Anyone getting this shit next week?
Printable View
Anyone getting this shit next week?
Got mine pre-ordered over at kickass
Seriously though, I don't really care for Witcher 2.. other than eye candy (which I can't really turn all the way up and get the FPS that I want) I don't really give a shit about this game
Yes!
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
Wish ^^nosTEAM^^ would update the patches for Dragon Age Inquisition. That motherfucker still crashes on me and some of the mosaic pieces can't be picked up, some missions can't be finished, etc.
SRS though, you'll probably get it free with the 980 Ti.
No cash to buy a GPU after all.. need to sell some electronics, but don't really want to part ways w/ anything other than maybe an extra monitor and the 680Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
no, but giving Witcher 2 a look b/c steam sale. and once again we have video game story writers trying to make me feel guilty for being a specist. surely these educated talented people don't believe in and love fictitious species, they must be sending a racial message?
What's this game about? How's it compare to Mass Effect in terms of story and deep RPG aspects?
Tits and ass, threesomes, swordplay, magic.. Seriously though. Made the unfortunate mistake of sitting down to play with my 7 year old in the room. The guard starts talking about some whores, and then the scene cuts to Geralt in bed with two naked whores with their tits out. My girl gives me the "you're a fucking idiot" look like I knew, it was the first time I played :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Strange Love
LOL playing games knowing nothing about them, how does one even have time for that? wait for the cream to rise tbh, if there is any cream...Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
I play at night for a couple hours when the fam is crashed.. that doesn't change whether I know the game or not :lol I buy games I don't necessarily know much about because they're cheap as fuck on Steam sometimes, and I have OCD for great visuals and tuning for 60 FPSQuote:
Originally Posted by vander
LOL, is that Witcher 2 you're talking about? 3 doesn't come out until next week I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
Yeah, it will be more of the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Currently playing through TW2. I'll get 3 when it goes on sale in the Summer.
How high would you rate it on a 10 point scale?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Still too early in the game to say. There are some things that are really archaic in the game, like invisible walls. That sucks. But the story content is pretty awesome, the main character is a much better antihero than most.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
The battle system is a little clunky but you can mod it. Without mods I would say this game is a 6.5/10 but with mods it's probably a couple points higher. Worth playing. Very hard, though. I think for it's time this game is really outstanding, there are just refinements that have occurred since then that shows the game's age.
Wow, this is fucked that they dumbed down the graphics for PC thanks to console limitations.
How the PC port looked in their 2013 demo
http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/o...2199-ip9VU.gif
How the PC version looks for release in 2015
http://i.imgur.com/cWf3DID.png
More 2013 demo
http://i.minus.com/ilo8ZEuf1yn7w.gif
And 2015 release
http://gifyu.com/images/W2475ee.gif
AMD users are going to get dicked here. Supposedly this performs the same on an R9 290 as on a shitty GTX 960
What else is new...Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
"Durr hurr let's save 50 bucks on a comparable GPU so I can have issues running everything that releases"
And yeah, they toned down the graphics big time. This is almost as bad as Watch Dogs false advertising. The geeks over at Gamefaqs are melting down over this shit. On the bright side, it looks like they cut back on the post process mostly, so it should be easy for the community to mod it back in, or the devs release an update soon after launch.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
CH isn't going to like this development.
:lol :cry Havoc
The demo looks like it's running at 30fps already (though it might be the GIF), and for those events they might use a SLI Titan...
tbh, the demo vs game bait and switch predates Watchdogs...
I don't hate AMD, but all my boxes have Intel & NVidia inside them...Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
Ok, then we'll keep it at..Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
:lol Cry Havoc
..for now
I hate their CPUs, at least for gaming. Last good one was Phenom II x4 965 Black back in like 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
That really is a chickenshit move by the devs though, since an R9 290 has damn near the horsepower of a GTX 970 and not a piece of crap like the 960.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
Whats the word on the launch performance of GTA V on AMD cards? I don't recall too much moaning..Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Not too bad. For a couple of days AMD was actually bundling GTA V with the R9 290 and R9 290x. Kind of surprised to see the GTX 970 outperforming the GTX 780 Ti here.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http...TA5_1920_2.jpg
I never owned an AMD CPU, tbh, although some of our clients had boxes with them...Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
My main beef with Intel was on how inefficient they were power-wise (I'm talking 386, 486, Pentium days here). They always had the raw processing power, but you had a single-core CPU chewing 70W at idle and the fan buzzing like a motherfucker. Then with the Core2 processors, they added speed-step and that was an improvement, and now the i series is just phenomenal. AMD also copied a lot of that with their PowerNow! tech, but even in their current procs, if you get near 3GHz, you're gonna be hitting 90-100W TDP...
Now I would agree most people might not give a shit about power and noise, but I do put some value on design improvements like that. When you are surrounded by computers for 8+ hours a day for years on end, you start appreciating the little things like that.
You should look at the Broadwell i7-5775C or i5-5675C then, since they're 65W TDP. They're supposed to release early next month. I wonder how low they could get the TDP on 14nm Broadwell Xeon E3s without the iris pro graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I take that back, the Broadwell i7 is supposed to be $480! And the Broadwell i5 $350. Who is going to pay that just to get fucking Iris Pro Graphics when you could get an i7-4771 and an R9 280 for that price?
I hear those are more expensive than the Haswell because of the Iris Pro and the eDRAM, it's gonna take some time for the prices to drop. I'm also wondering how they stack up performance-wise against the Haswell, since the released Broadwell processors so far have been underwhelming, IIRC. I suppose they're great overclockers, but I'm not really into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Do you know if that eDRAM is supposed to be usable as another level of cache when the iGPU is disabled? Because they chopped 2MB of L3 cache off their desktop i5 and i7 for Broadwell.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
AFAIK, eDRAM is used as a L4 cache, so it's used by both the CPU and IGP. The thing is, CPU caches use SRAM, which is bigger on the die, and thus costlier, and uses more voltage than the actual logic part, increasing thermal and power. Intel has been bitching about how SRAM doesn't scale well, with a good chunk of the die nowadays used strictly by caches. DRAM is simply more compact, uses less power, but it needs to be constantly refreshed.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
There's a more in-depth explanation here:
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?doc_id=1323410
That said, I suspect a good chunk of that eDRAM is likely reserved to cache framebuffer memory for the IGP.
Also, for Haswell, only parts with Iris Pro have eDRAM... this doesn't seem like it's going to change for Skylake either (although all Skylake parts that include an IGP will be Iris Pro, from what I read)
LOL if Intel has all the overclockers who will never use Iris Pro subsidizing their mobile users by paying for a useless igpu. I have heard the locked i7-6700 and i5-6500 are supposed to have prices more in line with Haswell i7 and i5, but LMAO if they force Iris Pro on the K series. It would be worth it just to hear all the butthurt from everyone who spends out the ass on Z boards, watercooling, and K CPUs for not much performance gain in gaming to have to spend $150 more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
AFAIK, all the Skylake SKUs they've listed have Iris Pro. Some come with eDRAM and some do not. They probably are going to make the unlocked very premium. At those power/thermal, you can probably overclock the fuck out of those processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Might as well go with the 140W enthusiast edition CPUs then for those prices. Maybe that's Intel's strategy though. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I don't think they did it just for console players. There are a lot of pc gamers still running with 560s, 7770s, etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Why release a game that can only run on the highest of end PCs?
The benchmarks are disappointing as hell for a game that doesn't look that great. Looks like the 290 = 960 rumor is bullshit though.
http://i.imgur.com/tjvJIFJ.png
Well they are running w/ SSAO on which is gonna be as taxing as Ubersampling in the last Witcher.. SSAO looks great, but who seriously uses that shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Even with it off and HBAO+ on the Titan X is only getting 63.8 fps in that benchmark. I run basically every game I have with ambient occlusion maxed when available (e.g., Dragon Age Inquisition, Dying Light, GTA V, Far Cry 4) and they all run 60 fps on a GTX 970 at mostly ultra settings. I hear HairWorks murders performance too, which is disappointing since AMD's TressFX isn't too big a performance hit on Maxwell.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
Yeah I see that now.. what an unoptimized piece of shit.. and :lol hair tech. Such a minor detail to name a tech over. TressFX looked retarded on TR. It's crazy that 3 years later all these AAA titles still don't look as good as modded Skyrim.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I kind of liked shampoo commercial mode on TR tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
LOL texture pop in at ultra settings using SLI Titan X
Wow, that's real annoying. So much for immersion.
The PS4 version of this game looks particularly bad. LOL framerates in the teens in cutscenes, in the twenties in gameplay, and all the pop in.
When did PS4 become the scrub console?
Stuttering mess on PC even with a GTX 980 at 1080p
:lol AMD ethered by Forbes over their crying about Witcher 3
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasoneva...ias-hairworks/
:lol AMD
:cry they sabatoged our performance
:cry it's not fair
:cry forget business and market share, play nice and let us be successful too!!
Weird, I haven't had any issues so farQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Apparently patch 1.03 makes a huge difference in performance. That video was done before it was out.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursFan313
For anyone with an Nvidia card who doesn't have Witcher 3, don't install the newest drivers for Witcher 3. They have been crashing like crazy in Chrome for me the last couple of days since installing. I thought maybe I had a bitcoin miner installed, since my GPU usage would climb to 100% for a second or two and then I'd get a blackscreen and a message the driver crashed. But the GPU usage never goes up like that when Chrome isn't being used, so I doubt that's it. Turns out lots of people are getting driver crashes in Chrome with this specific driver.
You think Witcher 2 is a must before playing this?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursFan313
I personally finished witcher 2 before getting witcher 3, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I personally finished witcher 2 before getting witcher 3, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I just started playing through Witcher 2.. Installed the texture overhaul along with the new textures on the weapons. The combat is kinda meh, and not being able to decapitate or dismember sucks. Dying Light ruined every game that doesn't feature that for me.
