Final Fantasy XV confirmed for PC in early 2018

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Look up: it was and Ashley here did the homework in remembering how bad the minimums where at launch.

I did that test probably 6 months after launch. Buying games at launch is such a minefield. I remember how awful Dying Light was at launch but within a month it was a great port.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

You could. Here's a suggestion also: please turn on MSAA since I noticed you didn't. Because as I said before it really made a difference, both in looks and performance. The extra settings for draw distance for shadows for example are also really noticeable so let's crank those up. A frametime graph should really help out too since the minimums I suspect will probably stay consistently bad, specially with the more high end settings that actually pushed the game beyond what the consoles were capable of, which is the point.

You're still ignoring the part where I called you out on having never run GTA5 on PC before.  You haven't, right?  This is just 'Stuff you Googled' but you have no first hand experience other than text, and slow motion, zoomed in, comparison videos on YouTube, huh?

[Misanthrope]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I did that test probably 6 months after launch. Buying games at launch is such a minefield. I remember how awful Dying Light was at launch but within a month it was a great port.

Well that's fine: Remember how this line of conversation started? I said how much better the game looked on PC and how at launch the average midrange PC of those times was not really equipped to handle the game properly with frametime and low minimum issues and performance tanking with key features that were really needed like MSAA. 

 

You guys really want to pretend this game was up to par when it was released when it was one of the games that really started to push people to recommend i7s and upgrading to Skylake but back before this game the average recommendation was still overwhelmingly "You don't need an i7 4/4 on even a locked i5 is enough for gaming" This game did a lot to change that.

[RagnarokDel]

3 hours ago, stealth80 said:

Shut up and take my money!

 

On a serious note, I have this for PS4 and I haven't played more than 45 mins cause it runs like piece of crap, choppy FPS etc

well, it is a ps4.

[TacoSenpai]

3 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

well, it is a ps4.

Maybe I'm just a filthy pleb but I thought it was playable and enjoyed it.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

You're still ignoring the part where I called you out on having never run GTA5 on PC before.  You haven't, right?  This is just 'Stuff you Googled' but you have no first hand experience other than text, and slow motion, zoomed in, comparison videos on YouTube, huh?

I still do not understand why you think this is a very important "gotcha!" and proceeded to change the subject again when I showed my point by using your recent benchmark numbers that you suggested I looked at, but here:

Spoiler

You can move on from this nonsense point now, okay?

[AshleyAshes]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

your recent benchmark numbers 

...To which I admit limited accuracy due to running a CPU, that isn't even certified for the motherboard (It's only certified for three specific CPUs even.  ), that was recycled out of an industrial platform, had a heat sink issue and was hitting 96'C and throttling...

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

...To which I admit limited accuracy due to running a CPU, that isn't even certified for the motherboard (It's only certified for three specific CPUs even.  ), that was recycled out of an industrial platform, had a heat sink issue and was hitting 96'C and throttling...

Minimums on haswell i5s were at around 30 0.01% and mid 40s for 1% lows. So substantially better but still noticeable slowdowns in game. This were CPU limitations as the graphical settings would affect the average FPS but not the frametime, this being a game that does utilizes CPU heavily.

 

So again to quote myself:

 

14 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Well that's fine: Remember how this line of conversation started? I said how much better the game looked on PC and how at launch the average midrange PC of those times was not really equipped to handle the game properly with frametime and low minimum issues and performance tanking with key features that were really needed like MSAA. 

 

You guys really want to pretend this game was up to par when it was released when it was one of the games that really started to push people to recommend i7s and upgrading to Skylake but back before this game the average recommendation was still overwhelmingly "You don't need an i7 4/4 on even a locked i5 is enough for gaming" This game did a lot to change that.

 

Now if you don't want me to also use your testing results to show this very point I've been trying to make, maybe don't point me to this as some kind of weird demonstration of how I'm wrong I am and you're right because you're still actively playing and testing if you actually didn't really pay attention to your own results that supported my conclusion thus forcing you to walk back your initial post and present excuses as to why it is not representative of results overall for x,y and z reasons.

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, LordTaco42 said:

Maybe I'm just a filthy pleb but I thought it was playable and enjoyed it.

BUT THERE ARE NUMBERS AND CHARTS THAT SAY YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO ENJOY IT!

