• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

What are you playing?

Took a break from my 2nd playthrough of RE8 to play the Valhalla's DLC Wrath of the Druids...
View attachment 200420
No offence man, but why does it look so bad? It is supposed to be a modern game, but there's no grass and instead there's only green flat texture. Sea on right has big grey square and there are almost no shadows.
 
Last edited:
No offence man, but why does it look so bad? It is supposed to be a modern game, but there's no grass and instead there's only green flat texture. See on right has big grey square and there are almost no shadows,
ima guess thats the game as hes running a 3090 but in the end graphics don't really matter

Ok so im looking for some racing games to play with my friends as we have exhausted forza
any suggestions
 
No offence man, but why does it look so bad? It is supposed to be a modern game, but there's no grass and instead there's only green flat texture. See on right has big grey square and there are almost no shadows,
In reality it’s a very beautiful game. Screens are tough, depending what method used to capture them. Even so, the graphics aren’t the main draw.
 
In reality it’s a very beautiful game. Screens are tough, depending what method used to capture them. Even so, the graphics aren’t the main draw.
Yeah, I know. Its just surprising that new AAA game looks like it has environment modelling from 2004 and that's with RTX 3090 and likely not on low preset. Other models like character and trees seem to be good.
 
Last edited:
No offence man, but why does it look so bad? It is supposed to be a modern game, but there's no grass and instead there's only green flat texture. See on right has big grey square and there are almost no shadows,

It's most likely just perspective...it's hard to see a blade of grass across a canyon and being Ireland they might have went for the mossy look.

2.jpg


3.jpg
 
So The Burning Crusade Classic prepatch dropped yesterday and I'm playing it and ... it's almost depressing really. WoW Classic felt like a breath of fresh air to me. It was slow ("Kill some spiders, and there's literally a seven minute walk there and then a seven minute walk back when you're done") and there was a LOT of walking even between quests ("go there, and the nearest fly point is like a ten minute walk away and there is this huge zone and only a single fly point and it's located on the extreme end") and it was rough and TBC has really smoothed some of those edges... But to me the game is worse, as an experience. As a game it's probably better, but on the whole ... nah. I've been playing Classic VERY casually the last four months or so and I have liked it. The slowness, the grind and the slow progression felt realistic, somehow. It felt correct, for the world it was portraying. It was part of the pacing. Yes, you have to spend all this time looking at a road and whatever is beside the road, but that's just how it is, and it's fine. You don't get quest pointers on the mini map, you just have to see who has something for you to do, and you just have to read the quest and to look around and see if you see anything that makes sense. The mineral ore stacks just went up to 10 because minerals are heavy. It felt accurate. Real, for the game. Already i see some of it being stripped away in favour of ... what, exactly? Effeciency? So they make this entire world which is quite well crafted, and then they make it so you can progress through it quicker, because the world is pointless? I get that in an MMO the end goal for many is the end game stuff, but still.

We'll see how long I go now, but I'll probably keep playing, but still very casually. One nice thing is that level progression up to lvl 60 is faster (but it's not entirely good as the levels feels cheap now). I really want to see TBC from Alliance side but real time as it were, I played Horde back in the day. Why play a game I've already played? Because it's a nice place to be, IMO.
 
So The Burning Crusade Classic prepatch dropped yesterday and I'm playing it and ... it's almost depressing really. WoW Classic felt like a breath of fresh air to me. It was slow ("Kill some spiders, and there's literally a seven minute walk there and then a seven minute walk back when you're done") and there was a LOT of walking even between quests ("go there, and the nearest fly point is like a ten minute walk away and there is this huge zone and only a single fly point and it's located on the extreme end") and it was rough and TBC has really smoothed some of those edges... But to me the game is worse, as an experience. As a game it's probably better, but on the whole ... nah. I've been playing Classic VERY casually the last four months or so and I have liked it. The slowness, the grind and the slow progression felt realistic, somehow. It felt correct, for the world it was portraying. It was part of the pacing. Yes, you have to spend all this time looking at a road and whatever is beside the road, but that's just how it is, and it's fine. You don't get quest pointers on the mini map, you just have to see who has something for you to do, and you just have to read the quest and to look around and see if you see anything that makes sense. The mineral ore stacks just went up to 10 because minerals are heavy. It felt accurate. Real, for the game. Already i see some of it being stripped away in favour of ... what, exactly? Effeciency? So they make this entire world which is quite well crafted, and then they make it so you can progress through it quicker, because the world is pointless? I get that in an MMO the end goal for many is the end game stuff, but still.

