Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Most people would see the system requirements for a game and if they know their computer is slower than what is posted they just don't buy the game or bother trying to play it. Even if it does work it would be so incredibly slow that it wouldn't be close to an enjoyable experience so there's no point in trying.
Plus we're dealing with advances in tech since the game was released, so what was once the remit of dedicated graphics may no longer be. Whilst I was under no illusion that the game would work, I felt there was a possibility it might.
See my reply above. No need to be so condescending.
Thank you. I took a punt.
Guess what, it's actually working!
I've got the settings on max and apart from the laptops fans going into overdrive, and the battery draining while being plugged in, it's absolutely playable.
This is why I wrote my messages above and I feel I need to write this one here as well: If I didn't comment in this thread then other people with integrated graphics / no video card would find this thread and think they can play the game. Which by the way: Your comments in the past and that comment there is *VERY* misleading to others.
Just because you got it working does not mean that it will work for anyone else. Just because it appears to work now does not mean it will still run smoothly for you later. Most likely you are going to find later in the game when you start working on 2-3 computers at the same time + have lots of emails from customers in the email app that the game will start to slow down quite a lot for you and end up being very slow later because you don't have a video card. By then you will be past the 2 hour return window in Steam, you won't be able to refund it, and you will also have a game that's slow and unplayable. Just because it works now does not mean it is going to work CORRECTLY later. That is where having a real video card would be kind of useful.
I'm trying to help people understand things and also try my best to help inform people that find this thread: If you have an iGPU or APU you are in for a very poor experience in this game without a real video card and you should know that before you try to pay for it and play it.
But let me be clear, I am NOT misleading (intentionally or otherwise) other people into believing their hardware will work.
I have since lowered my settings to minimum, not because the game was unplayable, but simply to reduce the stress on my system.
For reference, on max settings within Intel Arc Control and in game, I am not dropping below 24 FPS. Yes this is low, but as we're not rendering millions of raindrops, leaves and blades of grass in a panorama, hundreds of military units on a battlefield, or needing twitch responses in a first person shooter, 24 FPS is absolutely fine.
By dropping the settings to the minimum, I can double get 45 FPS min, and 50 FPS most of the time.
Now I stated in my opening question that I wasn't expecting this to work. I am using a productivity device, not a gaming device. I am well aware of its limitations, but that doesn't mean to say it can't be done.
Note, if you go back and read the minimum requirements it states "integrated graphics may work, but are not supported"[/i?
As I also mentioned, there have been significant advances in technology (it's a 5 year old game with 10 year old minimum hardware requirement) and its not really possible to get good direct comparisons between integrated/mobile GPUs and their discrete desktop counterparts.
For example, I have read that the Iris XE G7 is close to the MX350. This in turn supposedly comparable to a GTX 1050 (albeit crippled), which is then compared back to the GTX 960M - but these cards allegedly benchmark nowhere near each other.
So why is it working so well for me?
Well it could be more is being rendered in software (I believe it's created in Unity/OpenGL), and the fact my CPU annihilates the i5 listed could play a part.
So lets have a raw data side by side:
i5-2500K
i7-1260P
GeForce
GTX 660
XE Graphics
G7 96EU
(64 KB / core)
(80 KB / core)
(16 KB / SMX)
(256 KB / core)
(1280 KB / core)
(96 KB / cor0)e
(2048 KB / 4 E-cores)
performance
performance
performance
Even despite that and even if it's just walking around in the small single computer shop room 24 FPS is NOT FINE AT ALL in this game. That's awful. Like I said before, twice now: That is not running the game PROPERLY. That is a misreable experience no one should think is acceptable at all.
Thank you for at least being honest and proving my point I have been saying all along: If people try playing this game on any kind of integrated graphics chip it will be a terrible experience and not worth playing. Just get a real computer with a real video card so you can enjoy it properly.
You must be such fun at parties...
What gives you the right to criticize what others find acceptable?
I have tried playing this game at 24 FPS before on older hardware and it was truely awful as I said. I couldn't stand it for more than a few seconds. The input delay alone is the worst. for example: Move the mouse around while standing in the shop and wait multiple seconds before the camera actually turns for example. Just no.. that's very bad.
- 1. I have this game running on a dang GT 730, while nowhere near high settings and not
1080p, I'm running it.
- 2. Even if a game is slow and unplayable on my current system, I keep it. Because one
day if I am still a gamer by that day, I will have a PC that can run that game.
- 3. While iGPUs are usually heavily underpowered and are only designed for displaying
video and running light apps, APUs (like ones from AMDs Ryzen lineup) are very good
at gaming for their price (*CPU Price* + 0$) and can run games such as Forza Horizon 5,
one of todays most graphically intensive games, at 1080p Medium settings or higher
depending on how deep you dive into maxing out settings for performance.
I will have fun, because I'm playing the game I want to play, on my terms of my own, not someone else's terms that they have and think I should follow because to them it's the right terms.
As I have said before and I will repeat it again: People should have a real dedicated video card and one that at least meets the system requirements to play the game CORRECTLY.
It's great that you're comfortable with games running slow, laggy, choppy, and borderline completely unresponsive. More power to you and have fun with that. At the same time though you should understand that most of the rest of the world would never do that.