• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

What are you playing?

What!?! Who plays games on PC?!? Use it to make money! That is why we have consoles for to play games the way it's meant to be played....(Just Joking)
 
I started playing EverQuest again lastnight
><

Don't hit me!
126268
 
Last edited:
So I wish I was able to play this beauty that I just happened to win :)

screenshot-20190705-193214.png
 
I’ve been playing a good deal of Ghost Recon Wildlands, about 60 hours at this point. Had one funny mission that was so frustrating. I had to infiltrate this refinery and find the mine manager to get the location of a boss’s personal banker, or something like that.

First time I stealthily killed nearly every one on my way to him, and got killed trying to interrogate him while a rude cartel member shot at me and killed me.
.
The second time I rinsed and repeated, except I got to the roof and left in a helicopter for the mine, to rescue the personal banker so we could pump him for our own info. I fight my way in, rescue him, and die trying to get him out because more cartel show up.

I thought “screw this” as soon as it threw me to the beginning of the mission again. I went to the nearest safe house and grabbed a barebones no weapon chopper, flying 20m above the ground till the plant. I deliberately crashed it on the edge of the roof with their helicopter that had mini guns. :laugh:

I jumped out, interrogated the plant manager and took off in their undamaged chopper, leaving mine hanging off of roof by a landing skid. Used the mini guns to obliterate most of cartel members, extract the guy to the chopper again, and take to safehouse.

That’s what I like about this game. There is no one way, or right way to accomplish these missions:
 
Last edited:
rtwjunkie said:
I’ve been playing a good deal of Ghost Recon Wildlands, about 60 hours at this point. Had one funny mission that was so frustrating. I had to infiltrate this refinery and find the mine manager to get the location of a boss’s personal banker, or something like that.

First time I stealthily killed nearly every one on my way to him, and got killed trying to interrogate him while a rude cartel member shot at me and killed me.
.
The second time I rinsed and repeated, except I got to the roof and left in a helicopter for the mine, to rescue the personal banker so we could pump him for our own info. I fight my way in, rescue him, and die trying to get him out because more cartel show up.

I thought “screw this” as soon as it threw me to the beginning of the mission again. I went to the nearest safe house and grabbed a barebones no weapon chopper, flying 20m above the ground till the plant. I deliberately crashed it on the edge of the roof with their helicopter that had mini guns. :laugh:

I jumped out, interrogated the plant manager and took off in their undamaged chopper, leaving mine hanging off of roof by a landing skid. Used the mini guns to obliterate most of cartel members, extract the guy to the chopper again, and take to safehouse.

That’s what I like about this game. There is no one way, or right way to accomplish these missions:
Click to expand...

I remember that mission very well. It ends in that massive quarry doesn't it? Man I got swamped SO many times on that one. And yeah, you can totally exploit yourself into an easy win, I figured that out later :D
 
Taking a trip down memory lane by playing GTA Vice City. Was the first I ever played of the series and did so on PC. The mission The Driver still makes me want to throw my device away. Don't really know what the purpose of the mission was - why would I hire a driver I could beat? And he was useless anyway, dies during the heist and leaves Tommy to do the driving!
 
I'm still playing Kingdom Come Deliverance. Even with cheats to spa...spa...spa...speed it the hell up, it'll still take another 2 months. It's funny though, i can get off a horse now and the bandits will start running away. I'll have to chase'um down and wup'um with a sword. :)
 
Last edited:
@Cvrk I think it's more of making the wrap manually imo. I don't think there is a way to import layers or community made decals/vinyls unless there's one in the wild.
 
On the menu for tonight...

126283


can't wait. I hope its the pinnacle of 3.5 D&D ruleset gameplay after having wrestled my way through BG1 EE, BG2 EE and NWN2 :D Having a blast with this nostalgic, focused series of games :)

Can recommend. Revisiting these old classics now with the Enhanced Editions is a pretty good, comfortable experience (much better than its originals, for sure) especially at higher resolutions... and Pathfinder is looking to be a massive BG2-like experience... the perfect prelude to BG3? They finished their Season pass roadmap just a month ago so now's the time... its on sale 50% at Steam as well.
 