We'll see how long I go now, but I'll probably keep playing, but still very casually. One nice thing is that level progression up to lvl 60 is faster (but it's not entirely good as the levels feels cheap now). I really want to see TBC from Alliance side but real time as it were, I played Horde back in the day. Why play a game I've already played? Because it's a nice place to be, IMO.

I played WoW a lot in 2004/2005, the reward was very very satisfying because it was so hard to get anything, like the level 40 mount, etc. In regular WoW now when you get a reward the reward feels less satisfying but satisfying enough.

Time invested and pay off has a direct relationship with dopamine release in the brain. I'm pretty sure all games utilize this method now. They know you have little time though so they give you less dopamine but more often, instead of a lot of dopamine after a long investment.

I'm not sure what to think of it honestly. It's sort of the reason I'm becoming disenchanted with traditional games. I want something more... something new that isn't playing the dopamine game cause it's the easy way out.
 
I played WoW a lot in 2004/2005, the reward was very very satisfying because it was so hard to get anything, like the level 40 mount, etc. In regular WoW now when you get a reward the reward feels less satisfying but satisfying enough.

Time invested and pay off has a direct relationship with dopamine release in the brain. I'm pretty sure all games utilize this method now. They know you have little time though so they give you less dopamine but more often, instead of a lot of dopamine after a long investment.

I'm not sure what to think of it honestly. It's sort of the reason I'm becoming disenchanted with traditional games. I want something more... something new that isn't playing the dopamine game cause it's the easy way out.
Quicker shorter hits also keep you coming back for more. Dopamine is the motivator essentially, so they give you just enough to keep you playing.

I kind of feel you though. Too many times, I played a game and enjoyed it all the way through, but never got satisfaction. By the time I get to a payoff Im apathetic from the constant little hits.

And I mean... I have ADHD so I literally live from one dopamine bump to another... I need them to do things like... remember where I am and what Im doing. All day I need that going or I am getting beaten out by children when it comes to executive functioning.. Part of what makes games gripping for me is that tendency to provide steady, immediate feedback. It turns my brain on big time.

So those litlle bumps are important for me.

But once the brain is really on, it still wants a payoff. Otherwise playing your game is like drinking a glass of water for me. Turning my brain on but not really giving me much. It shows! People definitely feel that, if even I and my effed up brain can. Id play for hours with not much happening if I know Im working towards that. It takes more mental effort for me, but its never not worth it.
 
Just started Resident Evil Village and already had few better-than-average jumpscares. The gameplay feels like RE7 but with a little improvements.

Though I'm having some weird issues as I have a lag-spike like stutter. Updated the GPU driver to the newest one, didn't help.
 
Just started Resident Evil Village and already had few better-than-average jumpscares. The gameplay feels like RE7 but with a little improvements.

Though I'm having some weird issues as I have a lag-spike like stutter. Updated the GPU driver to the newest one, didn't help.

i think its the game itself, certain corridors in resident evil 2 and 3 i get frame drops for no reason, empty corridor with no zombies or monster..
and i've got a powerful rig....
 
i think its the game itself, certain corridors in resident evil 2 and 3 i get frame drops for no reason, empty corridor with no zombies or monster..
and i've got a powerful rig....
Guys on my discord server said that maybe my RAM OC isn't 100% stable, I need to check that one as I put TestMem running as I go to bed.

Otherwise 1080 Ti runs without problems on 1080p60 with everything maxed out.
 
Time invested and pay off has a direct relationship with dopamine release in the brain. I'm pretty sure all games utilize this method now. They know you have little time though so they give you less dopamine but more often, instead of a lot of dopamine after a long investment.

