Hardest game to run right now

[Tsuki]

Skyrim with Mods

[Krazes]

Roblox

[JZStudios]

22 hours ago, fpo said:

I don't have Wildlands but I heard it's pretty demanding. As for the other games, they don't have as wide an audience IMO. Not many car games sell well from what I've seen. As for steep, I think that's even less. But that's not to say they're not optimized. Their most popular games are better now though. Mainly Rainbow Six. 

Sound compatibility is THE WORST. No one cares about sound that much imo. If your sound card isn't compatible... tough luck. Sony Vegas doesn't support my sound card & it's not even obscure. I've sent multiple inquiries & haven't even gotten a reply. 
Even Pew Die Pie had my soundcard at one point. (Steinberg UR 22 if you're curious. 100 USD music interface basically.) On top of this I've had problems with on board sound & on board sound drivers. I think the one in my current mother board is completely broken. 

Nu-uh. I've got my sound set in Windows to 192, and Steep just doesn't support that. Needed to be like 48 or something to work. How does a modern game even do that?

[Mira Yurizaki]

I keep seeing the word "optimized" thrown around, but... how do you even define that term? What comparison are you making? Like if you're getting X performance instead of Y performance, where did Y performance come from?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I keep seeing the word "optimized" thrown around, but... how do you even define that term? What comparison are you making? Like if you're getting X performance instead of Y performance, where did Y performance come from?

In terms of optimization it’s how well the programmer did to make the computer require less calculations. As I partially discussed in the other thread I quoted you, to optimize 3D models, you must reduce the polygon count and use tricks to add detail. If a programmer can find ways to calculate less logic to achieve the same result, it works better. I’m not sure people understand that but that’s my interpretation of optimization. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, fpo said:

In terms of optimization it’s how well the programmer did to make the computer require less calculations. As I partially discussed in the other thread I quoted you, to optimize 3D models, you must reduce the polygon count and use tricks to add detail. If a programmer can find ways to calculate less logic to achieve the same result, it works better. I’m not sure people understand that but that’s my interpretation of optimization. 

But if you say it that way, how can one take a game which is basically a black box and say "this is unoptimized"? Your interpretation implies that someone's able to analyze the application and its methods to figure out what it's doing.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

But if you say it that way, how can one take a game which is basically a black box and say "this is unoptimized"? Your interpretation implies that someone's able to analyze the application and its methods to figure out what it's doing.

Sorry for the confusion. When I said

13 minutes ago, fpo said:

I’m not sure people understand that

I was implying that most gamers and patrons of interactive media wouldn't be able to guess that optimization is lowering the amount of calculations required to achieve the same result. I also did say that 

16 minutes ago, fpo said:

If a programmer can find ways to calculate less logic to achieve the same result, it works better. 

I was talking about the actual CPU tasks, not graphics. IE, pathfinding (like using A*-wikipedia) can be optimized to find the best path as fast as possible. I don't know any better/worse method of pathfinding but trying to find different ways to calculate numbers & logic makes things run faster. 

On example of a game that isn't graphically intense but can compute complex equations that one might not know is "Aurora 4X." 

Spoiler

Can't find the timestamp after a quick timeline scrub but at one point he talks about the windows thinking the game crashes, but it's just computing something very complicated:

 

I hope my points make more sense now. Sorry about my vague answer last time. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

14 minutes ago, fpo said:

I was talking about the actual CPU tasks, not graphics. IE, pathfinding (like using A*-wikipedia) can be optimized to find the best path as fast as possible. I don't know any better/worse method of pathfinding but trying to find different ways to calculate numbers & logic makes things run faster.

I mean, that still implies that a person has to be able to analyze the application and be able to discern if the developer chose optimal methods or not.

 

And even if the random PC gamer had access to such information, I'm highly doubtful they would be able to actually make such a call simply because they're likely not developers or had any formal background in computer science.

 

EDIT: Here's an article I like to link to about this topic too: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20041216-00/?p=36973

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I mean, that still implies that a person has to be able to analyze the application and be able to discern if the developer chose optimal methods or not.

 

And even if the random PC gamer had access to such information, I'm highly doubtful they would be able to actually make such a call simply because they're likely not developers or had any formal background in computer science.

 

EDIT: Here's an article I like to link to about this topic too: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20041216-00/?p=36973

I like the article. I don't think every game could be optimized to be faster. We can't ever know if a game can be optimized to be faster/run better until we try every possible combination of binary. When it gets to that point though, it may not be worth it.