Unreal still looks good after all these years and I still remember when I fired it up with a new Voodoo II SLI setup.
unreal-win10.jpg
 
Still playing sottr to death. At some point I will probably do everything. Lara is ridiculously fit and OP... she's godlike. But it's pretty fun in an arcadey kind of way. Which reminds me, why is that a dirty word now? Why is simple and fun bad? In a game like this, I think it's how things ought to be, as it allows you to better take in the very dense and detailed environments which are a focal point in the game. Maybe that's my inexperience with the franchise talking, but has it ever not been a somewhat arcadey, terrain-puzzle/exploration game? That's what sticks out to me over its entire history. Pure camp. They even de-emphasized the combat. It's actually largely about the jungles and tombs, now. To me, that's great!

I don't know why I do these things to myself, but I was reading that quite a few people actually think the graphics in this game look bad... some of it comes off as trollish, but I get the impression that a lot of people legitimately believe that it's a massive step back. A lot of them comparing it to Rise... which I have played (though admittedly not beat,) but still don't see it. Just... no way, man! Nothing is revolutionized, but most things are marginally better. How is this a thing? But then, I feel like if you have to explain it to me... like you cannot show screenshots and have these other games just be intuitively better... yeah, nuff said. What's that line about how explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog?

But I guess some steam users think it looks worse, or even just bad in general? https://steamcommunity.com/app/750920/discussions/0/1742220359694882762/?ctp=1

I'm completely baffled by it. It all seems really nitpicky. I feel like it's really easy to cherry pick screenshots and then look at changes to the rendering engine and say "See it looks worse, and here's why! I'm a random person online and trust me, I know what I'm talking about. You only think it looks good because you don't. Your eyes are lying to you!!" Hard to take seriously, but the devils advocate in me says "Well, hey, Mike... maybe there's something to it."

And yet, when I sit and actually play the game, it looks night and day from most of the screenshots I saw in that thread. It really looks good! Consistently very good. And then there's the fact that a lot of the things they cite as deficits, very few games ever get right, anyway. There are always gonna be those random things that look like shit. The devil is ALWAYS going to be in the details. Of course plenty of things could always be done better, and have been. But it's all a balancing act. At some points I really had to laugh at the unwillingness to take in the big picture and see how all of the compromises are chosen to compliment each other and give you an image that best suits the look they're going for. If you don't like that look, that's one thing. Feel free to cite objective reasons for why, but beyond that I think it gets a little silly and elitist. It's easy to get stuck on technicalities. I've been down that road of not enjoying games as much because I fixated too much on the technicalities.

Of course, I'm biased... I was wowed by the level design and the graphical presentation. And as I spend more time with the game, I only appreciate it more. Not because I think they're the best ever, but because they work really well together to create a cohesive feel that I find pretty immersive. I can't believe I just read 12 pages of that crap... let alone tried to take it seriously. At the end of the day, it's simple. If you can't see what they're seeing, no amount of explaining light bounce in a condescending way is gonna convince you that there's a problem. Because I do actually see how those changes manifest, and I like them :p

If the lighting system is the number one complaint... I'm not convinced. To me, it looks more photorealistic... less HDR-like. And I mean that in a literal sense. It doesn't show what your eyes might see... a camera doesn't have the dynamic range that your eyes do. The difference is on several orders of immense magnitude. The sky is hundreds of thousands of times brighter than everything else, yet our eyes see the blue and the clouds, in addition to the trees on the ground. Quite often, a camera does not. You have to expose for one or the other. To simulate that with a camera, HDR is the only option. Shadows look harder with normal techniques. The overall percieved contrast difference is much, much higher through even the best cameras than it is in real life. Most people seem to prefer that, though. HDR is still not considered a great compromise for many people. You get more details in shadows, but the contrast actually suffers quite a lot. In many ways it is a flatter image. Display technology will have to evolve a lot more before that changes. I'd definitely prefer dark with contrast over detailed with less contrast in the meantime. Compositionally, it simplifies the images and makes what you do see in a scene pop, even if you lose the ability to make out everything in a given area.