 

Ahem, and this is why I earlier refereed to my 'Highly subjective, monkey brain'.  Humans are hugely subjective and we can even let careful close up breakdowns let us 'see issues' that we would have never noticed unless they were pointed out.  You could play SDR 1080p movies on a 4K HDR TV, tell people that it's 4K HDR, and 9 out of 10, based on the information at hand, go 'Oh wow, you can REALLY tell' just because that information, even if false, influenced their subjective experience.

 

It's actually kinda AMAZING really.

 

So, so long as I can sit at the screen and think 'This is fun and pretty. ^.^' then it is fun and pretty.

[Ithanul]

3 hours ago, TimeOmnivore said:

Awesome, so long as it runs at at least a stable 60fps.

 

If they really want to impress me (they don't), maybe they'll fix the story pacing, such as by giving me a reason to care about Luna, or her brother, (probably won't). Still gonna buy it though, if the performance is good. Although I'll be waiting for a good sale before buying, cause I'm stingy like that - how much of a sale I'll wait for depends on whether they fix the story.

Have to agree on that.  The story was lacking in parts and the last area looked rush.  Probably did not help that I beat all the bosses on first go without getting serious.  The battle system though was fun.  Just wish they made bosses a bit harder or at least not stupid.

 

Hmmm, I wonder if they are keeping the HDR in the game?

 

Looked at the trailer...just looks like the graphics on a PS4 Pro with high quality setting turn on in the game.   Yeah...I think a pass getting the game on PC considering I already beat the game once.

[Misanthrope]

10 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

BUT THERE ARE NUMBERS AND CHARTS THAT SAY YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO ENJOY IT!

No what we had is a game with bad minimums that resulted in jerky performance on some key areas of the game map that made it difficult to control at times. Is not impossible but as PC gamers most of us have grown to expect better: 1% minimums at 50 to 60 FPS, not tanking to 40s getting down to 30FPS effective refresh rate with most 1080p monitors.

 

I didn't remember numbers, I remember playing the game and being annoyed at experiencing slowdowns in parts of the map. The numbers, including the ones you posted, just supported this.

 

So please do yourself a favor and stop dancing between "The experience is subjective!" and "Nuh huh look at my numbers I just tested!" depending on which way the argument is going for you.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

No what we had is a game with bad minimums that resulted in jerky performance on some key areas of the game map that made it difficult to control at times. Is not impossible but as PC gamers most of us have grown to expect better: 1% minimums at 50 to 60 FPS, not tanking to 40s getting down to 30FPS effective refresh date with most 1080p monitors.

 

I didn't remember numbers, I remember playing the game and being annoyed at experiencing slowdowns in parts of the map. The numbers, including the ones you posted, just supported this.

 

So please do yourself a favor and stop dancing between "The experience is subjective!" and "Nuh huh look at my numbers I just tested!" depending on which way the argument is going for you.

Dude, you are super angry about minimums.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

Dude, you are super angry about minimums.

Now I am "angry" at minimums. What other appeals to emotion you wish to throw at me besides "you're angry" and "Things are just subjective man, just smoke this and chillax!"

[AshleyAshes]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Now I am "angry" at minimums. What other appeals to emotion you wish to throw at me besides "you're angry" and "Things are just subjective man, just smoke this and chillax!"

Like I said, I'll do some retesting.  Though I'll likely use my 3770K with HD 7950 for it and just disable the OC, or clock it down or something akin to that to bring it more to Haswell level.  I have a Haswell i5 with an HD 6950 but I'm a little worn out on 'Swapping Graphics Cards For Half An Afternoon'.  (And the RVZ01-E for the 2630QM, not the easiest thing for swapping GPUs. D:)

 

But frankly, yeah, you are super angry about minimums.  I, and a lot of people can enjoy gaming with a rough average above 60fps.  These experiences are pretty common and a lot of gamers have no problems enjoying them unlike you.  You'er like 'AH HAH!  LOOK AT THESE MINIMUMS' and my response is basically 'Meh?'  I got a six year old laptop CPU bolted to a 16x PCIE lane desktop GPU and have it beating a PS4 Pro and I just think that's awesome.

[SteveGrabowski0]

30 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You guys really want to pretend this game was up to par when it was released when it was one of the games that really started to push people to recommend i7s and upgrading to Skylake but back before this game the average recommendation was still overwhelmingly "You don't need an i7 4/4 on even a locked i5 is enough for gaming" This game did a lot to change that.