The article doesn't state that there comes a point when the return is not worth it, however some other philosophical ideals have touched on it. It's a semi-talked about ideal I can't find the video I'm looking for on. 
As I said most people can't tell if the developer can. I agree with everything you're saying. 

Also the Planet X2 video I mentioned in the other thread-I feel like it is more relevant here with all the optimization but I have little to say about it. If anyone cares to see what a Commodore 64 can do with enough study & planning with a system, here's an interesting video:

Spoiler

 

 

[Lathlaer]

12 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

how do you even define that term?

I think that when people throw the term around they go more with their gut feeling than actual data. 

 

It goes like this:

 

"This game looks like shit but requires a 1080 to get stable 60fps in 2560x1440, it's not well optimized" 

 

or 

 

"This game looks beautiful and I can run it on ultra with my 1070, it's so well optimized".

 

Ofc. people tend to make fallacies when judging optimization this way - they tend to go down hard on every game requiring a 1080ti to run on max settings and reaching barely 60fps but it just might mean that the game is graphically a bit ahead of it's generation. 

 

For instance, Witcher 3 premiered when Maxwell architecture was reigning but an argument can be made that only now under Pascal we can let it spread the wings. And it's regarded as relatively well optimized and it's visuals are reviewed as very good.

 

And then there is technical optimization. Multicore usage, SLI availability etc.

 

For instance, I'm going to start playing FF XV and the lack of official SLI profile in a game that can't run 60fps in 4k on ultra annoys me to no end. Especially since reportedly Square Enix made the Windows version specifically because they wanted to show how the game can look on a powerful machine. There are custom SLI profiles that help with the issue and I intend to make this game my bitch (as opposed to the game making my system its bitch :D) but no matter how beautiful it looks (and it does) it screams lack of optimization to me.

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, Lathlaer said:

-Snip-

Overall I think it's still important to try to understand as many aspects of the game as possible before jumping to the conclusion based on some feeling to justify spending $700 on a graphics card.

 

Take Doom for instance. Yes I find it a marvel it seems to be the only modern game that looks amazing and manages to get almost 200 FPS on a GTX 1080 at 1080p. But then I look at what else is it doing. It looks like a simple run and gun game that has scripted events with enemies that are probably running the same AI routines from Doom 3. Not that it's a bad thing, but there simply isn't a lot going on in the game.

 

But then I look at something like an open world game where it has to constantly make decisions on crowd placement, crowd behavior, among other things. It has to be a dynamic world. That puts more pressure on the CPU and thus doesn't give it as much time to push render commands to the GPU. Though part of that is also making sure the GPU routines are as good as they can get.

 

I also think "optimizations" in games is really more just "better design decisions." John Carmack, when he designed his code, kept things simple, clean, and as minimalistic as possible.

[xAcid9]

Both Wildlands and Kingdom Come for me.

[Lathlaer]

On 13.06.2018 at 2:47 AM, veli2501 said:

Final Fantasy XV ate my 1080ti for breakfast at ultra 3440x1400, definitely the most demanding game I've played.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of FPS should I be expecting on a single 1080ti on ultra 3440x1440 with every NVIDIA stuff ON and TAA?

[veli2501]

On 6/16/2018 at 9:04 PM, Lathlaer said:

Just out of curiosity, what kind of FPS should I be expecting on a single 1080ti on ultra 3440x1440 with every NVIDIA stuff ON and TAA?

I can't remember what it would average but it would dip into the mid 40s.  I found it tolerable because it's single player and I wanted that eye candy but it was still fairly jarring.

[Stefan Payne]

On 12.6.2018 at 1:01 AM, Matthewwatson777 said:

What is it 

Final Fantasy 7 and 8, original Windows Version.

 

Just doesn't work with many graphics cards....

 

If you had a 3DFX card, chances are good, if you had an nVidia Card, you were in some serious shit...

 

 

 

 

 

[Frankenburger]

I'm surprised nobody here mentioned FF15 or Kingdom Come.

 

Kingdom Come is by far and large much more demanding than Wildlands.

[Princess Luna]

On 6/12/2018 at 6:58 PM, Lathlaer said:

Final Fantasy XV.

That moment when you bought a 1080 Ti and that ONE game you had in mind to play was FF XV, hyped watching the movie, anime and all... finally that sweet sweet time to boot it the first time, even got off my way to set the gamepad and play it on poltrone with the 4k TV...

