WYP
News Guru
Bioware claims that Mass Effect Andromeda will play at 4K 60FPS+ on a GTX 1080Ti.
Read more on Mass Effect Andromeda's PC performance.
Read more on Mass Effect Andromeda's PC performance.
Bioware claims that Mass Effect Andromeda will play at 4K 60FPS+ on a GTX 1080Ti
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
WYP
News Guru
VRAM better not be a limiting factor, I know tonnes of people who are still using 2GB cards.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Thelosouvlakia
Classy-Fried-Chicken
And the whole community shat their pants when in the previous news-flash from EA-Bioware they talked about 30fps gameplay...
Mass Effect.... rollercoaster of emotions already.
Mass Effect.... rollercoaster of emotions already.
I dont understand this sometimes, we scream as the pc master race, use our hardware, give us better then console quality, push that envolope for graphic fidelity. We are the pc master race!!.
But as soon as we need to have gear to push the quality its a case of, but hey why do i need this gear to run this game at ultra on 4k.
But as soon as we need to have gear to push the quality its a case of, but hey why do i need this gear to run this game at ultra on 4k.
AlienALX
Well-known member
We're a bunch of mugs. Mugs who continually get mugged off and make all sorts of excuses about it.
Kourgath223
Member
And the whole community shat their pants when in the previous news-flash from EA-Bioware they talked about 30fps gameplay...
Mass Effect.... rollercoaster of emotions already.
According to Michael Gamble, one of the producers for Andromeda that is/was at PAX East, clarified to PC Gamer that the minimum and recommended requirements are the bare minimum that you should get mentioning that on his PC at home he gets higher then 30fps for the majority of the game on a 1060. We will see if what he says is true once the early access starts.
http://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-andromedas-recommended-system-predicted-to-run-30-fps-at-1080p/
Avet
Active member
That is not the point of our bragging. Games shouldn't need fastest card on the planet to run because they are poorly optimized. You can have tons of better features on PC than on consoles at 1440p with 1070 and it should fly, making the graphics on consoles look like original Quake.
Point is that we should have better optimized games for PC, and not some poor console port that requires top hardware to play, when if it was made for PC it should run on half that. When they make game that utilizes full 1080Ti for graphic because graphics is beyond belief (kinda like original Crysis) then i will buy 1080Ti.
Exampe 1: Neverwinter Nights 2 latest version from GoG. i7-4790K,16GB 1866MHz DDR3, GTX 970 and it can't get 60fps at 1080p on max settings. That does not mean it has epic graphics. It is just badly optimized.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Nailed it on the head !
Some games on PC are epicly optimized, Mad Max being a prime example, Absolutely gorgeous game and it ran like silk on any hardware.
A lot of game devs sadly are just lazy and rely on the brute force tactic of PC hardware.
SPS
Moderator
Definitely not related to time constraints or tight budgets..
This is exactly the kind of statement that highlights acute inconsistency in the mindspace of pc gamers.
On the one hand if games come out and run really well to the point of not requiring the latest hardware, then everyone cries foul that consoles are holding the industry back and things could look SO much better. You must raise the lowest common denominator.
Then there's people like you who, not unreasonably, want something to look good and play well on "average" hardware. But you go along the line of only being impressed if top end visuals can be achieved at a good clip on your comparatively cheap hardware.
Does anyone else see the problem? You can't have it both ways. You can't push the envelope far without reaching a bleeding edge. Conversely you cannot cater to everyone in this regard because whatever you do you're going to displease someone. This isn't about MEA specifically; it applies to all games but particularly AAA releases.
If your game could run everything max at huge resolutions and good frame rate on your 1060 then it would render high end GPUs all but defunct. The push for better would stop and the drive of continually improving visuals would cease. So, you know, have a thought...
AlienALX
Well-known member
I didn't say I wanted top end visuals on a game for it to be good. I just said that if time is spent working hard you can have it both ways. We have living proof of it. Any way, I would rather they released games with easier to run graphics engines so that it doesn't spoil the game itself.
I grew up on computers. From ZX80 to Spectrum etc. Whenever I got a new computer the games were always nowhere near as good as they were later in their life cycle. That's pretty much a fact on any computer or console released apart from a PC. With a Xbox 360 for example nobody could even have dreamed how vastly superior (both in scale and looks) from the early games. Same with the PS2.
And that happens once devs are given time with something. Something they are not given with PCs. "Oh hey we're making a PC game let me just order 50 of the latest GPUs for our devs to work with". So things are constantly changing and evolving, giving them more and more power with which to hide any shoddy work.
Case in point? GTA 4. When it came out it completely stunk. Rockstar said that "Higher end graphics are reserved for future systems". Hmm, really? Their fix was to eventually derp the graphics settings.
It took about three years before I actually had the hardware to run it with everything turned up, and by then it looked dated. On the flip side? GTAV. They delayed it so that they could make it work well on modest hardware, a roaring success. Same method they used with Max Payne 3. Looked stunning on regular old cards, ran very well.
