/v/ - Video Games

>>15214210

You're playing on minimum specs, not recommended specs.

>>15214226

Same game, recommended specs:

>Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4GHz (8 CPUs)

>Memory: 8 GB RAM

>Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 660 2GB / AMD HD 7870 2GB

The processor would likely handle the game, but there's no way you're getting a quality experience with a gtx660

I'm surprised they even tested a C2Q, barely ran GTAIV. V may be more optimized but I never tried it.

They make a rough guesstimate at what kind of machine can barely run the game, albeit at unplayable framerates.

>Are they trying to trick you into buying the game even though your computer can't handle it?

Yes.

>>15214250

A 660 Ti will play GTA V on high at 1080p with an average FPS of 62, so a 660 likely wouldn't be too far behind. Very doable. Remember, the game was released on 360/PS3, which has far weaker hardware.

>>15214278

Consoles have static hardware, optimization beats raw power every time.

>>15214267

V runs at roughly the same framerate as IV on a low end hardware. That's how bad IV's optimization is.

>>15214286

>>15214291

Irrelevant to the fact that the 660 will be able to handle GTAV on at least normal settings at 1080p as long as your goal is 60fps and not 120fps+.

>>15214290

Kind of figured, was a pretty shit port. I'd test it if that computer hadn't gone to the graveyard.

Minimum = it'll boot

Recommended = it'll be playable

Welcome to vidya, it's been like this for over 25 years.

>>15214250

>>15214210

Minimum = It can be played at all, quality is a variable they don't care about. It can be a stuttering slideshow but it still 'runs'. Besides surely anyone with that setup would suspect they had to upgrade significantly to play GTA before they even looked at its specs

>>15214278

The PC version is a significant graphical upgrade commissioned before they even thought of releasing it on 8th gen. In fact the PS4/Xbone version is a downgraded version of it.

>>15214355

Windows XP is vulnerable and it's good that they are shutting down support for it. It will make steam more secure in the future.

>>15214368

"Valve is taking away people's accounts and libraries unless they upgrade to Windows 10 AND THAT'S A GOOD THING!"

>>15214432

>omg wtf every company should support windows 95, no wait MS-DOS, to cater my needs because there are two users at risk of losing their accounts!

Look, if you're too poor to buy decent PC, you should stop wasting time one games that you can't even properly play and get a fucking job.

>>15214437

>oy vey not enough people are buying our bullshit bloated, firevorially supported win10! Goyim keep using 7 instead! Shut it down!!! in 2020

Check mate, athiests

>>15214454

But anon, if I have a job, then I don't have time for vidya

>>15214542

Yeah, it's called growing up. It's the same reason that most /v/ doesn't actually play video games, only shits on them for random reasons they read online or saw from a yt video.

>>15214542

Unless you live in South Korea or something this simply isn't true.

>>15214542

Spoken like someone that has never worked.

>>15214545

Are you saying gamers don't have to be the audience anymore?

>>15214355

This is going to cause havoc with my VM bots. Is there any chance of a crack or spoof to trick steam servers? I hope something really bad happens to those faggot kikes at Valve. We need a shitstorm.

>>15214210

Optimizing games is for pussies! we are artists, not gamers!

– Modern game developers.

My favorite one is the classic:

>2D "8-bit pixel art" indie platformer.

>Minimum requirements, Intel Core EX 9000 (16 CPUs), 16GB RAM, nVidia Overdrive GTX2049 16GB GDDR5 / AMD VR 5000 16GB GDDR5 (DirectX 13), 2.5 Petabytes of free space (SSD recommended).

>It has bugs, runs like shit and is 2 hours long.

>>15214250

I played it on mostly Normal/High settings on a 3570/7870 rig back at release, and it was perfectly playable.

>>15214781

what game?

>>15214781

> FFXII

That is a HD remaster, not a game with the PS2-level graphics.

>>15214210

the minimum means the absolute bare minimum for simply running the game, fps does not come in to play here. Bare minimum means "can I at least launch the game"

who the fuck uses that sort of hardware nowadays anyway

gta 5 is surprisingly easy to run as well despite looking decent

I've got a 960 with 4 gigs vram and an i5 and I was able to run ultra with 60 fps.

>escape from tarkov

>dev posted "approximate requirements", recommended

>3.2 gig quad core

>8 gigs of ram

>GPU with 2gigs of VRAM

>escape from tarkov

>actual system requirements

>top of the line i7 at the very least

>32 gigs of ram at minimum

>literally any GPU on earth

>it still barely runs

I fell for the Russian Star Citizen meme

>>15214819

>Russian Star Citizen

That'll be S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2

God, I hope I'm wrong

>>15214812

OG XBOX could run games in HD, why do you need a nasa computer suddenly to run non-emulated games from that gen at good framerate? heck, I have a potato and can run several GC/Wii games in HD emulated but not the PC version of FFXII. Stop excusing laziness

>>15214832

Sergei has surrounded himself with Yes Men and literal faggots, you damn well know it's either never coming out or is going to be pure shit. STALKER was also made by ukrops not the Russians

>>15214250

It does, runs fine for me in an i5/3330 and GTX 760

>>15214781

The PS2 version didn't have the handicap of having to run Windows 7 at the same time and didn't use DX11 features, both of which are going to have a big impact on required hardware. I'm sure they did a lazy job of porting it because it was a quick cash-grab but you're oversimplifying it.

>>15214953

>The PS2 version didn't have the handicap of having to run Windows 7 at the same time and didn't use DX11 features, both of which are going to have a big impact on required hardware

then why can I run newer games with better graphics using Windows 7 and DX11 features?

>>15214833

Only a handful of games could run better than 480p. And for many games you have to use XBE patches to have widescreen 480p.

To call what we had back then 'HD' is bullshit considering that it was 480x640 or 480x854 if there was a widescreen option. And most of the time they'd just crop the image to simulate widescreen so playing it in 4:3 gave you better field of view.

>>15214308

Not just vidya. From memory Windows XP's minimum is 233MHz and 64MB RAM. Something really pathetic like that. Not a chance in hell you're running it in a meaningful way on that.

>>15214432

Not Windows 10. Something not as fucking old as Windows XP. I swear, you're more retarded as the GZDoom haters. At least they have the option to stay on an older version.

I actually finished my first playthrough on those specs, it was a pretty painful experience.

>>15215049

>Not Windows 10. Something not as fucking old as Windows XP

So Vista, 7 or 8, then? Most Windowsfags aren't going to use Loonix, exactly. And what do once they decide that 7 is "too vulnerable" as well and force you to update to the shitty botnet that is 10? That awaits in 2022 at the latest.

>I swear, you're more retarded as the GZDoom haters.

Have you seriously never read any of the explanations as to how poorly optimized GZDoom is? Or do you just agree with the faggot removing support for older features for no real reason other than "it's old lol"?

>>15214975

I don't think you understood what I said. Using those APIs and needing to run Windows 7 in the background puts a lower threshold on the hardware required to run the game. That's a completely separate issue from optimization.

>>15215049

>defending the clusterfuck that is GZDoom

>>15215068

>So Vista, 7 or 8, then? Most Windowsfags aren't going to use Loonix, exactly.

Their fault for buying into proprietary software since it puts you in the "bitch" position. Even worse if it accesses online features that necessitate it be kept up-to-date, whether you like it or not.

>Have you seriously never read any of the explanations as to how poorly optimized GZDoom is?

I know it is. The fact is that it's their choice what direction to take it, removing expensive legacy code makes sense to make it easier to maintain and add things to, and none of the entitled whiners are stepping up to do better.

>>15214286

B-but muh microshaft wangblows console level of efficiency

>>15214250

Those cards are very capable of playing modern titles. GTA5 is barely modern now… That game is about to be a decade old, isn't it?

>>15215080

>I don't think you understood what I said. Using those APIs and needing to run Windows 7 in the background puts a lower threshold on the hardware required to run the game. That's a completely separate issue from optimization.

I don't expect to run FFXII HD with a hardware equivalent of a PS2, I was using the PS2 for context only.

>>15214437

>>15214432

just wait until valve closes support to win7 users and makes your steam library inaccessible until you upgrade to 8 or 10. serves you casuals right for ever giving steam money.

>>15214449

steam came out on XP. its reasonable to think they'd support the platform they were released for. especially since steam will likely work on XP but valve is going to actively block them instead of just stop supporting.

>>15215194

All it would take is Microsoft giving them a couple billion, and they'll do it, too. Also, by that logic, Linux support should be dropped outright.

>>15215194

>he thinks popularity is the reason they end support.

dont talk about things you know nothing about.

do i need to repeat myself?

>>15215180

>steam will likely work on XP but valve is going to actively block them instead of just stop supporting.

>>15214250

It's not about getting a quality experience, the specs are what they were told is the absolute minimum to run the game. From that point on, it's the players problem

>>15215194

Microsoft wants hardware companies to kill 7 by putting OS requirements on their shit, so it's not Steam I'm worried about.

>>15215294

>OS requirements

many websites actively block browsers that would easily work with their site stating that its no longer compatible, but if you had an extension to spoof your browser type or a script blocker to stop the script from checking your browser, it continues to work.

microsoft got annoyed when people were still using IE6 and able to browse most websites just fine. well into windows 10s lifespan IE6 was just starting to see some formatting issues that could be fixed via playing with compatibility modes.

now they made it so websites outright block anyone trying to view with those browsers by forcing them to open versions of your website that display block pages.

should be illegal tbh.

>>15215294

I had this happen to me a short while ago, found a game that looked cool and downloaded it. Fucking go to run it and get some weird shitty error. Turns out you require windows 10 because of direct x12 which is most definitely absolutely not compatible with any other system at all. fucking microsoft can go die, I also wanted to play halo wars 2 with my friends but windows 10

>>15215379

Even Pale Moon causes a lot of sites to throw "BROWSER NOT SUPPORTED" at me lately and then not load 100% properly, so it seems they're really cracking down on that shit.

>>15215389

Just get an old version of Umatrix, I've never run into that problem.

>>15215389

>pale moon

same, megaupload always gives me that shit. as if it wouldnt work if mega didnt block me.

but this is a steam thread, cant expect much from people who insist on using and defending a content aggregator for their games.

>>15215408

>umatrix

never heard of it. is that a browser?

>>15215419

Na it's a similar browser plug to noscripts.

>>15215452

thanks, i'll look into it (assuming its not on palemoons site but on the mozilla addons section).

would it conflict with or replace any of the extensions i use? (abprime, bluhell firewall, clean links, cookies exterminator, decentraleyes, eclipsed moon, encrypted web, noscript)

>>15215483

Just uninstall ABPrime if you're about to install uMatrix since it's redundant and the latter does a better job overall.

Bring your question to QTDDTOT on /tech/.

Now.

Do minimum specs really matter? One says GTX 970 but I have a 950 and am in no position to upgrade.

>>15215389

Just change your useragent string it works 99% of the time. The palemoon browser already automatically switches it for some major sites.

>>15215419

Once you learn how to use megatools you'll never use their website again. To download anything from there you just enter the command megadl and you don't have to deal with your browser taking up all your memory to hold files in a buffer for decryption and you don't need to register an account to use it. You can also have several downloads going at the same time with a VPN or proxy to get around their bandwidth limit.

>>15215540

If you have at least the minimum the game should run if not then hope for the best

>>15215649

i'll check out megatools but i barely use mega as it is. i couldnt reach that limit if i tried.

>>15214449

You are unironically correct.

>>15214250

wtf i have a superior cpu and a GTX 680 and i can barely get 60 with anything above ultra textures and anti aliasing at which point the game looks like shit

>>15215706

Fuck, I was looking forward to GalGun 2.

>>15215722

30fps with shit frame spacing is recommended for the most cinematic experience.