I'm not sure what to think of it honestly. It's sort of the reason I'm becoming disenchanted with traditional games. I want something more... something new that isn't playing the dopamine game cause it's the easy way out.

Is that reward based on time spent though? In retail WoW the hits is a constant stream, and you only have to look at the screen to get some snazzy Achievement Unlocked graphics. Or No Mans Sky which had some graphics popup when you managed 1000 steps.
 
Currently playing Kingdoms and Castle... its a fun game with lots of things to build.
You can choose maps with enemies or an empty map to build leisurely.
The specs to run this game are parts from 10 years ago.. so no need high end hardware to play...
I picked this up on sale for $5
 

Attachments

  • Town.jpg
    Town.jpg
    371.9 KB · Views: 87
RE Village (3).png


Been playing a lot of the new Custody Battle 8 on the Xbox Series X starring Ethan Winters & super model vamp witches, on my 5th playthrough, really enjoying it.
 
Yeah, I know. Its just surprising that new AAA game looks like it has environment modelling from 2004 and that's with RTX 3090 and likely not on low preset. Other models like character and trees seem to be good.
A premium car like a 3090 isnt going to make a game look a generation ahead of its time, it only means you can play at higher resolutions and frame rates
 
A premium car like a 3090 isnt going to make a game look a generation ahead of its time, it only means you can play at higher resolutions and frame rates
I meant that it can max it out and run at high framerate. That should prevent low spec aesthetics in latest AAA game.
 
I meant that it can max it out and run at high framerate. That should prevent low spec aesthetics in latest AAA game.
LOD is the key here. Probably a bad match of smaller objects that fall outside of LOD ranges and no intermediate range version that shows anything. If its just grass, then it kinda makes sense, pop in has always been a thing in Ubisoft open world engines. I vividly remember the way stuff pops in in Far Cry, with the tiny block pattern.

The only game that doesn't have it uses a non-Ubisoft made engine, and its The Division, but even that one can have some vistas that could probably look a bit better in the distance.
 
Man... Control really is just a tightly put together game. Even the gameplay itself ties in... you're never told but the way to win fights in that game is to become one with the chaos - use it as a power. That is the theme of the whole game and it manifests in about 1000 ways, big and small. And when you do, it's a blast! Props to Remedy, I have a lot of goodwill towards them. There's a lot of vision and attention to detail in their games. I guess they'll always sort of be a cult thing, but I look at them and see a group of people who know what they're about and have been working together for a long time, and it shows in how well all of the different elements in their games jive... all the way down to the lore. It's like everybody working on it knew everything about it.

Anybody know what I mean? I feel like in nearly every modern game I play, there's a bunch of stuff in them that were clearly somebody else's ideas... and they're ideas a lot of other people working on the game didn't appear to know about, so there will be these irksome little conflicts between different elements of the game. Control might be one of the few games I've played that doesn't feel like a bunch of people just made a bunch of parts and hoped they would stick together. The whole thing is a well-oiled machine, never off-brand, always going deeper, always leaving room for more. I can say this because when I get into a game, I tear it to pieces. Listen to me talk about FO4 and you'd think I must hate it. For me to be combing over a game and being like "Yeah... this is nearly flawless." is pretty rare. Sometimes I have to say out loud how impressed I am when I play. :laugh:

They must be like a hivemind of automotons over there. It's basically the opposite of Bethesda, where it seems like they'll let anybody just add a big quest or other element that defies the general gameplay concepts and creates glaring plot holes. No... Control could've been made by just one very dedicated person and I wouldn't have questioned it. As a game it is just so... "complete."

Scope matters a lot. Some devs know their scope... others just don't. See CDPR for an example of the latter and then compare it to a game like Control. Different styles of game, but I'm not talking about style, or any defining elements. It's about the ideas and their execution. Is this a neatly arranged shelf or a grab-bag of elements with varying degrees of quality?
Control is legendary, its game play was so much fun to play an its story and atmosphere were intriguing.
Did you know Control was first teased in 2012 ?!
In the ending cridits song of Alan Wake American Nightmare, OST ( Balance slays the demon ), if you play the song in reverse, there are hidden lyrics that say: " it will happen again, in another town, a town called ordinary" Thats the name of the town that the protagonist lived in where the altered world event happend and she got her powers from.
crazy right.
here go in and read the comments !