90% of PC games these days are released broken, and then fixed after the fact. Do you think that's unreasonable of me too? to expect a game I paid £50 for to actually work?
I just literally got done completing Dead Rising 3. Oh it was a great laugh and I enjoyed it immensely playing along with my chum. However, to this day it remains quite badly broken. Example - we started playing a chapter and the woman who was supposed to follow us just freaked out and started attacking us. We killed her, then nothing happened. Reloaded the entire chapter? worked OK after putting in two extra hours to get back to the same point.
Later in the game we had to get this chick to follow us for a KM. She got right to the end then just froze. Again had to reload the game to an earlier chapter and do it all again.
No updates for the game....
Lynx
New member
Because they would be limiting themselves, if they had an engine that could run 60fps max settings on a 1060 then everyone who had purchased a better GPU would not be getting their money's worth. A game being able to scale across all current generation GPUs is a game well developed.
Sorry but I don't see how any of what you just replied follows on from what I typed. Patches and unfinished games are not what we're discussing here and not what my point was about so how I feel about those isn't relevant.
You said what would impress you would be visuals that equal what was mentioned being achievable on your hardware and that is tantamount to the same thing. It is in part due to the restrictions of the lowest common hardware denominator that games look as good as they do. Texture compression these days is amazing which is why say Fallout 4 massive texture pack doesn't make it massively better despite the huge variance in memory required. If Devs always had masses of memory and bandwidth there would never have been any incentive to improve on texture compression techniques and algorithms. Limitations enforce creativity.
Besides, can you say that MEA looks bad on the settings your system needs to run it well? Have you got the game and played it enough yet to give such a verdict? I suspect not and even if you have or eventually do, and you come to the same conclusion it will not change that you indicated you aren't impressed.
GTAV is also an interesting example for you to choose given that, as a product, it is atypical of console PC hybrid releases. Shelf life for GTA games is markedly longer than 99% of titled. It's still in the UK charts despite being released years ago.
The engine used has a greater scope that accounts for this longevity and is why modders are making amazing visual conversion pieces for it. It's also why, visually, the game can still compare favourably in some ways to more contemporary titles. What element of that is laziness?
You grew up on computers, another interesting point. Where does your opinion lie when it comes to playing console games? Multiplatform releases are the norm now but this hasn't always been the case and in the era of hardware you're so fondly waxing lyrical about the same game released on different platforms would often be a different game entirely, created by a different developer and so there is little basis for comparison.
It comes down to this. If you've got a system with a GTX 1060 in it, you're not high end you're mid range. That GPU barely beats out a 980, which was released over 2.5 years ago. That's a long time in the PC hardware world. If you think it's laziness causing your mid range system not to be able to play brand new games at ultra, 4K, 60fps then you're just crazy. The Devs could optimise for years and not achieve that. Optimisation should happen but shouldn't be there for its own sake, the target platform is constantly evolving and so at some point you give the order to stop. If you want all your settings maxed out, then poney up for high end hardware that can do it. You don't see driving enthusiasts complaining that their 4 year old Hyundai i10 1litre doesn't do 0-60 in 2 seconds and doesn't compare favourably to a Bugatti Veyron. Different market granted but the sentiment certainly has comparable elements.
The engine used has a greater scope that accounts for this longevity and is why modders are making amazing visual conversion pieces for it. It's also why, visually, the game can still compare favourably in some ways to more contemporary titles. What element of that is laziness?
You grew up on computers, another interesting point. Where does your opinion lie when it comes to playing console games? Multiplatform releases are the norm now but this hasn't always been the case and in the era of hardware you're so fondly waxing lyrical about the same game released on different platforms would often be a different game entirely, created by a different developer and so there is little basis for comparison.
It comes down to this. If you've got a system with a GTX 1060 in it, you're not high end you're mid range. That GPU barely beats out a 980, which was released over 2.5 years ago. That's a long time in the PC hardware world. If you think it's laziness causing your mid range system not to be able to play brand new games at ultra, 4K, 60fps then you're just crazy. The Devs could optimise for years and not achieve that. Optimisation should happen but shouldn't be there for its own sake, the target platform is constantly evolving and so at some point you give the order to stop. If you want all your settings maxed out, then poney up for high end hardware that can do it. You don't see driving enthusiasts complaining that their 4 year old Hyundai i10 1litre doesn't do 0-60 in 2 seconds and doesn't compare favourably to a Bugatti Veyron. Different market granted but the sentiment certainly has comparable elements.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
This is it. GTA V is incredibly hard to run at max settings—and I mean max. But it's also possible to run smoothly on very low-end hardware. This is what makes a successful game in my opinion. You're catering for the largest audience. Your game doesn't have to have the best graphics. GTA V is nothing special but it serves its purpose and allows a wide range of consumers to enjoy the game fully.
I thought MGS was well done as well. Looked very nice but ran well.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
SPS fact still stands. Just because it is Ubisoft doesn't mean they can afford to go over budget.
