Absolutely adored robocop and cobalt core. Definitely picking up both of them. Robocop nailed everything that made the movie great, cobalt core oozed charm and had fun gameplay.
I had meant to try the thaumaturge but by the time I got around to it, next fest was over and I couldn’t play the demo anymore. These time limited demos are a really stupid idea. I’m way less likely to buy it now because those sorts of games are hit or miss for me.
I agree on the annoying timed out demo, I thought the same thing when I missed out on a demo during the last steam next fest. Crazy how even demos are impacted by the ethereal nature of digital storefronts and their sometimes inconsistent access.
It took a lot out of me making time for these demos when I work a full-time job, but I just knew something like that was going to happen if I didn’t get around to them.
the games/engines you cite as being “extremely well optimized” are both a lot older than UE5 and do a lot less than some of the “less optimized” games discussed (i.e. simpler lighting, no geometry virtualization, simplistic simulation, very static environments, etc.)
I joined a Linkshell (guild) in FFXI a few months ago and they’ve been great to me. Everyone is always helping one-another and we run weekly events every Saturday night. I don’t have much of a social life in my 30s so it’s been a great time for me to spend time with folks.
Oh, that sounds pretty sweet. I played quite a bit of FFXI many many years ago. I was late to that party because I played Everquest for so many years, but I had tried FFXI when it launched. It was pretty fun! But just wasn’t enough to pull me away from EQ. But at some point in the late 2000’s I went back and played FFXI for like a year or so on and off. Did you start fresh in FFXI? This piques my interest. I would strongly consider playing again if it’s new player friendly.
Mass Effect Legendary Edition (ME1), just got Liara & did the DLC mission as well as a bit of uncharted worlds & rogue VI on Earth’s moon.
The game looks a lot better and most controls are nicer. Although somehow the Mako is even worse to control in LE than the original ME and I get some stutter/loading while running around in presidium.
Being able to skip while in the elevator is nice, but I would’ve liked to see the option to be moved directly into normandy added to the rapid transits like in ME2 & ME3. Having to go to C-Sec, take the elevator, and wait for the decontamination process every time is really tedious, and it’s why I rarely visited the Citadel in the original ME1 as well.
Honestly ME1 LE is looking pretty nice and I would recommend it to anyone who hasn’t played it yet, but it was always the story that was the highlight of ME1, the gameplay isn’t actually that great and I’ve already replayed the original several times so I think I’m just going to go ahead and play ME2.
Optimization is extremely complex and the game engine, while factoring into the equation, doesn’t determine if something is optimized or not inherently.
Yes, this is all a horrible post, game engines can’t really be compared directly. There is no one size fits all.
EA thought that and tried to apply Frostbite to their entire catalogue. What worked amazingly for Battlefield/Battlefront was a disaster for Dragon Age: Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, and let’s not forget Anthem. Engine was optimized for small maps and quick gameplay, but was horrible for large open worlds and RPG elements.
The reason Unreal requires such heavy hardware is because they’re trying to be a one tool fits all, but that requires making sacrifices.
OP’s entire post here is incredibly naive. It’s apples to oranges.
even with RTX 4090s and lowering the graphics to 1440p medium settings. Based on utilization numbers, it sounds like the GPU is limiting factor here.
What are the CPU utilization numbers? C:S is a notoriously CPU-first game, particularly with mods. If your CPU can’t calculate more than 10fps, you won’t get more than 10fps.
Those same streamers are also reporting 16GB of RAM usage when loading up a new map, which means that the minimum recommended spec of 8GB was a blatant lie from the devs.
It starts (barebones, slow as hell) with 8GB. You want 32GB or more for it to run somewhate decently.
Seriously, people don’t understand what “cache” means, maybe they should just create a ramdisk and install the game there to understand the concept.
Seriously, people don’t understand what “cache” means, maybe they should just create a ramdisk and install the game there to understand the concept.
I believe people with lots of RAM simply enjoy the feeling of theoretically being able to run everything, but they don’t actually want processes to use that RAM, because it would deny them the theoretical possibility to run everything.
I jest, of course. The problem is that as a user you don’t have that much control over which process should use your RAM, and also freeing RAM is hard. Chrome gobbling up your whole memory is good when you’re using Chrome, but you don’t get it back when you alt+tab back to your game
freeing RAM is hard. Chrome gobbling up your whole memory is good when you’re using Chrome, but you don’t get it back when you alt+tab back to your game
Actually… you can do it with two .bat files and a “ram cleaner” tool:
Suspend all “chrome.exe” processes
Free all working sets (since Chrome is suspended, it marks all the RAM used by Chrome as swappable/discardable)
Now your game can use all the RAM, the OS will just swap out or discard whatever was in use by Chrome as needed.
Want to go back to Chrome?
Resume all “chrome.exe” processes
The OS will swap in whatever it swapped out, and let Chrome ask for as much RAM as it feels like.
