Given the contemporary examples, they weren’t wrong to think so. Everyone was trying to make a console in the 16/32-bit era.
PC Engine/Turbografx
Phillips CD-i (only sorta a console)
Atari Jaguar
Neo Geo
Amiga CD
Some of these are better than others–I’m fond of the PC Engine–but none can be called successful. Neo Geo is somewhat of an exception because it was used as arcade hardware. Some others here are the butt of jokes. There’s also a bunch of Japanese consoles around this time that go nowhere, and are little more than fodder for retro gaming YouTube channels.
Sega Saturn and Dreamcast also probably factored in. They weren’t nearly as successful as the Genesis. With even established brands floundering it’s no wonder people didn’t think the Playstation would work.
Not really. Just Sega CD. The PlayStation and the Saturn both came out in 1994 so they were directly competing with each other. The Dreamcast didn’t come out until 1998, after the PlayStation was already successful.
Not surprising given Take-Two's history when it comes to trademark disputes. I'm pretty sure they went after the developers of It Takes Two because of the name, plus any random business that has Rockstar in the name.
It’s already kinda annoying not to have all the old content but I can see the reasons behind that. But a new game starting from scratch of a genre they are experienced with should have much better performance now that there aren’t all those additional mechanics. Failing at both of these is just an utter disregard to their customers.
Well the game is out and luckily the rumors weren’t true.
With a medium-density city, I get about 40 FPS @ 4K in the sequel. With the same-sized city, I used to get 20 FPS in the original, so twice the FPS is a massive improvement IMO. But people are still salty cause we live in a world where anything less than 60 FPS @ 1440p is unacceptable. Which is stupid as fuck cause you don’t need 240+ FPS in a city-building game with next to no action in it that would require such a high framerate.
Weird article. GTA2 came out in 1999. That’s a long time ago. I doubt most of that team still works there. The idea that they had an issue making it somehow meaning that, over two decades later, the same issues will remain is an odd conclusion.
It’s just a weird comment, I get what he’s saying back then, but Saints Row had multiple games come out in pseudo-futuristic setting that were batshit crazy and fun to play, so obviously it can be done.
Lets be honest, we won’t see a futuristic GTA at this point because shark cards are a money-printing machine and Take Two will never approve anything like that because it would be too risky.
Is there a mod for this that cuts out all the fiddliness and just lets you do the fun stuff? I got maybe 10h into it but it was still teaching me new controls and mechanics… Idgaf about crafting, funding the camp and horse husbandry, I just want to ride around shooting bad hombres and do the story like rdr1… Is this just not the game for me?
This is my sentiment with all recent Rockstar games.
Fantastic settings, great stories, but so much bloat. It’s cool that there’s so much stuff to do, but all the interruptions from actually playing the game are so tiresome.
This was kinda me too, hence me stopped play it after some 20h in, and let it rest for half a year… recently I decided to give it another go, and when you get the hang of the huge amount of controls in this game, ie; when you can play “smooth” with the controls and the animations that come with them different button clicks, it’s such a game changer (at least for me). Not gonna lie, it took me about 30-40 hours to get comfortable and be productive/effective with how to play this game (these kind of games aren’t my goto though, I’m more of a Tetris guy, haha)
Interesting to know though. It sounds bananas in a way though doesn’t it… Like a workweek of training to get good enough to just functionally play a game seems crazy to me, (no judgement!)
Agree. But again, I’m not used to these kind of games so the average player might get the hang of it in a couple of hours… (plus, the first 20:ish hours I mostly just took it all in, the views, the atmosphere of it, like a digital walk in the nature… time just went by)
I made it to the end since it was one of the only games I had at the time. Felt like the entire game was a riding horses and talking simulator. It’s so tiring going through the main story. Was ultimately disappointed in the end. Felt like they wanted to make a movie more than a game.
Everyone’s different, and you can get used to a lot.
So some people might not be able to tell 90fps from 120fps, but I definitely notice. But if I played something at 90 for long enough, I’d get used to it and stop noticing how much worse it was from 120 fps.
I will say they don’t get near enough credit for not only adaptive triggers, but them working on damn near any game that appears on PlayStation even while on PC.
I bought a ps5 just for those triggers, and gave it away (but kept a controller) once it worked on PC.
That’s the direction Playstation needs to go. If they made a new controller with Hall Effect sticks and 4 back buttons they’d absolutely clean up. They came so close with the edge, but didn’t give a back button for half the face buttons. And went “replaceable” sticks that will eventually break instead of Hall Effect.
