Maybe they'll simply disable some of the least efficient shader effects for Ultra preset? Stuff that, eg, makes 2-5% visual difference yet lowers performance by 30% vs High?
How in the world do you go from that to 60 fps on Ultra in 4 months?!
Look at a mouse. It was conceived as a pointing device for a GUI. Sure games have a GUI. But it too was never conceived as a game controller.
If keyboard and mouse is so great then arcade machines and consoles like the NES or Sega Genesis should have come with those instead of a joystick or gamepad. All gaming machines should just come with that control setup. But they don't. Why?
When you play an FPS with a mouse it's like playing duck hunt with the gun a few inches from the TV it's just too precise.
Your words, not mine. I'm personally a great fan of a couple of LPers on youtube, and of quite a few gamers that don't share my tastes in gaming and are very passionate about gaming in general.I guess everyone who plays video games is retarded except for you.
Don't tell me what to play! I'm plenty happy win Divinity: Original Sin at the momentKeep playing Europa Universalis
Your words, not mine.a primitive simpleton like me
I look at it this way: Diablo 2 has lots of clicking and it is a fun game, in my opinion. But if you remove 50% of that clicking, it's not as fun. It is, after all, a relatively shallow game. So if you remove 50% of what the player actually DOES, you remove 50% of the fun.I might be on board if you said, meaningful and varied clicks. Just randomly clicking isn't really fun. I don't think any game had more clicking and Diablo 1, especially as a warrior, but that isn't exactly considered a complex game.
It's ok not to like the clicking action, you don't have to feel bad.I've been trying to avoid this thread because...this thread. However the above post and your most recent one are just fracking painful.
More clicks = more fun. Really dude? You gotta work on your arguments broseph, because if you really believe that, boy have I ever got an awesome game for you:
MOST AWESOME FUN GAME EVER: Extra Clicks Edition™. :awe:
Also, 404: Problem still not found. What are we all whining about again? Where can I get on the hater wagon?
I can accept if someone prefers slower style FPS games on the PC with a controller if they find it more challenging/rewarding to aim/move and more comfortable to hold. The point here isn't M+K vs. controller, but that the PC's bread-and-butter control scheme of M+K was rated as less important to finish than the controller support. What does that tell me about the priorities of this game for CDPR? Sounds to me like they spend more time and resources optimizing the console versions. Since they needed to optimize the console versions more, they needed to get the gamepad controls finalized ASAP to keep testing their optimizations. To strengthen this theory, the developer doesn't even have Ultra settings running on the PC yet with the release date May 19th. Once again it shows where their priorities lie.
How can you not have Ultra settings enabled yet? If the game was primarily made on the PC, it would have Ultra settings a long time ago and they would scale that version down to consoles!
But you know what every GW game has in common? It was a console game, with GW thrown in at the last minute. That's why it sounds to me like NV HBAO+, PCSS+, PhysX, HairWorks, finalized Tessellation are all part of this Ultra setting. If NV hasn't finalized/provided all of the finished code for these features, it is no wonder that they can't show us what the Ultra setting on the PC looks like to this date!
Unlike Crytek's Crysis 3 footage pre-release where Crytek highlighted to us all the new DX11 tech 1 by 1, months before launch, CDPR only briefly touched on HairWorks and PhysX. Sounds to me NV is doing all of that work and CDPR is just waiting until NV's programmers finalize the code for those features. I hope I am wrong.
P.S. Why doesn't Unity still have its tessellation patch? Sounds like NV never finished the code for that feature.
If by that you mean 60 fps on Ultra at 1080p, have you not read any of the articles? The game currently runs at 30 fps on a 980+4790K at 1080p on High. How in the world do you go from that to 60 fps on Ultra in 4 months?!
The developer more than once reiterated that Recommended specs are NOT for 60 fps @ Ultra. Unless they are straight up misrepresenting info to us, it's 30 fps on a 770/R9 290 @ Medium-High @ 1080p.
That tells me 970/980 SLI or faster for Ultra @ 60 fps:
CDPR once again reiterated that R9 290/770 can only do Medium/High, it also implies well below 60 fps at those settings. Unless they unlock the engine on the PC above the 30 fps cap and have massive optimization in the next 4 months, this game sounds incredibly intensive.