 
LOD is the key here. Probably a bad match of smaller objects that fall outside of LOD ranges and no intermediate range version that shows anything. If its just grass, then it kinda makes sense, pop in has always been a thing in Ubisoft open world engines. I vividly remember the way stuff pops in in Far Cry, with the tiny block pattern.

The only game that doesn't have it uses a non-Ubisoft made engine, and its The Division, but even that one can have some vistas that could probably look a bit better in the distance.
But in Far Cry times we also had Athlon 64 and Pentium 4, for graphics - nVidia 6800 Ultra and ATi X800 XT PE only. We were quite limited by hardware, also huge ass world would be limited by then normal 512MB or 1GB RAM. Far Cry had a huge world, which was explorable and unique at the time and it already was tough on CPU. So it made sense to sacrifice something to make it run. Graphics cards had 256MB top frame buffer, but Far Cry only needed 128 MB with highest textures. But now what exactly is great about Valhalla? It's world is 38.5 square miles big, meanwhile GTA 5 has 49 square miles big map. GTA 5 runs very well on lower end hardware, meanwhile Valhalla does not. GTA 5 can look pretty decent with maximum settings, Valhalla cannot. Smells like Ubi can't really optimize games well. Anyway, I wonder if it has a console or ini file, where you can raise LOD. It would be interesting to see if higher LOD would tank fps or not.
 
But in Far Cry times we also had Athlon 64 and Pentium 4, for graphics - nVidia 6800 Ultra and ATi X800 XT PE only. We were quite limited by hardware, also huge ass world would be limited by then normal 512MB or 1GB RAM. Far Cry had a huge world, which was explorable and unique at the time and it already was tough on CPU. So it made sense to sacrifice something to make it run. Graphics cards had 256MB top frame buffer, but Far Cry only needed 128 MB with highest textures. But now what exactly is great about Valhalla? It's world is 38.5 square miles big, meanwhile GTA 5 has 49 square miles big map. GTA 5 runs very well on lower end hardware, meanwhile Valhalla does not. GTA 5 can look pretty decent with maximum settings, Valhalla cannot. Smells like Ubi can't really optimize games well. Anyway, I wonder if it has a console or ini file, where you can raise LOD. It would be interesting to see if higher LOD would tank fps or not.
The pop in ubi games reminds me a little bit of memory issues with bethesda titles. There is a fix for it, which basically just involves changing an allocation, but it needs to be injected in at render level via ENB. It actually ends up coming down to RAM vs VRAM, which are then combined into one net allocation and if the math isn't right for your hardware (generally isn't,) performance suffers a little and you get tons of pop. Usually starts to happen when loading the engine down with higher-res textures, more objects, even just pushing the LOD tiers back to get more detail up in mid-detail distances. Start calling bigger textures sooner, you eventually hit that conflict where there will be stuff that should be in VRAM sitting in your RAM. Of course, when that happens there will be intermittent microstutter and texture pop corresponding.

Something like that. I haven't actually had to do that fix in a coupla years because it is set and forget. IIRC the allocation is actually too HIGH in many cases, leading to the RAM being used in cases where it shouldn't be. Kinda like the old page file trick. See... those games were made in a time when people generally didn't necessarily have 4-8gb on tap. The engine started off being 32-bit and it's the same one today, only brought into 64-bit times! It made sense to let the game run into RAM like that, people weren't expecting crazy frame rates from an open-world game of that scale, resolutions were generally lower, and people weren't piling up enough mods to actively eat 16gb of memory with ease. It didn't hurt, and for machines with less vram, actually made it much more runnable. Nowadays we bypass that with modern hardware, but the engine doesn't know how to use it on its own.