Free all working sets what the fucking hell??? No, no, no, I don’t want to send my full browser to swapfile just because of a greedy game. Loading back all the memory pages will take a lot of time when I want to switch back to the browser, and it will lag for quite some more time until all the not too frequently used but important is loaded back too. This also applies to the reverse: swapping the game out and back in will take a ton of time, and then it will have lag spikes when it needs a dozen of memory page that is somewhat more rarely used and haven’t been loaded back with all the rest. This nonsense of literally using all your ram “as a cache” but as working set just makes everything slower in the end. This just cannot be justified. There’s a reason I’m using a multi tasking PC instead of a single-tasking gaming console, which you can only use for one purpose at a time.
And don’t tell me to put my swapfile on my SSD. This is the perfect way of killing yours, with writing 16 GB of data every time you switch between windows.
I don’t want to send my full browser to swapfile just because of a greedy game
You don’t, most of the times the game doesn’t use all that memory anyways (or crashes if it tries to… so still, doesn’t use it).
Loading back all the memory pages will take a lot of time
No it won’t. Browsers preemptively allocate a bunch of RAM just in case they need it… then never use it. “Loading back” empty memory, takes zero time.
This also applies to the reverse
No it doesn’t. Games rarely can be suspended and resumed successfully, and they rarely allocate RAM that they aren’t going to use. I was clear when I said you suspend “chrome.exe”, not “your game.exe”. If you resume the browser without exiting the game, the game stays in RAM and the browser manages with what’s left (surprisingly, they manage to run a tab or two without a problem, which further proves they didn’t “really” need all that much RAM in the first place).
swapfile on my SSD. This is the perfect way of killing yours
My swapfile SSD got retired after 10 years when I switched to a NVMe, it’s an external drive now.
writing 16 GB of data every time you switch between windows.
As explained above, no you don’t, most of the data simply gets discarded, maybe 1-2GB of it gets actually written. To further expand on that, the swapfile gets constantly pre-populated with less changing in-RAM data so the OS can “swap it out” instantly. That same data stays in the swapfile after it gets read into RAM again, so it doesn’t get written to the swapfile over and over, only read back.
There’s a reason I’m using a multi tasking PC instead of a single-tasking gaming console
If you do, then you put more RAM in it. Otherwise, you can use it as a gaming console. Your choice.
Loading back all the memory pages will take a lot of time
No it won’t. Browsers preemptively allocate a bunch of RAM just in case they need it… then never use it. “Loading back” empty memory, takes zero time.
Yes, it will, and I’m saying this from experience. I have 32 GB of RAM but since I have dozens of tabs in several windows open, the browser really consumes a lot of RAM. When windows starts swapping it out, even just a little because I’m over 70% utilization, I can feel that it got slower.
And on the occasion when in PH I accidently click “empty working sets” instead of “combine memory lists” and windows swaps out everything, it’s horrible for days until I just give up and reboot instead.
Games rarely can be suspended and resumed successfully
Probably I’m playing with the wrong games then, as those that I play don’t crash from it. One such example is Factorio where I have did that a lot in the past.
I was clear when I said you suspend “chrome.exe”, not “your game.exe”.
Now I understand, but then your workaround does not allow for switching back to the browser for looking up something.
surprisingly, they manage to run a tab or two without a problem, which further proves they didn’t “really” need all that much RAM in the first place
1-2 tabs maybe work fine. But the whole user interface will also be slower to respond, and if you have addons which need to do this or that when a page loads, then that 1-2 tabs won’t be usable either.
Also, I doubt that windows wouldn’t swap out parts of the game.
If you do, then you put more RAM in it. Otherwise, you can use it as a gaming console. Your choice.
I won’t spend on anywhere North of 32 GB. This is not a fucking server. I would rather just not play games that are so out of touch with reality. To back that up, I’ve just read someone else posted a steam statistics page that says only ~20% of steam users have 32 GB of RAM, while most of the rest has only 16.
Also, when I have built this PC I have heard multiple remarks that 64 GB RAM may not be a good idea, because the hardware memory manager would be slower with managing that amount of RAM than 32, which is important for games that move a lot of data in the RAM.
when in PH I accidently click “empty working sets” instead of “combine memory lists” and windows swaps out everything, it’s horrible for days until I just give up and reboot instead.
“Empty working sets” doesn’t swap out anything by itself, it marks it as “swappable” but stil in RAM. It does make a copy to swapfile in case it needs to swap it out so it can do it instantly.
To fully force a swap out, you have to clean the lists… level 1, I think? (sorry, in bed, don’t want to look it up RN).
If you did that with a HDD however… yeah, I can see how that would feel bad.
Pro tip: don’t leave PH open for too long, it’s kind of a devel tool and has some bugs that can mess up the hooks of the whole system. Best is to open, use, close, for ~15 day uptimes on Windows 8 to 10 without ECC.