There is no where in your link that I can see Carfax that shows "close to 60 fps on GTX 980" anywhere.
There is no where in your link that I can see Carfax that shows "close to 60 fps on GTX 980" anywhere.
Yep I said as much above. The reviewer could not specify the frame rate as there was no frame rate counter, but he did say "consistently fluent," which we can assume to be well above 30 fps.
And with the release of the 60 FPS YouTube video, it further cements the notion that the Witcher 3 is already running at 60 fps.
And they're not done optimizing yet, so the final release build should run even faster.
FYI, just because the YT video is at 60 fps does not mean the source material had to be running at 60 fps. IIRC, there were a lot of comments about why the video was even run @ 60 fps when the game wasn't running at that.
That being said, see previous post, and I also completely agree that there's plenty of time for further optimization. Again, not seeing any problem and don't know why some people have their panties in a wad...
Look at a keyboard. It's pretty great for typing a paper. It was never conceived or developed as a game controller.
Look at a mouse. It was conceived as a pointing device for a GUI. Sure games have a GUI. But it too was never conceived as a game controller.
If keyboard and mouse is so great then arcade machines and consoles like the NES or Sega Genesis should have come with those instead of a joystick or gamepad. All gaming machines should just come with that control setup. But they don't. Why?
But it's really just a few genres that benefit. When you play an FPS with a mouse it's like playing duck hunt with the gun a few inches from the TV it's just too precise. They did that back in the day because they didn't have much of a choice. But now peripherals designed for gaming are a dime a dozen. It's easy to use a controller designed for gaming with games.
The keyboard and mouse love, to me, just sounds like nostalgia. A longing for a past when PC game pads were expensive or more trouble than they were worth. Most recent consoles have offered a keyboard and mouse. All the way back to Dreamcast and possibly before. But those were niche items. And even for the Xbox 360 the keyboard was mostly a convenience for all the signing in you had to do with it and/or using messaging services... A PC dev didn't want to limit sales to only those who had a $50-120 PC gamepad nor did they want to deal with supporting the plethora of PC gamepads of those days
That may have been why the mouse was created, but the main reason the mouse is so dominant now for many gaming genres is simply that many people have physiologically more fine motor control in their wrists than their thumbs. Hence it's a lot easier to "pinpoint" an enemy in a fast Arena FPS with a mouse, whilst controllers basically need auto-aim or large "hit-boxes" or a slower pace of gunplay ("cinematic" cover shooters vs twitch arena). There was an article a few years ago about mouse vs controller (from a physiological perspective, ie why many find a mouse to be much more accurate), unfortunately I've long lost the link now, but will repost it if I can find it again. I can assure you though the enduring popularity of the mouse has far more to do with physiology than nostalgia.
I can accept if someone prefers slower style FPS games on the PC with a controller if they find it more challenging/rewarding to aim/move and more comfortable to hold. The point here isn't M+K vs. controller, but that the PC's bread-and-butter control scheme of M+K was rated as less important to finish than the controller support. What does that tell me about the priorities of this game for CDPR? Sounds to me like they spend more time and resources optimizing the console versions. Since they needed to optimize the console versions more, they needed to get the gamepad controls finalized ASAP to keep testing their optimizations. To strengthen this theory, the developer doesn't even have Ultra settings running on the PC yet with the release date May 19th. Once again it shows where their priorities lie.
How can you not have Ultra settings enabled yet? If the game was primarily made on the PC, it would have Ultra settings a long time ago and they would scale that version down to consoles!
But you know what every GW game has in common? It was a console game, with GW thrown in at the last minute. That's why it sounds to me like NV HBAO+, PCSS+, PhysX, HairWorks, finalized Tessellation are all part of this Ultra setting. If NV hasn't finalized/provided all of the finished code for these features, it is no wonder that they can't show us what the Ultra setting on the PC looks like to this date!
Unlike Crytek's Crysis 3 footage pre-release where Crytek highlighted to us all the new DX11 tech 1 by 1, months before launch, CDPR only briefly touched on HairWorks and PhysX. Sounds to me NV is doing all of that work and CDPR is just waiting until NV's programmers finalize the code for those features. I hope I am wrong.