 

10 minutes later.... damn... most disappointing project of a game ever... 30 minutes later... can't go on... too much of a cheap shitty anime cliché... awesome story and plot ruined.

 

Thank God AC Origins was a success, playing it feels like playing The Witcher 3 thank god.

[Princess Luna]

46 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I'm surprised nobody here mentioned FF15

Probably because the game is so shallow, incomplete and boring that nobody managed to stay in it longer than an hour Like I said above ^ huge sad disappointment.

[Lathlaer]

5 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

That moment when you bought a 1080 Ti and that ONE game you had in mind to play was FF XV, hyped watching the movie, anime and all... finally that sweet sweet time to boot it the first time, even got off my way to set the gamepad and play it on poltrone with the 4k TV...

 

10 minutes later.... damn... most disappointing project of a game ever... 30 minutes later... can't go on... too much of a cheap shitty anime cliché... awesome story and plot ruined.

 

Thank God AC Origins was a success, playing it feels like playing The Witcher 3 thank god.

 

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Probably because the game is so shallow, incomplete and boring that nobody managed to stay in it longer than an hour Like I said above ^ huge sad disappointment.

I quite like it and I'm not disappointed at all. I was bored with few recent Assassins Creed games on the other hand so I guess each to their own.

 

48 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I'm surprised nobody here mentioned FF15

Emm...

 

On 13.06.2018 at 2:47 AM, veli2501 said:

Final Fantasy XV ate my 1080ti for breakfast at ultra 3440x1400, definitely the most demanding game I've played.

 

On 12.06.2018 at 11:58 PM, Lathlaer said:

Top 3 that I know of would be Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Assassins Creed Origins and Final Fantasy XV

[Princess Luna]

6 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

.

AC Origins has absolutely nothing to do with the bullshit Unity and Syndicate were, it's a whole new game, like I said it reminds me The Witcher 3 in many ways.

[Lathlaer]

16 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

AC Origins has absolutely nothing to do with the bullshit Unity and Syndicate were, it's a whole new game, like I said it reminds me The Witcher 3 in many ways.

Granted, I have not played AC Origins but started getting impatient with the series around the times of Assassins Creed III. I liked Altair and Ezio and the story that intertwined them with Desmond was enjoyable as well as the intrigue. Whatever came after didn't feel right to me. Building your house, gathering wood to build ships and many other "upgrades" felt too exhausting and out of place. Like the game started trying to be something different. Even ACII with that villa started feeling forced. I didn't get interested in the series because I wanted a mansion simulator. I was a big Tenchu fan back in PS1 times and AC1 felt like something I might enjoy and I was not disappointed.

 

I get it that the games must evolve but for me AC got too big in the wrong direction. Like I said, did not play Origins dunno if not having fresh memory of 2-3 previous games would be a hinderance to the experience or not...

 

FFXV on the other hand - well I am a big fan of the aesthetics (kind of reminds me of FF8, huge nostalgia here) and I'm so far in chapter 3 but I don't feel like stopping anytime soon. So far the games feels kind of simpler than FF8 or FF9 when comparing the overconvoluted plot so that's a fresher start as well. And I like warping around ;-)

[veli2501]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

Probably because the game is so shallow, incomplete and boring that nobody managed to stay in it longer than an hour  Like I said above ^ huge sad disappointment.

Hahaha yup it certainly was disappointing, angsty teenage boy band ugh.  I pushed through to the end of the game mainly because I had spent the money on it.  When it crashed during the closing cut scene and I loaded back up and had to do the final boss fight again; I quit, uninstalled and never looked back.

[xAcid9]

11 hours ago, Frankenburger said:

I'm surprised nobody here mentioned FF15 or Kingdom Come.

 

Kingdom Come is by far and large much more demanding than Wildlands.

I did?  I finished FFXV on PS4 so didn't play it on PC.

On 6/16/2018 at 2:24 AM, xAcid9 said:

Both Wildlands and Kingdom Come for me.

 

[PurplDrank]

nobody put Escape From Tarkov? Really? 

[xAcid9]

36 minutes ago, PurplDrank said:

nobody put Escape From Tarkov? Really? 

Nobody play that game. /s

 

1440p@Ultra | around 70-90 fps.

 

1440p@Ultra High | around 20-60 fps.