I can’t tell the diff in FPS performance. I wish I could.
When I got my PS5 and played some games I was like, wow the future is here! Turns out I was playing PS4 games. Also I turned on and off ray-tracing for SpiderMan and couldn’t tell either.
I don’t get it. Borderlands 1 ran at like 720p (less?) on native hardware (Xbox 360) and it looked great, mostly because of the cel-shaded graphics. Cel-shaded was code (maybe still is) for low-res and it covers it up well. So I feel like anyone trying to push 4K Borderlands (Gearbox, or players) is in the wrong here and that may be part of the problem. Now if Borderlands 4 can’t run at 1080p or 1440p on good hardware… that’s Gearbox’s problem to fix. Trying to run Borderlands at 4K sounds about as stupid to me as Animal Crossing at 8K — apparently that has been accomplished with a very powerful computer and an emulator. (AC for Switch is not performance locked to hardware, it’ll scale up to whatever you can run it on.) But it just begs the question “fucking WHY?”.
I feel like the discourse around Borderlands 4 should be “is it fun” followed at a great distance by “is the story compelling enough to draw me in?” I did not have plot expectations for the first one, and it exceeded them.
Disclaimer: played and beat BL1 and all its DLC. Dabbled in 2 and 3. Have not played BL4 yet. Looking forward to a Siren play on my Series X at some point, but not now.
Trying to run Borderlands at 4K sounds about as stupid to me as…
On the contrary, it should be perfectly runnable at 4K because its a 2025 FPS game and the cel-shaded graphics should be easy to render.
‘Unreal Engine’ is no excuse either. Try something like Satisfactory rendering literally thousands of dynamic machines on a shoestring budget with Lumen, like butter, on 2020 GPUs, and tell me that’s a sluggish engine.
This is on Gearbox, who’ve developed on Unreal for 2 decades. And ‘sorry, we’ll work on it’ would have been a fine response…
My understanding is that Unreal is a garbage engine for optimization at face value, it has a lot of useful tools and a lot of incorrect/dated documentation for those tools some of which are also just kind of configured wrong as their default settings. If effort is put into optimization to configure things correctly and only use the various tools like nanite or lumen in their actual use cases (rather than just throwing them on everything) you can get some pretty fantastic optimization.
TLDR: Good but complex tools marketed as low effort with bad defaults and exagerated marketing.
Honestly Cyberpunk’s raytracing runs like poo compared to Lumen (or KCD2 Crytek) compared to how good it looks. I don’t like any of the RT effects but RT Reflections; both RT shadows options flicker, RT lighting conflicts with the baked-in lighting, yet doesn’t replace it if you mod it out.
Most of Cyberpunk’s prettiness is there from good old rastarization, more than most people realize.
PTGI looks incredible, but it’s basically only usable with mods and a 4090+.
Eh, I guess it is. But it also isn’t. We have stagnated a bit in the rasterization and VRAM departments when you talk about affordable entry level cards that most people buy.
And the PlayStation 5 has not changed since it launched…
Sure, newer cards have Ray Tracing stuff and new video encoder pipelines and some other things. But when you look at classic rasterization, and look at xx60 and xx70 class cards, it’s not the sort of leaps we use to have. Node shrinks are not what they use to be.
A 3060 is as fast as a 2070 super. Just as an example I have first hand experience with. There use to be much larger performance gaps between generations.
Yeah, but it’s not just a toon shader/cel shaded shader.
I’ve seen footage, this game has full (highly stylized) PBR and all sorts of fancy lighting along with the cell shaded look. Reducing it all to “cell shading” isn’t the whole story.
Hi-Fi Rush is much closer to classic Borderlands than BL4 is.
Right, I’ve seen the footage too, and I don’t think I’d recognize it as a Borderlands game if the name wasn’t included in the ads. I’m struggling to understand why they chose to go that route, rather than sticking to the beloved, iconic, performant art style of the other games in the series.
That’s a fair take. I’m sure they feared looking dated. I think that’s a misguided fear that you have when you don’t think the other aspects can live up to expectations.
Which is weird because it sounds like they tried really hard with the story, as in they tried to elevate it beyond the usual dick and fart jokes and snark. (They didn’t eliminate that stuff, but rather tried to have a balance) BL3 was terrible in that dept. it went way too hard on that shit imo.
gamesradar.com
Ważne