To me, the lighting adds a lot more drama and scale to the imagery. I like how things can be very dark when you're crawling through Peru's ancient tombs and dungeons. Makes them really feel huge and full of mystery. To me, it just makes sense. It's so intuitive I hardly notice. Similarly, jungles actually are very dark in many places, even in the daytime. You don't expect those places to be immaculately lit. I dunno. I think it's all madness to equate this to "shit graphics." I just don't understand what people expected it to look like. Completely missing the point imo.
 
Last edited:
robot zombie said:
Still playing sottr to death. At some point I will probably do everything. Lara is ridiculously fit and OP... she's godlike. But it's pretty fun in an arcadey kind of way. Which reminds me, why is that a dirty word now? Why is simple and fun bad? In a game like this, I think it's how things ought to be, as it allows you to better take in the very dense and detailed environments which are a focal point in the game. Maybe that's my inexperience with the franchise talking, but has it ever not been a somewhat arcadey, terrain-puzzle/exploration game? That's what sticks out to me over its entire history. Pure camp. They even de-emphasized the combat. It's actually largely about the jungles and tombs, now. To me, that's great!

I don't know why I do these things to myself, but I was reading that quite a few people actually think the graphics in this game look bad... some of it comes off as trollish, but I get the impression that a lot of people legitimately believe that it's a massive step back. A lot of them comparing it to Rise... which I have played (though admittedly not beat,) but still don't see it. Just... no way, man! Nothing is revolutionized, but most things are marginally better. How is this a thing? But then, I feel like if you have to explain it to me... like you cannot show screenshots and have these other games just be intuitively better... yeah, nuff said. What's that line about how explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog?

But I guess some steam users think it looks worse, or even just bad in general? https://steamcommunity.com/app/750920/discussions/0/1742220359694882762/?ctp=1

I'm completely baffled by it. It all seems really nitpicky. I feel like it's really easy to cherry pick screenshots and then look at changes to the rendering engine and say "See it looks worse, and here's why! I'm a random person online and trust me, I know what I'm talking about. You only think it looks good because you don't. Your eyes are lying to you!!" Hard to take seriously, but the devils advocate in me says "Well, hey, Mike... maybe there's something to it."

And yet, when I sit and actually play the game, it looks night and day from most of the screenshots I saw in that thread. It really looks good! Consistently very good. And then there's the fact that a lot of the things they cite as deficits, very few games ever get right, anyway. There are always gonna be those random things that look like shit. The devil is ALWAYS going to be in the details. Of course plenty of things could always be done better, and have been. But it's all a balancing act. At some points I really had to laugh at the unwillingness to take in the big picture and see how all of the compromises are chosen to compliment each other and give you an image that best suits the look they're going for. If you don't like that look, that's one thing. Feel free to cite objective reasons for why, but beyond that I think it gets a little silly and elitist. It's easy to get stuck on technicalities. I've been down that road of not enjoying games as much because I fixated too much on the technicalities.

Of course, I'm biased... I was wowed by the level design and the graphical presentation. And as I spend more time with the game, I only appreciate it more. Not because I think they're the best ever, but because they work really well together to create a cohesive feel that I find pretty immersive. I can't believe I just read 12 pages of that crap... let alone tried to take it seriously. At the end of the day, it's simple. If you can't see what they're seeing, no amount of explaining light bounce in a condescending way is gonna convince you that there's a problem. Because I do actually see how those changes manifest, and I like them :p