I have 32 GB of RAM but since I have dozens of tabs in several windows open
I used to play games with 8 GB of RAM and 40 tabs in Chrome. It was either-or, it worked, didn’t kill the SSD, for years. 🤷
Is unity and c# really that bad by itself? I don’t have much experience in c# development, but I was in the impression that c# is a relatively fast language (not as much as c++ but much, much more than js, python and even java)
No, they’re pretty nice, that’s why they got popular. It’s when you pair them with game development, that shit hits the fan.
Basically, you have:
Rocket software - if it fails once, you fucked up
F-35, infrastructure software - if it fails, it better recovers fast
Business software - if it works for most of the workday, it’s fine
Consumer software - if it works most days, it’s fine
Game software - if it eventually works at least once, you’re fine; most people don’t care about replaying the same story anyway
Unity and C# are very easy to make utter crap with, and still have it “work at least once”… which leads game developers to use it, make it work, and have it packaged and sold. Add to that “modders”, who are mostly random people who want to see some [part] of some idea they had, work maybe once in the game… and you get a perfect recipe for disaster: rushed out games, with sloppy mods, often conflicting with each other.
Price per unit time suggests that the only value of a game is in how much time it consumes.
The value calculus is going to be different for everyone but for me, I tend to look for:
A game which is a game first and foremost rather than an entertainment experience. That is to say: something that demands decision making of me in which I can either increase or decrease the payoffs of those decisions. Games which focus heavily on cinematic scenes, heavy QTEs, or long dialogs disinterest me.
I am often willing to take a punt on a game that tries to do something creative and interesting.
I tend to not like games that demand a high degree of memorization and/or dexterity.
Games which perform well. A recent example of a regretful purchase I made was with Shin Megami Tensei V. I adore the series but the framerate on the Switch really brought my experience down to a level where I just didn't want to play anymore.
The weights of these things will change from game to game and other elements may enter or exit the equation from time to time, of course.
I definitely agree that you shouldn’t (just) measure a game’s value by playtime. I prefer a shorter game that’s an interesting and exciting experience all the way through over one that is longer, but feels drawn out.
Major Problems with game industry right now… Cost to make a game, and from that the repercussions if it fails.
Making an engine doesn’t happen overnight, and then you need new Devs to learn that engine throughout its lifetime. Fine for a big player, but even a large company like CDPR had issues, hence moving.
It’s a shame, but you can’t write off engines like UE. Epic and the Coalition do incredible work with it. UE5 is still VERY new. Look at Fortnite and wait for the next Gears game. Even if the game is dull I’m sure it will be a showcase for UE5.
The opposite is also true. You created an engine already, why do you want a new one? Just add to the existing one. Starfield is not the only industry game working on legacy engines
Team coke in MW:2 on 360. I played a game on shipment with them and mopped up, they invited me and I had a blast. It was pretty multifaceted, I won’t ever forget King juice, black dude that worked at Comcast- funny as all hell when we got him to do his Comcast lines lol.
Did a quick calculation and found that a 60$ game needs to be 35hrs to break even with movie prices edit: *where I live
Although I rarely think about game length when buying games. I find that what my gut says is a justified price is far more influenced by a game’s reputation/store page/reviews/what kid of game I feel like playing at the moment. What I’m pricing is my perception of an experience, not an amount of enjoyment for an amount of time. After I buy a game then unless it’s unexpectedly bad or broken I don’t really think about whether it was worth the price. Edit: In fact for longer games I find myself thinking if it was worth the time more.
I think it’s worth mentioning that I don’t buy games with a hype wave behind them, so the “perception of experience” is closer to the actual experience than if you apply the same to new releases.
For game length, I find that left to my own devices I like when games are 10-20 hrs in length. For longer games I prefer when there’s a driving story that I can strive for, and even then it gets boring around the 30-40 hr mark. Some open ended games captivate me for 100+ hours but that’s not my expectation from a game.
I see that people are shouting out games in the comments, so I’ll add one. Cyber Hook is a fantastic runner/platformer game. It’s really fun (especially the beginning and dlc) and it’s pretty cheap. It’s not very long especially if you don’t bother getting good times in levels but the experience alone is worth it. Although, for some reason it requires internet connection for game progression so take that into account when buying too.
Did a quick calculation and found that a 60$ game needs to be 35hrs to break even with movie prices edit: *where I live
How much do tickets cost where you live? Even using older $10 per seat prices and an average run time of 2 hours I come down to $5/hr. Also probably not just going out to a theater alone so if you’re bringing a date or your family, or even going with friends for a collective experience that balloons quite a bit.
Saw oppenheimer the other day, it was 145₺ ($5) for 3hrs. For other movies the price seems proportional. Tbh triple A games typically cost $30-40 here so the break even comes down to 20-25 hrs.
I had only considered the price for my seat as friends pay for their seats. Ofc this is also not considering popcorn etc, those increase the cost quite a bit.
Honestly its hard to say for me. Generally I dont usually pay full price for games unless its a franchise I know I know I really enjoy and the general critical and user reviews confirm it isnt a dud. I usually dont find myself unhappy with my game purchases though. If Im usure about something I wait for a sale.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne