安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
that rig is more than good enough, get the PC version, it will always be the best option,
use the PS5 for exclusive only titles,
I think Sony gameplay footage teasers say it all.
You should get the version you think is right for you.. nobody can deciede for you.
Me personally would never suggest PS5, because what would I need a family entertainment system for and why would I ever play with a controller.... but to each his own..
My point here. Look inwards.. think about what you want and what you expect.
If you play on 1080p, then you will do just fine on your PC in terms of performance btw.
He could also just go high/very high and no ultra, and get 50 fps more, for 2 % visual loss.
exactly. its annoying use a gamepad to play FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS. its only when driving its better.
yes and what do games like call of duty have ? auto aim lol. its much easier to pin point your shots than using an analogue stick. thats just facts. im not saying every console player is bad, its just not better than a mouse.
hence why i said driving is better with gamepad rather than M an k.
By that argument we should stop debating everything, because we don´t know anything until the game is out.... not even "true" recommended specs etc.
My argument comes from not just the last few games (and their games as well) but the last 10 years. (I could go longer back) Ultra is always a hard cost for almost no gain.. in many situations Ultra is more a setting for promotional video´s rather than stability and is not worth the FPS cost...
You can take TW games, a high/very high setting with various tweaking would perform around 40-120% better than going all maxed out with everything on.... The visual gain however, was nigh seeable for most.... That is the point here, the gain is simple not enough to merit turning on the settings.
To each his own ofc and people are free to do whatever they want.. But ultra should not be a standard for benchmarks or what to strive for if you ask me (personal opinion ofc)
But it is fact.. yes fact, that these Ultra settings, most of the time has a high toil on performance without much visual gain... This is not 1999 anymore, today games are made with normal/high as the standard acceptable (good looking) setting.
I find it funny, that you don´t think 42% increase in FPS just from lowering "shadows" 1 setting, from ultra to very high, is no impact..........
First off.. lets conclude what we agree on.. (Most games look great on normal/medium settings now a days) then we have that out of the way
I could name you most big AAA titles that focus on either. (FPS/3rd party Openworld rpg, FPS shooters, 3rd party adventures, etc etc etc.. we could even put on driving) and most of them you see atleast 40% increase in FPS from simply putting the texture quality from Ultra to Very High.
This is a huge hike in my opinion... if you ask people if they can see a difference (if you don´t showcase them the settings, they will have no chance to guess what is what)
As for benchmarking.. it has become pure advertisement for the high tier cards and has lost its grasp of reality. Lets start with 4k. Under 2% of steam users have 4k........ even 1440p as I use, have under 10% users... the vast majority uses 1080p or below.
As for benchmarking on ultra as well.... it showcase the games with that 2-3% visual gain and hampers the performance down to suit 60hz......... This is not 99´ anymore... It also gives people a wrong idea about what they should expect or strive for.. (nobody should feel sad just because they can´t run ultra or very high for that matter)
That is why these benchmarks are silly... often the cards are high tier and used with the newest of the newest (best) hardware combo as well.... Again.. This is done to make people buy and aim higher than they actually need for their usage or to have a great build for avarage gaming.
In my opinion medium/high should be the benchmark standards or even a duo.... I am not saying you should not give out an extra benchmark for ultra settings, mainly because PC and Tech enthusiasts wants that as well... not because of regular gaming performance however.
I guess I could link the video, I usually link... mainly because people for some odd reason, trust a random youtuber more than my facts and arguments....... But the video is abit dated now, still valid, but dated!..... (I will link it at the end)
Basically using "Ultra" and often "4k" as the benchmark standards, showcase what you get from a 2-4% minority of gamers and not what the avarage user should expect... granted it is more fun for some people to watch the x80 or x90 series get reviewed than a x60 or x50... but the two latters is were the majority of people will buy in anyway...
This is btw coming from someone, that could if I wanted, run most stuff on ultra on 1440p without issues....I choose not to, unless I have to showcase, test or use it for arguments (I have done that in KC:D ie)
All in all, people that have recommended specs in this game will have a blast, those that surpass it, will have an even greater blast... but even those that don´t have a strong machine, will have fun, because this game seems to focus on making "most" people play this while it looks good and then give the rest of us abit of extra stuff to tweak... this is a good principle to make the game around in my opinion.
Now for the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ZsaavKNR8
Extra note.. to make this more on topicl
This also means that consoles might be used for baseline, making the game pretty much optimized for most PC gamers and making the top notch PC users get extra stuff to have fun with and still have a great FPS.
The difference between ie 60 and 100 fps, is much bigger than people think.. (thus the reason why PC gaming in general feels more smooth than ie console gaming)
4k is not a scam, it can actually be pretty great.. not if you have a 27" half a meter from you however... The optimal compromise atm is 1440p at that distance with atleast 144hz (I have 165hz on mine)
Today you actually need higher resolution... my 1440p will look better even on medium, than a 1080p user on ultra... I am not joking.... in this game. That is the catch here.. most people however still use 1080p and if you have not tried 1440p to compare ie, then you don´t miss out (the same can be said about almost anything)
The most important for me however is. (on the monitor)
hz (thus the reason why pc > consoles, often they are low hz tvs used for console, with you know 30/60 fps lock)
Then resolution
Again, I would never turn back to 1080p and trust me I have tried, why I had my 1440p in for a DRM (had thrips in my monitor!!!) so I had my old 1080p........ it was...... hell..
Then panel type
I love IPS !!!! The colours are so much better and with low ms and high hz now a days, there is no excuse, TN can be fine if you just want high performance and higher hz then 165. VA is in my opinion awful.
Then gimmicks
G/F - Sync
Anyway.
i5 3470...... That is over 7 years old..... ancient tech.
One of the biggest mistakes people do in PC building, is buy best GPU they can get, then get low grade CPU, PSU, Ram and MB.......... in a open world game like this, CPU and SSD actually matters alot, not just for bottleneck reasons on the GPU.