Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

GamerBlake

Member
  • Content Count

    1,750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GamerBlake

  1. 3 hours ago, For Science! said:

    Whats the point of asking whether it is worth it or not? With the amount of time and typing that has gone into the thread you probably could have written three full reports of the missing "l". Just don't get upset if its not fixed in the next patch as it won't be a top priority. 

    I already sent them a report long ago.

     

    However if people post on my thread I will reply.

     

    No one is forcing you to come to this post. 
     

    I truly don’t understand why people come to other people’s threads just to tell them what they should and shouldn’t post.

  2. 22 hours ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

    It just speaks to the general roughness of CP2077.

     

    Even after the numerous delays it still needed more time, and it shows. 

     

    Probably not worth reporting though - they seem to have more pressing matters, like trying to get above 12 fps on base xbox one.

    I understand they have more pressing matters but I’m thinking it wouldn’t take more than 0.5 seconds to go to the code and put an “L” there.

     

    Whereas with other issues like optimization take serious time and work.

     

    The whole FPS issue is why I’m so happy to be a PC gamer. I get about 70fps @ 1440p with all settings maxed out as high as they can possibly go.

     

    Although I know it can be argued that my PC cost 8 times as much as a PS5 or XBox.

     

    I can’t even imagine what would happen if they tried to put Cyberpunk 2077 on the Nintendo Switch 😂.

     

    I guess I just prefer, as Riley from LTT calls it, more of a “cinematic experience”.

  3. 12 minutes ago, RollinLower said:

    you should probably manage your expectations then. witcher 3 was not pefect either you know.

      Reveal hidden contents

    Untitled.thumb.jpg.e1ae922d81b55050fe0c70ea6a3136c7.jpg

    24e340fom7j01.thumb.jpg.74d94a17c738af74538c649ff406c68a.jpg

    2752577-download.thumb.jpg.39a4f6dad35b2591b98fa63cf503c6cf.jpg

    download.jpg.4225699a9b769498b72b1ed28b054545.jpg

    theres_a_glitch_in_the_matrix_of_the_witcher_3_640_01_2.png.0b294d750bb20d7eadccaf3f8e7da175.png

     

    I never said it was perfect. Heck I’ve never even played it (although I do have it both on Steam & Nintendo Switch) I just never got around to it.

     

    But from what I’ve heard from almost every gamer who has played it is how amazing it is.

     

    I’m just saying sure mistakes happen but if they are found & pointed out they should be fixed.

  4. Just now, RollinLower said:

    it was a rushed game, and with all the news about it you should know it would come with stuff like this. the devs where on a terrible time crunch.

    it'll probbaly be "fixed and playable" in about half a year when they patch the major stuff.

     

    if you can look around that stuff tough it's a damn work of art, story and characters are amazing!

    Yes I agree it’s a good game with amazing graphics but these are the same developers who created Witcher 3 which is arguably one of the best video games of all time.

     

    But you’re right I can look around that as it’s the only misspelling I’ve seen in my 8 hours of gameplay so far.

     

    If every sentence had a misspelling or typo I probably couldn’t look around that.

     

     

     

  5. 20 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

    While it's not a critical error any dev should quickly fix mistakes like that. Report it if you can be bothered, I'm sure they'll put it on the list.

    Agreed it’s not a critical error or even a moderate error and it doesn’t affect gameplay in the slightest. 
     

    Heck most people probably would never notice it even after several full play throughs.

     

    But it just feels lazy, rushed and sloppy to me and I feel like they should try to polish and fix stuff like that or anything that they see is not how it was intended to be. I mean we’re talking about a game that has earned $150 million on Steam alone not even counting consoles.

  6. 22 hours ago, RasmusDC said:

    i run a 8700k + 3080 and 32gig and 1440p maxed out with RTX, although at Quality DLSS, runs like a charm..

     

    i get that the game has visual defects, and people seem to be steaming about it, in a way that if you like the game, then you are stupid...

