Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
This is pretty much emulation, meaning it's hard to run, far from perfect, and asks a lot of computing power.
Also, make sure DMC3 is running with your dedicated GPU and not your iGPU.
Your CPU/GPU usage which is ten to twenty times more important than if it was a native port of a game from a PS2 era. This collection asks pretty much the same compared to pcsx2 at the same resolution. In comparason, San Andreas launched on android in 2013 (Max Payne in 2012) and was already perfectly playable.
Here, even with decent hardware, you get fps drops.
Also, considering that the game speed of the native (but horrendus) pc port from sourcenext from 2006 isn't tied to framerate (and therefore you could play the game at 30 or 144fps at normal speed) but this one doesn't, it makes it pretty clear that this is not a native windows port.
As for an official annoucement?
Not in their interest to say it. Don't give people free reasons to not buy your game. But just like the Castlevania and Megaman collections, they don't need to tell us the games are emulated considering how obvious this is.
If you want to stay blind, make yourself at home. These forums are the perfect place to do it.
No need for ad hominem. I just want you to prove what you're saying. Making speculations is good and all but spreading potentially false formation... Not so much.
In the same way, it's not because something as been announced and affirmed as "the "truth" that it is, true.
So, in the end, we'll end up saying nothing, because none of us has any proof of anything, and it's not because we consider something as "a proof" that it is.
Everything is a point of view and everything is subject to interpretation.
I never made a claim. I accept the possibility that you could be right. I don't need to provide proof, because I never claimed you to be wrong. I merely pointed out that you don't have evidence enough to back anything up, and thus we don't actually know.
You, however did make a claim and thus the burden of proof is with you. Everything you are saying will just boil down to speculation, until you can, without a doubt prove, that this port is running emulation.
Never said you did.
This is pretty much philosophy at this point.
But I guess it must be tiring to call everyone out about their potential lack of proof. What must be actually funny is when you get to say something and have nothing to proove it yourself. I'm sure it happens, considering pretty much nothing can be really prooved.
So much for lecturing other people.
But like I said, this is pretty much philosophy at this point.
That was merely a statement to explain why I am not the one having to provide proof in this argument, not me accusing you of saying that.
You keep missing the point, where I didn't say anything in regards to the topic, that I need to provide proof for. You're the only one who made a bold claim about this being emulated. I usually don't state things like they are facts, unless I have solid evidence to back it up.
So it's not usually something that happens to me a lot.
And when it does, I try to at least have the decency to admit, I was wrong.
Which you don't. Instead of just admitting, that you can't really provide proof that this port is emulated and just providing speculation, you accused me of being blind and try to talk your way out of having to provide evidence with philosophy that doesn't hold up in real life.
Also, stop with the ad hominem. Attacking someone with mockery instead of the argument itself comes across childish.
So I ask you again, please provide evidence for this being emulated instead of just speculation based on the game's CPU usage.
I was just refering to you playing blind on my arguments, using a godwin point to dissmiss them, so it made no point adding other arguments.
I didn't say anything about your arguments.
No matter what proofs I might have bring, you would have dissmissed them.
Why? Simple.
It would've have been very technical and would've taken a lot of time to explain, supposing you would've understand everything. It's like trying to explain someone how gravity works. If he can't understand me, then this is not a proof about how gravity works or even if it exist.
Proof is extremely dependant on point of views. In other words, proof is only proof if you can accept it. If you don't, then it's not a proof.
And no, an announcement is not a proof. Ethen if official. People lie.
Case in point, Capcom made it very clear DMC5 won't have any more DLC after launch. It was an official statement.
Vergil DLC a year and a half after.
Everyone lies. Even in the governments. So announcements are no proofs.
The real question is "What would be a proof to you"?
I keep missing your point, not the same.
Proof?
I "accused" you of being blind on my arguments (like most people do while debating), nothing more. No personal attacks or moquery. But I agree it can get difficult to understand eachother clearly using only words.
What I meant by that, was not to "find a way out" or "mock you", it's about personnal experience.
