windows store to test with. I got mostly good performance out of those games and figure a similar budget card would perform the same, but there are still lots of other people with the same and better hardware claiming those games run like crap for them no matter what they do so tough to say what it is exactly
Redmask wrote:
Jan 4th, 2017 3:01 pm
Too many other possibilities to list really. I have yet to see a multiplatform game look better on a console than on my gaming PC but to be fair its got insane specs so it should.

still it's not like a 1060 is some under powered low budget card. That card can run TW3 at 60fps at 1080p/Ultra. No benchmarks seem to include any windows store games though so it may be as simple as these windows store ports just being extra flaky with 3GB of VRAM
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
5270 posts
1719 upvotes
Toronto
I just saw this interesting article summarizing a survey from GDC 2017. More developers are making games for PC than any other platform and by a fairly wide margin. Interesting that Nintendo isn't even on there despite releasing a new console soon but maybe not since they've always leaned on first party titles


http://www.dsogaming.com/news/gdc-2017- ... ng-for-it/

Image
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 29, 2003
17681 posts
1307 upvotes
There are no royalties to pay when you make a game on PC so smaller devs aim there first.
R.I.P. Rick Rypien #37

For Sale:
shortened url's are not allowed

Top