If the lighting system is the number one complaint... I'm not convinced. To me, it looks more photorealistic... less HDR-like. And I mean that in a literal sense. It doesn't show what your eyes might see... a camera doesn't have the dynamic range that your eyes do. The difference is on several orders of immense magnitude. The sky is hundreds of thousands of times brighter than everything else, yet our eyes see the blue and the clouds, in addition to the trees on the ground. Quite often, a camera does not. You have to expose for one or the other. To simulate that with a camera, HDR is the only option. Shadows look harder with normal techniques. The overall percieved contrast difference is much, much higher through even the best cameras than it is in real life. Most people seem to prefer that, though. HDR is still not considered a great compromise for many people. You get more details in shadows, but the contrast actually suffers quite a lot. In many ways it is a flatter image. Display technology will have to evolve a lot more before that changes. I'd definitely prefer dark with contrast over detailed with less contrast in the meantime. Compositionally, it simplifies the images and makes what you do see in a scene pop, even if you lose the ability to make out everything in a given area.

To me, the lighting adds a lot more drama and scale to the imagery. I like how things can be very dark when you're crawling through Peru's ancient tombs and dungeons. Makes them really feel huge and full of mystery. To me, it just makes sense. It's so intuitive I hardly notice. Similarly, jungles actually are very dark in many places, even in the daytime. You don't expect those places to be immaculately lit. I dunno. I think it's all madness to equate this to "shit graphics." I just don't understand what people expected it to look like. Completely missing the point imo.
Click to expand...
The graphics in SOTTR are some of the best around. As you say, what do people expect?
 
Bloodstained: Ritual of The Night is incredible, starting my 2nd playthrough on harder difficulty now. Instant classic for fans of the old Castlevania games and definitely a great treat for most of Metroidvania fans. Just don't get it on Switch, runs like crap there judging by reports.
 
Splinterdog said:
Unreal still looks good after all these years and I still remember when I fired it up with a new Voodoo II SLI setup.
View attachment 126303
Click to expand...

Just look at that RTRT!

robot zombie said:
Still playing sottr to death. At some point I will probably do everything. Lara is ridiculously fit and OP... she's godlike. But it's pretty fun in an arcadey kind of way. Which reminds me, why is that a dirty word now? Why is simple and fun bad? In a game like this, I think it's how things ought to be, as it allows you to better take in the very dense and detailed environments which are a focal point in the game. Maybe that's my inexperience with the franchise talking, but has it ever not been a somewhat arcadey, terrain-puzzle/exploration game? That's what sticks out to me over its entire history. Pure camp. They even de-emphasized the combat. It's actually largely about the jungles and tombs, now. To me, that's great!

I don't know why I do these things to myself, but I was reading that quite a few people actually think the graphics in this game look bad... some of it comes off as trollish, but I get the impression that a lot of people legitimately believe that it's a massive step back. A lot of them comparing it to Rise... which I have played (though admittedly not beat,) but still don't see it. Just... no way, man! Nothing is revolutionized, but most things are marginally better. How is this a thing? But then, I feel like if you have to explain it to me... like you cannot show screenshots and have these other games just be intuitively better... yeah, nuff said. What's that line about how explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog?

But I guess some steam users think it looks worse, or even just bad in general? https://steamcommunity.com/app/750920/discussions/0/1742220359694882762/?ctp=1

I'm completely baffled by it. It all seems really nitpicky. I feel like it's really easy to cherry pick screenshots and then look at changes to the rendering engine and say "See it looks worse, and here's why! I'm a random person online and trust me, I know what I'm talking about. You only think it looks good because you don't. Your eyes are lying to you!!" Hard to take seriously, but the devils advocate in me says "Well, hey, Mike... maybe there's something to it."

And yet, when I sit and actually play the game, it looks night and day from most of the screenshots I saw in that thread. It really looks good! Consistently very good. And then there's the fact that a lot of the things they cite as deficits, very few games ever get right, anyway. There are always gonna be those random things that look like shit. The devil is ALWAYS going to be in the details. Of course plenty of things could always be done better, and have been. But it's all a balancing act. At some points I really had to laugh at the unwillingness to take in the big picture and see how all of the compromises are chosen to compliment each other and give you an image that best suits the look they're going for. If you don't like that look, that's one thing. Feel free to cite objective reasons for why, but beyond that I think it gets a little silly and elitist. It's easy to get stuck on technicalities. I've been down that road of not enjoying games as much because I fixated too much on the technicalities.