In that case, it's really not a failure of the engine. Within its stock parameters, the pop isn't an issue anymore, unless your hardware really isn't up to task, memory-wise (you can still benefit, but not nearly as much because it really is a hard wall of grunt.) But when you push it a little too far, it shows its cracks. All engines will and a big part of the technical challenge of a game is aligning the right capabilities. If you don't have them when you go to start putting it together, gotta make compromises, which is its own skill.

So I'm with you. I think they try to 'do the most' with it and are probably overtaxing what they really have to work with, basically ensuring that the game won't run 'perfectly' on any hardware. I use quotes because obviously no game does, but you know what I mean :p
 
Last edited:
The pop in ubi games reminds me a little bit of memory issues with bethesda titles. There is a fix for it, which basically just involves changing an allocation, but it needs to be injected in at render level via ENB. It actually ends up coming down to RAM vs VRAM, which are then combined into one net allocation and if the math isn't right for your hardware (generally isn't,) performance suffers a little and you get tons of pop. Usually starts to happen when loading the engine down with higher-res textures, more objects, even just pushing the LOD tiers back to get more detail up in mid-detail distances. Start calling bigger textures sooner, you eventually hit that conflict where there will be stuff that should be in VRAM sitting in your RAM. Of course, when that happens there will be intermittent microstutter and texture pop corresponding.

Something like that. I haven't actually had to do that fix in a coupla years because it is set and forget. IIRC the allocation is actually too HIGH in many cases, leading to the RAM being used in cases where it shouldn't be. Kinda like the old page file trick. See... those games were made in a time when people generally didn't necessarily have 4-8gb on tap. The engine started off being 32-bit and it's the same one today, only brought into 64-bit times! It made sense to let the game run into RAM like that, people weren't expecting crazy frame rates from an open-world game of that scale, resolutions were generally lower, and people weren't piling up enough mods to actively eat 16gb of memory with ease. It didn't hurt, and for machines with less vram, actually made it much more runnable. Nowadays we bypass that with modern hardware, but the engine doesn't know how to use it on its own.

In that case, it's really not a failure of the engine. Within its stock parameters, the pop isn't an issue anymore, unless your hardware really isn't up to task, memory-wise (you can still benefit, but not nearly as much because it really is a hard wall of grunt.) But when you push it a little too far, it shows its cracks. All engines will and a big part of the technical challenge of a game is aligning the right capabilities. If you don't have them when you go to start putting it together, gotta make compromises, which is its own skill.

So I'm with you. I think they try to 'do the most' with it and are probably overtaxing what they really have to work with, basically ensuring that the game won't run 'perfectly' on any hardware. I use quotes because obviously no game does, but you know what I mean :p
So you are saying that Valhalla uses old engine?
 
So you are saying that Valhalla uses old engine?
Nope, just giving an example of an engine pushed a little too far. Very different in most other regards. More relating to your recounting of Far Cry. Jogged a memory for me.
 
Nope, just giving an example of an engine pushed a little too far. Very different in most other regards. More relating to your recounting of Far Cry. Jogged a memory for me.
Okay. But Far Cry was only difficult to run at time. Now it's nothing. Even AMD A4 6300 APU can run it maxed out at 1080p and get 60 fps and this APU has barely faster cores than Athlon 64 and integrated GPU is Radeon 4550 fast. In fact, if you bought Athlon 64 3400+ and ATi X800 Pro back then, you could have ran it at 1280x1024 with high settings and get almost always 60 fps (except volcano mission, which was very taxing). If you wanted to, Athlon 64 3200+ and nVidia FX 5200 128MB 64bit could run the game at 800x600 low settings high textures at 30 fps. People were just freaking out because it didn't run well on Pentium 3. But other than high CPU requirements, it wasn't hard to run. FX5200 is an equivalent of Geforce 2 GTS, which was back then already really old. And it was also fine if memory ran in single channel mode (like on socket 754).

I remember Stalker and Far Cry 2 being very hard to run back then. That was 2006, maybe 2007. Oblivion wasn't out yet, neither Crysis (now this one had rally awful development).
 
Back
Top