     

    i must say i have loved the game for the first 10 hours of gameplay, no crashes.. i have had the odd visual defect, like cigarettes hanging in the air when talking to Johnny, and a wierd "call of my car" that just went beserk in an area... but it has not been that bad for me.. i might just be lucky, i simply love the game, and it runs great, it should on my system i get it, but no wierd pacing, or hickups.. just runs, and looks just soo insane fidelity wise.

     

    and must admit i for once feel the difference between RTX on and of is big. even though i am DLSS running the game on quality level.

    Sounds like your rig is basically the same as mine.

     

    We both have an 8700K (mine is OC’ed to 5GHz all cores) my 2080 Ti is pretty close to your 3080 in terms of performance (about 7% less in some things at double the price), and we both have 32GB of RAM (mine is OC’ed to 3600 MHz).

     

    Are you running it on an NVMe SSD?
    I have the game installed on my 1TB Samsung 970 Evo Plus.

  7. On 12/15/2020 at 10:38 AM, HairiestLad said:

    I have an 8700k + 3080 @1080p. Maxed out I get a similar FPS to you. To be honest I think we're CPU bound as I should be getting much better perf with a higher end CPU.

    I think I can agree with that.

     

    I mean I understand why the game is so demanding. The graphics are insanely good and there is constant activity in the city and the CPU has to do all those calculations for every little thing.

     

    The 3080 is an amazing GPU that makes me regret getting a 2080 Ti.
    If had known a 3080 would be about 10% better at half the price I would’ve waited.

     

    Then again finding one in stock is nearly impossible and then greedy people are buying them up to sell for twice the price which is something I just cannot support or take part in.

     

    I think the 3000 series is great because it’s not like a huge bump in performance compared to the 2000 series but Nvidia was able to drop the prices to more affordable levels.

     

    Like people who couldn’t afford a 2080 can now buy a 3070 for much cheaper and get similar performance.

     

    I’m glad to hear the problem isn’t just my PC but is the game itself. Hopefully some patches are released to optimize it better.

     

    Thanks for your input! I appreciate it. :)

  8. On 12/15/2020 at 9:08 AM, TheDataAnalyst said:

    Well can't say for sure cause you are doing 1440p, but I'm getting around 180 FPS running 1080p with Ray Tracing Ultra. I could go to 1440p on Ultra i'd assume get 140-150s. I actually think it could be your CPU holding you back not the 2080TI... Assuming you are not running some insane Ultra settings.

     

    i7 10700F / RTX 3070 / 80 GB 3200 RAM

    Thanks for the info!

     

    I have everything maxed out and enabled and when possible set at “quality” as priority over “performance”.

     

    The only thing I have disabled is “motion blur” because Linus said in his “Cheap vs Expensive Gaming” video that “it’s stupid.”

    Here are the settings I’m using at 1440p.

     

    The part of the game I’m at now is giving me about 30fps now. Which kinda sucks but the gameplay experience isn’t too bad and I’m not getting stuttering or anything which is great.

    F3AAF46C-11EA-4DE8-97E8-28A8FDB247B6.jpeg

    C5BB88C2-1DE4-45D1-90E2-E17275C3BD83.jpeg

    C7F312C8-7868-4A40-B214-9DCE4551975D.jpeg

  9. 4 hours ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

    Game runs smoothly on my 4790K without RTX when the game itself is Ultra. and smooth.
    RTX wise, the CPU can't handle both that and 60fps in the city or in heavy scenes.
    Without RTX, it's so much smoother to play.
    Each to their own of course...


    Ohh maybe that’s it.

     

    I have everything maxed out for quality and RTX & DLSS enabled and set at max quality rather than performance.

     

    So basically I’m playing the game with the most demanding settings possible. 😆 

     

    Either way though I seem to be getting by OK with ~65fps. Sure it’s not as great as 144fps but it’s not like there is stuttering and freezes and stuff like that.

     

    Heck don’t/didn’t most consoles run at 30/60 FPS? I figure if people can play consoles at 60fps I shouldn’t really complain about 65fps.