Of course, I'm biased... I was wowed by the level design and the graphical presentation. And as I spend more time with the game, I only appreciate it more. Not because I think they're the best ever, but because they work really well together to create a cohesive feel that I find pretty immersive. I can't believe I just read 12 pages of that crap... let alone tried to take it seriously. At the end of the day, it's simple. If you can't see what they're seeing, no amount of explaining light bounce in a condescending way is gonna convince you that there's a problem. Because I do actually see how those changes manifest, and I like them :p

If the lighting system is the number one complaint... I'm not convinced. To me, it looks more photorealistic... less HDR-like. And I mean that in a literal sense. It doesn't show what your eyes might see... a camera doesn't have the dynamic range that your eyes do. The difference is on several orders of immense magnitude. The sky is hundreds of thousands of times brighter than everything else, yet our eyes see the blue and the clouds, in addition to the trees on the ground. Quite often, a camera does not. You have to expose for one or the other. To simulate that with a camera, HDR is the only option. Shadows look harder with normal techniques. The overall percieved contrast difference is much, much higher through even the best cameras than it is in real life. Most people seem to prefer that, though. HDR is still not considered a great compromise for many people. You get more details in shadows, but the contrast actually suffers quite a lot. In many ways it is a flatter image. Display technology will have to evolve a lot more before that changes. I'd definitely prefer dark with contrast over detailed with less contrast in the meantime. Compositionally, it simplifies the images and makes what you do see in a scene pop, even if you lose the ability to make out everything in a given area.

To me, the lighting adds a lot more drama and scale to the imagery. I like how things can be very dark when you're crawling through Peru's ancient tombs and dungeons. Makes them really feel huge and full of mystery. To me, it just makes sense. It's so intuitive I hardly notice. Similarly, jungles actually are very dark in many places, even in the daytime. You don't expect those places to be immaculately lit. I dunno. I think it's all madness to equate this to "shit graphics." I just don't understand what people expected it to look like. Completely missing the point imo.
Click to expand...

The complaints I see on that link are about brightness and lighting balance. Too dull/dark picture. Maybe they need to rediscover the gamma curve... and install the correct driver version. Their loss ? :P
 
Grabbed State of Decay: YOSE yesterday. Enjoying it so far.
 
Racing dirty in Grid Autosport, just like the AI. Not a bad result in the end, although my car was beginning to pull to the right after so much damage.
I also added the rearview mirror mod which shouldn't be used if you're last in the pack.
 
365 subs @Splinterdog keep at it!

I'm kinda playing KurtzPel. ...kinda. A short intro is coming on my channel soon.
126388
 
366 subs now @Cvrk :)
I reinstalled Glidos earlier today, having got a free unlocked version a year or so ago when the dev was giving them away for a limited period.
In fact , he may still be doing so here:
Anyway, talk about skill fade. I had to go through the whole set up again for Tomb Raider as I couldn't remember the settings for my GOG version. I also patched it with the new FMV and groovy textures, making sure the Glidos settings were correct, which for me were Direct 3D 1600x1200.
Some lovely pixels in there.
tr1-gog-glidos.jpg
 
Sneaking up on enemy armor in Squad.
20190707202512_1.jpg
20190707202553_1.jpg
 
Is anyone not getting notification alerts for this thread? I tested it and it seems to be fine?
 
Last edited:
W1zzard said:
Is anyone not getting notification alerts for this thread? I tested it and it seems to be fine?
Click to expand...

I am and always have...
 
W1zzard said:
Is anyone not getting notification alerts for this thread? I tested it and it seems to be fine?
Click to expand...
Are you sure or aren't you?

And I didn't get any, btw. edit: I get email notifications but not when I'm on the site (bell)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top