Few years ago, I kept correcting people about their spelling (in French, cause I'm French), so it made me feel even more dumb when I made spelling mistakes myself. It made me realise not only how dumb I was, but how much time I lost "correcting" others.
It made no sense.
Who was I to think I could "correct" people?
It made even less sense considering language is an invention, constantly evolving, and very far from perfect.
Only made me realize how imperfect I was (and still am).
I wasn't really talking about you. I was talking about the irony of "correcting" and "confronting" others about what we consider mistakes and righteousness .
But whatever, just keep digging a deeper and deeper whole what it just boils down you not wanting to provide evidence.
The thing about DMC5 DLC is... They said there were no plans. BIG BIG difference from flat out saying there won't be any. And plans can change. So they didn't lie.
https://twitter.com/retroOtoko/status/1120603014639697920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1120603014639697920%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tweaktown.com%2Fnews%2F65684%2Fcapcom-producer-devil-cry-5-done-future-dlc%2Findex.html
And yes, this is a case of providing evidence.
Try me. Because as it sounds, you're just trying to excuse you not wanting to provide evidence. And yes, I would think that a developers word or a logo at the beginning of the game like Unreal holds a lot more up as evidence as your speculation.
And yes you did. You said, and it's within your own quote. "I never said you did."
That is literally a response to what I said or my argument if you will.
You're literally derailing everything into a nonsense counter point and just twist things to suit your narrative so you can have said point.
Just try to provide some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ evidence for the DMC port jfc.... honestly. You're trying way too hard to avoid actually doing so.
So how about we stop this nonsense argument, because it's getting nowhere.
DO you have evidence or not? Yes or no. If yes, show it to me! And I am talking evidence and not your assumptions or guesses based on observation.
But fine, what makes you think which one is harder to proove than the other?
Like I said, proof is subjective. Maybe I don't need much to accept something as a proof.
Not digging anything, just having fun. I love conversations like this.
The hole you are talking about is just your perception. There is no hole.
They said multiple times that DMC5 developpement was finished. They maid very clear of that.
"No plans" is, again, subject to interpretation, just as "finished".
Also no, announcement is not proof. It never prooves anything. Never. Words are not proofs. Not only words can be modified, misinterpreted, but they are only the proof that they were said/told/written. It doesn't proove what they were supposed to mean.
And it's not because they were said by someone more known/ more relatable/ more anything you want that it's more of a proof.
It's not because a president say the vaccins are perfectly safe that it's a proof they are. Finding the transcription could only proove, at best, that one said it. And that's way and way less sure in a world full of hacking and deepfakes, but I digress.
I highly doubt that if I write something like 30+ pages of how emulation mimics hardware reactions and how it manages things like setting up page tables, how it reads/writes I/O ports, or how it performs the protected instructions itself (how I/O operations are mapped to emulated device hardware instead of emulated CPU and how JIT recompiles it), you would consider it a proof.
Because yes, to understand the "proofs" and consider them "proofs", you need to understand what they are.
I don't think displaying lines of embedded hexa code like this: int i = 0; for (int j = 0; j < 100000; j++){ i = j;} would made any sense to you if you don't know how emulator works and what each line of codes mean.
I also whould have to explain why this is an emulation and not game embedded in a virtual machine such as Vine (because it's not the same thing). And this might take even longer considering I'll have to explain how virtual machine works and why they are not emulations.
And that's providingyou know the basics of programation, and how to write in C/C++ and assembly language.
"I never said you did."
I didn't say: "You are saying I'm wrong". You are interpreting, once again.
And actually it would've made no sense to say something like that (or even imply it), because you never actually gave any arguments besides dissmissing mine by using a godwin point. In others words, you can't really be wrong because you didn't say any arguments that could be proven right or wrong. But I don't know if I'm very clear.
I return the compliment. You spend your time tring to convince me how nonsense I am while never using a single argument but your point of view.
The only difference here is that you keep tring to pin me down without any argument and I spend my time explaining you that this makes no sense. This is delightful.