P.S. Why doesn't Unity still have its tessellation patch? Sounds like NV never finished the code for that feature.
Without a doubt the wrist is far more accurate and I would never deny that. I used to play HL and HL2 with a keyboard/mouse setup and yeah its fast, super fast. And I am aware of auto aim and such with a gamepad.
The thing is that a mouse was so fast that to keep it challenging the game would have to supply many more enemies moving much faster to keep it level. At the same time the gamepad version needs aim assist to keep it from being too hard. When take the differences of two control systems into consideration the devs would almost have to make a different for the two control schemes otherwise the Kb/M players would have too much of an advantage. And I suppose to players of the Kb/M setup challenged the game would become more "hack and slash" or "shoot everything on sight" than the gamepad version.
I'd say that games designed for gamepads really just teach the player to work with the aim assist. Those who master the aim assist mechanic are the ones that play better.
This is true, however, the fact is that keyboards are conceived to allow for access to as many different keys as possible by muscle memory, and a mouse is designed to allow for an easy metaphor for interacting with things on a screen. That means that anything that involves precise clicking or requires access to many inputs benefits from the KB/M setup, which is most games.
Because it's easy to hold a controller in your hands and play in front of a TV. It's very hard to do the same with a KB/M ergonomically without a desk.
This is patently false. Think about it this way: when people played Duck Hunt, how many of them have used a gun to shoot at targets nearly every day in their lives? Probably none. Comparative, most people who play FPS games use a computer every day of their lives and use the mouse to click on things. Because we have developed the fine motor control skills to handle in the increased sensitivity, there is a clear advantage to using a mouse. Similarly, it is much easier to control your wrist than your thumb for truly minute adjustments. That is why all consoles require a degree of auto aim, and why consoles are on a separate multiplayer than PCs.
Furthermore, any game that requires you to have lots of buttons or fine pointing available benefits from PC. RPGs with a large skill set, RTS games, 3X games, and shooting games all benefit from KB/M. The only area in which controllers have an advantage is access to analog inputs--most controllers these days have 2 analog triggers, plus an analog left stick. Those allow for more sensitive adjustments than just using keys. Therefore, games which rely on primarily the positioning of only one actor are better suited for consoles--fighting games particularly. Even then, fighting games actually don't use the standard controller, but a fight stick instead, which offers quicker access to more buttons by positioning the relevant buttons facing upward, like a keyboard.
Furthermore, game controllers are not designed for all games. That's a foolish assertion, because clearly, many games simply cannot be ported to console (such as RTS games). They are designed for placing easy access to a variety of buttons in an ergonomic form factor when there is no desk. That's very different.
I also disagree very strongly with this point. In 1985, if you owned a computer at all, you were likely to be fairly well off and could easily buy a keyboard--keyboards weren't cheap! You can see this in the existence of the IBM model M, which was actually conceived as a cheaper version of their flagship keyboard, the Model F.
Furthermore, the reason why keyboard accessories don't sell on consoles is because consoles have actively developed to avoid needing a keyboard since the beginning of consoles. You can see this in games where this is minimal need to input text of any kind--that was removed because it was incredibly laborious to input without a keyboard.
One simple thing that can make the mouse more challenging than most people typically play, is to take away the crosshair at the target, and force people to aim down the shaft of the gun. Not only is it more realistic, it makes it more challenging to play. Some games have also made the mouse behave in a manner more like someone trying to aim with a gun, where it sways a bit, and has acceleration built into the game engine, which also makes aiming a bit more challenging, yet giving the player the tactile feel of moving with your hand.
When I play Metro 2033, I like to play in 3D Vision with ironsites. It gives a much more authentic feel to the game.
That actually sounds pretty cool. Indeed you are arguing for not having 1:1 mouse movement to screen movement. I agree.
As much as you are not making the argument that Kb/M is more "real" due to the lack of acceleration or assist it seems that one way or another it really comes down to learning whatever sort of sway or handicap or assist system the game has in it. So it seems that one way or another to make it more "real" actually involves some sort of algorithm between your controller/mouse and the action shown on the screen.
Adding to what you said, what would be cool is if the mouse could have variable friction or inertia.