>>15214210

If you were playing games on a PC for more than 2 months then you would know that specs like that are meaningless bullshit in almost all cases.

Lurk more.

>>15215763

>galgun 2

I played it, it's really fucking boring. Try it anyway, the minimum half the time means nothing. I always ignore it and I'm fine. The previous was really fun too so I'm not being huurrrr weeebb or anything, it's just shit. The only good part is the funny trailer

>>15215823

I at least pirated Double Peace due to those two crash bugs never getting fixed. Granted, there are workarounds and the more frequent one never got me but I can't bring myself to drop cash on a problem that still exists to this day. I can only hope its sequel isn't similarly glitched.

Eh, I'll pirate it regardless. If not now then when all the DLC is released $60+ is too much for my blood.

>>15215823

>the previous was really fun

how was it any different? what made the second less fun?

>>15214635

Aren't there VMs for W7-W10?

>>15214678

They optimize tho

>>15214712

That's my biggest pet peeve. Indie devs who want to make 2D platformers should use SDL 1.2/Godot as opposed to Unity/UE4/XNA. SDL is guaranteed to run on toasters and has everything needed for those types of indie games.

>>15215776

>30fps

>for cinematic

You're shooting too high. The true cinematic experience is silky smooth 24fps, the way our one true lord and savior Hollywood intended.

>>15215839

It's not buggy it's just unenjoyable.

>>15215844

There was a thread about it, see if it's still there. But basically it comes down to

>less collectibles

>same boring missions over and over again

>DO THIS DEFENSE MISSION

>DO THIS FUCKING DEFENSE MISSION

>no cg

>no nothing

It's just worse in every way possible.

>>15214290

GTA V may be better optimized, but it's also less detailed than IV.

>>15214210

-Buy components from smugglers that have stolen them, paying (currently) 28% or less of the original price.

-Pirate everything else.

>>15214812

>>15214980

i think youre ignoring just how much more powerful that PC is than a PS2. we're not talking 2x-4x as powerful. we're talking easily 10-20x as powerful.

>>15214355

>using (((Steam))) in the first place

>PC port of 25 year old console game

>minimum requirements

>30 terabytes storage space

>8 GHz 64 core Intel core i15

>2 terabytes ddr6 RAM

>nvidia gtx 370000 with 1 terabyte dedicated vram

>constant internet connection required

>capped at 30fps

>>15216140

Thank you for using Unity :^)

>>15214210

Speaking from experience, minimum specs aren't actually minimum. I've ran shit just fine even with specs far below "minimum". My guess is they just write down the specs of the shittiest machine they had on hand that ran it.

>>15214355

Install gentoo already faggot.

>>15215025

You know? The odd thing about Skyrim would have to be how well it runs in 4k. As much as an unoptimized piece of shit it is in every aspect somehow it actually scales resolution, and in most cases keeps a consistent framerate.

You'd think that be normal, but from what I've experienced games that run great on 1920x1080 start shitting themselves on 4k. Even though the internal rendering resolution stays the same resulting in the graphics barely looking any better. GTA V is a good example of this.

>>15214368

you're a faggot

>>15214432

and you're blowing it out of proportion

>>15217111

try saying that after modding it a ton without his spec hardware

>>15217111

Even my 750 was able to run it at 30+ fps in 4k

>>15214210

>minimum specs

>lowest resolution and graphics settings

>HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I AM GENUINELY SURPRISED BY THIS

GLOBAL. FUCKING. REPORT.

>>15218118

That's not always the case however. Some games will run fine even on hardware years older and less powerful than the official minimum specs.

>>15214210

By throwing the specs of whatever the shittiest computer they got the game to run on. Do you think there's some kind of quantifiable scoring system or process you can do to find out the minimum spec requirements for your game? Because there isn't. There is a shitload of different hardware out there.

>>15214210

>I can pretty much guarantee you'll be playing on the lowest resolution and graphics settings, and the cpus alone will prevent you from reaching 30 fps.

48fps avg on normal preset with 16AF and no AA @ 720p.

It's fine