     

    Plus I know I’m lucky. Not everyone can afford a 2080 Ti or a 3000 series card. 
     

    I feel bad for the gamers who are running GTX 760s and similar GPUs. Heck I was playing WoW last night with a guild member who is still using, no joke, a GTX 680,

  10. 15 hours ago, natsukage said:

    This game is known to have lots of issues with FPS even with top tier hardware. I suggest you try newer drivers if you haven't already. Pretty sure there's a new game ready driver for CyberPunk.

     

    The game runs smoothly at High/Ultra on a rig with i5-6500 and a GTX 1070...@1080P...so I don"t see why your fps should be so bad.

    I already downloaded Nvidia’s latest drivers.

     

    I think it’s because you’re running it at high/ultra 1080p and I’m running max settings at 1440p.

  11. Hey everyone,

     

    I picked up Cyberpunk 2077 the day it came out and I’m wondering if anyone is having FPS issues?

     

    Im running an 8700K + 2080 Ti and I’m barely getting by with like 65-75 FPS @ 1440p with almost max settings.

     

    So I’m wondering if anyone with lower end GPUs are having significant issues with FPS?

     

     

  12. 15 hours ago, Senzelian said:

    I got myself AC Syndicate instead. Looks just as bad, but only costs 4,99€ and the characters are at least interesting.

    Also the gameplay feels so much better than any of the newer ACs I played.

    And Syndicate isn't even that good of an AC. Revelations is way better and even that was considered the weak link of AC when it came out. Like srsly, how can Ubisoft fuck up so bad?

    They did great with AC Odyssey!

  13. 22 hours ago, Wheresmehammer said:

    It's a shame really, but i think Ubisoft are milking the franchise to death.

    Why do you say that?

     

    Speaking from personal experience I really loved AC: Odyssey and it was the first ever AC game I ever played. It encouraged me to buy almost all of the other AC games.


    However I may be a unique case as a student of Classical History. I gave it a lot of bonus points for realism in terms of visuals and locations as well as including actual historical figures in their proper context. Although with some artistic deviation as would be expected in a video game.

     

    If you’re an “old school” AC player I can understand if you think the game is deviating too much from its original plot and becoming unrecognizable as an AC game..

     

    But at the same time new players like myself are getting immersed in the game and in the end the more fans the better right?

     

    If AC Odyssey had been a total garbage heap of a game I would probably think differently, but it was a good game. Maybe not groundbreaking or game changing but I’d give it a solid 8/10 or B+.
     

    Would I buy it again? Yes. I got over 200 hours of play out of it and spent $49.99.

     

    That’s a fair deal in my book.

     

     

    P.S. The nonsense with the $129.99 “Ultimate Edition” is ridiculous and I encourage anyone even considering this game to wait for a big sale like I did. I got the “Ultimate Edition” for $49.99 during the Summer Sale which is $10 cheaper than the “Standard Edition” is during non-sale times.

  14. 2 hours ago, Ebony Falcon said:

    Ok so u should have between 70 and 90 FPS most the time now 

    It really depends on where I am.

     

    Whenever I do a raid and there is lots of fighting it will drop down to 40-45 FPS.

     

    The only possible thing I can think of slowing it down is possibly my RAM. It’s 3200 MHz overclocked to 3600.

  15. 40 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

    Then Why do I have the same specs and my pc is running it easily, it’s the best most optimised ac Iv played 

     

    u  cant argue it’s not ur pc when we have same specs and it running great on mine 

    4302269F-73B5-4543-9DFF-09F8EF5BA966.jpeg

    What are your graphics settings? Also what resolution are you playing at?

  16. 27 minutes ago, WikiForce said:

    yeah the game is terribly optimized but due to 750 ti being on newer maxwell architecture compared to kepler on 760, it does perform significantly better in certain scenarios, it has some newer tech which gives it an edge compared to older cards in lots of newer games

    I don’t think it would have an edge over a 1070 Ti though right?

×