The thing is that a mouse was so fast that to keep it challenging the game would have to supply many more enemies moving much faster to keep it level.
PC-optimized FPS have a different "feel" no doubt about that. Other genre's though have the same thing out of necessity - with RTS's (of the "designed or PC" kind like AoE2), it's that rapid series of accurate clicks, the ability to have 20-30 keyboard hotkeys for adding to building queue's without having to scroll back & forward across the map, etc, that renders gamepads rather difficult. The biggest problem though is that even if you eliminate the K&M vs gamepad thing - playing a mouse at 10ft or a controller at 2ft works perfectly with the same level of skill - you've still got the 2ft vs 10ft UI differences. Oblivion & Skyrim are unplayable for me at 2ft to many without SkyUI / DarnifiedUI.And I suppose to players of the Kb/M setup challenged the game would become more "hack and slash" or "shoot everything on sight" than the gamepad version.
Both NWN's 36x and DAO's 40x slots didn't feel "complex" to play though. Nor does Divinity: Original Sin's 50 slots. I regularly filled up 30-35 slots in DAO even with a Rogue (various traps, poisons, grenades, stealth, pickpocketing, etc). By showing them all in a 40-slot bar, gameplay was actually smoother and easier than having to pick one out of a sub-menu / inventory each time. When you have to do that again & again with only 10x quickslots you end up not bothering leaving you with an inventory full of "11th-20th most powerful" items stuff you never use because it's too much hassle to quickly access them. It also made it easier to "group" them with a gap in between making it faster to visually recognize them. Same with mage builds - having 40x slots and 70x spells is not about using them all at once - it's about keeping a very long 60-80hr game fresh by being about to change them halfway through. Eg, DAO with spammed fireball, etc, "primal" spells gets boring after while. But switch to Blood Magic or Entropy 40-50hrs through the game, and things stay fresh. This is one thing those who said nerfing DAO's 66 to 17 spells in DAI "wouldn't affect gameplay" are simply wrong about.Maybe I'm a dumbed down person but I really could not get into any game with a 40 spell bar. It's just too much for me. I thought Skyrim's crafting and enchanting etc. was about as complex as I want to deal with and it was handled just fine with a gamepad.
^ Nailed it in one. Hopefully Witcher 3 has learned some lessons from other recent RPG's failures. At the very least they've said "no QTE's" - another 'consoley' mechanic which often feels cheap & tacky (sometimes even childish) on a PC + K&M.I think what is sad, I suppose, is for fans of a series that was designed for Kb/M that now has become a totally different game to lose their game. It's like a whole new game and the old game is no longer with us only the name is.
One simple thing that can make the mouse more challenging than most people typically play, is to take away the crosshair at the target, and force people to aim down the shaft of the gun. Some games have also made the mouse behave in a manner more like someone trying to aim with a gun, where it sways a bit, and has acceleration built into the game engine, which also makes aiming a bit more challenging, yet giving the player the tactile feel of moving with your hand.
Indeed you are arguing for not having 1:1 mouse movement to screen movement. I agree. Adding to what you said, what would be cool is if the mouse could have variable friction or inertia.
I have to agree. I can't understand why they don't make PC the lead platform since the consoles are mid range PCs. It's got to be easier to cut settings down for consoles. Instead they have added GW "features" like putting lipstick on a pig. Yes they don't really work all that well and simply use up resources for things that hardly make a difference.
As for Kb/M support I suppose they don't mind alienating their core fanbase? Maybe in looking towards "greener pastures" they may lose what they have. It does look like Kb/M support will be tacked on.
Agree with what you're both saying in theory, but in practice non 1:1 screen movement often translates to "broken mouse acceleration" as people use different mice with different dpi's which don't always have the same effect when devs try and "experiment" with a static "inertia" mechanic. Likewise, devs who try and introduce "gun wobble" usually overdo it - just as they still can't get even the far simpler head bob mechanics right after years of trying without it ending up "giraffe in a surgical collar simulator" in many popular FPS games...
unfortunately, console is where the money is. and they have standardized hardware, so optimization is easier. And this is my own opinion, but i think devs ultimately realize that even if pc games are poorly optimized, that will just drive more to buy it on console.