I don't ever remember people saying Haswell couldn't handle GTA V and that you needed Skylake for it, especially considering Skylake didn't launch until GTA V had been out for something like 4 months. GTA V is one of the best PC ports I have ever seen.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Like I said, I'll do some retesting.  Though I'll likely use my 3770K with HD 7950 for it and just disable the OC

You can stop right there. I have been saying how the average PC build back in mid 2015 for midrange users was a haswell locked i5. So unless you kill hyperthreading and overclocks no it wouldn't be that representative of pcs at the time. In case you wanted to make the argument that hyperthreading doesn't matter in this case:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Most of the other users however can scroll through this thread and observe what my point actually was however, we've been off topic enough on a FFXV as it is but if you want to gloat about me walking away feel free to do so.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I don't ever remember people saying Haswell couldn't handle GTA V and that you needed Skylake for it, especially considering Skylake didn't launch until GTA V had been out for something like 4 months. GTA V is one of the best PC ports I have ever seen.

Ever watch RandomGaminginHD on Youtube?  That guy will take ANYTHING and run GTA5 on it.  It's kinda amazing what playable results you can see yielded in some of the old hardware he randomly puts together.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

You can stop right there. I have been saying how the average PC build back in mid 2015 for midrange users was a haswell locked i5. So unless you kill hyperthreading and overclocks no it wouldn't be that representative of pcs at the time

You quoted me saying that I'd kill the OC and downclock it and then demanded that I kill the OC and downclock it...  ...That's... Weird.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I don't ever remember people saying Haswell couldn't handle GTA V and that you needed Skylake for it, especially considering Skylake didn't launch until GTA V had been out for something like 4 months. GTA V is one of the best PC ports I have ever seen.

The argument was more among the lines of hyperthreading being needed as this game did use more than 4 threads and had real benefits from it. So most people did also suggest upgrading to the 4790k in fairness to your point, but as long as you were upgrading the 6700k also had DDR4 and other features so it was a nice overall upgrade.

[Arc_Jester]

The recommended specs are insane.

 

OS: Windows 10 64-bit

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3.7 GHz

RAM: 16 GB System Memory

GPU RAM: 11GB Video Memory

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

HDD: 170GB Available hard drive space

DX: DirectX 11

[Bouzoo]

4 minutes ago, Arc_Jester said:

The recommended specs are insane.

 

OS: Windows 10 64-bit

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3.7 GHz

RAM: 16 GB System Memory

GPU RAM: 11GB Video Memory

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

HDD: 170GB Available hard drive space

DX: DirectX 11

Nothing out of that is confirmed. 

[CyanideInsanity]

19 minutes ago, Arc_Jester said:

The recommended specs are insane.

 

OS: Windows 10 64-bit

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3.7 GHz

RAM: 16 GB System Memory

GPU RAM: 11GB Video Memory

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

HDD: 170GB Available hard drive space

DX: DirectX 11

I've seen that thrown around a few places. I'd guess with how much SE is pushing 4k and graphic fidelity that they're going to say recommended specs is for 4k with gameworks. Either that or those specs are about what the machine(s) used to show the pc build had.

[Arc_Jester]

Just now, CyanideInsanity said:

I've seen that thrown around a few places. I'd guess with how much SE is pushing 4k and graphic fidelity that they're going to say recommended specs is for 4k with gameworks. Either that or those specs are about what the machine(s) used to show the pc build had.

It's for 4K afaik.

[goodtofufriday]

27 minutes ago, Arc_Jester said:

The recommended specs are insane.

 

OS: Windows 10 64-bit

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3.7 GHz

RAM: 16 GB System Memory

GPU RAM: 11GB Video Memory

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

HDD: 170GB Available hard drive space

DX: DirectX 11

Christ almighty. RIP my Fury X

[TacoSenpai]

48 minutes ago, Arc_Jester said:

The recommended specs are insane.

 

OS: Windows 10 64-bit

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 3.4 GHz or AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3.7 GHz

RAM: 16 GB System Memory

GPU RAM: 11GB Video Memory

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

HDD: 170GB Available hard drive space

DX: DirectX 11

Do I see the rise of can it run FFXV memes coming?