C'mon, any PC remotely recent can run basically any new game. There aren't any new games I can think of that aren't playable on average systems. It's all a matter of settings. If you are someone trying to game on a 470 and a Pentium II processor in 2015, then obviously gaming on PC isn't for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpursFan313
You still need to make a Ubisoft exception tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR210
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http...ew-ac_1920.jpg
Fuck the 352.86 driver for Witcher 3. Shit's crashing my 970 all the time in Chrome and I get worse performance in GTA V than with the April 350.12 driver, so I rolled back to 350.12. Nvidia is usually pretty awesome with their drivers as long as your card is current gen, but these new ones fucking suck.
Held off as long as I could, but I picked it up today.
Game is a lot tougher than I expected.
Same with Witcher 2.. I haven't broken a controller yet, but I might after getting good and liquored up.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMexican
So far, I am enjoying the game. I haven't fallen in love with it. TheTcontrol movements feel jerky to me. I feel like the movements go from a snails pace, to very fast. Reminds me a ton of Vice City
i can only play this 15 min at a time. doesn't really keep my attention long. combat is pretty boring imo.
I haven't played any of the other recent open world games like assassins creed or GTA or whatever, so maybe this is just par for the course, but I'm pretty impressed with the sheer volume of content in this game: seemingly endless quests and characters and dialogue, and the world feels lively and huge... one of the very few games I think was completely worth the money, despite it's many oddities, cliche's, and annoyances.
Nah, Witcher 3 has an enormous amount of content just in the vanilla game, probably comparable to Skyrim + DLC. I haven't played the DLC yet though, so no idea how much that adds. And the game looks amazing if you have a new enough Nvidia card to run HBAO+. It's a lot more content than GTA V.Quote:
Originally Posted by vander
welp, turns out I did everything wrong, got the bad ending. didn't realize the dialog options with ciri were so pivotal. I'm actually kinda depressed about it :lol
LOL you went in the room to speak to the sorceresses with Ciri didn't you? I got the so-so ending where she became emperor because I followed through on the damn promise to swing by the emperor's place with her before the last battle. But at least Gerald gets to sleep in late with Yen every morning. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by vander
yeah, and I was indecisive with yen/triss, so that didn't work out either.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
2 of the ciri scenes were near the end so it wasn't too long to replay them for the good ending. but that bad ending was way more memorable
Man that would piss me off to put all that time into the game to get this ending :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by vander
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1ofpl7NqYQ
Finally finished the game, I think I got the best possible outcomes and Ciri became a witcher. Don't think I'll play any of the DLC any time soon due to boredom. I'm going to move onto Fallout 4 whenever I pick that up.
Agree with this. Gonna take me years to advance. I revise my grade of this game from 4 stars to 3Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
Damn man, I remember your ass was really excited by this game when you got your new rig. Too many really tedious side quests make this game start getting old though.Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
tbh, when you bang the 3 witches, is that a problem when you go back to Kaen Moltar(sp?)????
You talking about that blonde chick, Triss, and Yennefer? I think you're alright once you get to Kaer Morhen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
U still playing it? It's a fun game but yeah just too much tedious and repetitive shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Nah, I beat it a ways back and haven't touched it since. I always do the side quests since they make a lot of games great (e.g., Dying Light or the Fallout series), but in Witcher 3 there are some awesome side quests but a lot of really boring ones too. The main quest is great. I just stopped doing the side quests in Witcher 3 once my character's level was so high that none of them were above my level anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
It only causes a problem if you try to commit to both Triss and Yen. You have to pick one or the other, or lose both. That other chick means nothing, and was dead in my playthrough anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Xevious
Finally picked this back up a few days ago and I've been playing it pretty heavy. Just like TW2 it had to grow on me, but now that I'm pretty into it's hard to put down :tu
Best single player game I've ever played
How do you think Witcher 2 compares to Witcher 3? Is it a must play game if you liked the third one?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313
I liked TW2 but I'm glad I played it before tw3 because I'm not sure I could go back :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
It's definitely more raw around the edges and the gameplay is a bit different (not open world), but the story is top notch. It's more political oriented so it would probably clear up some things maybe you didn't catch in tw3. However, I don't feel it's necessary. If you finished TW3 and want something to play til the next DLC I'd say it's worth a play through. It's short too, I didn't do many side quest and beat in maybe a week or two iirc
Beat it earlier today. Got the ending with Ciri becoming a Witcher. Was kinda disappointed we didn't get some kind of boss fight with Ciri at the end, but whatever. Also I forgot to go back to Djikstra and do the quest to kill Radovid so he won the war which is kind of bummer. The most annoying part of the ending is how it just loads you to a point before the ending and takes away all the side characters. Makes the game feel empty and nothing left to do.
Still a great game though 5/5
:lol I asked you the same shit like 7 months ago in this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by 313
Oh shit, glad to see I'm consistent :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
the DLC was surprisingly good. Though the whole plot was "because a wizard did it" and the end was anticlimactic, it was fun to play and rather creative
The world definitely feels empty with all the main characters gone :(
I know I'm always late to everything. but after I got tired of dying in lords of the fallen I decided to pick up this game to fill up my time...so far it's living up to the hype but I'm only like 7 hours in so far
I finally beat this shit, took me 3 weeks of fairly consistent playing :wow I suppose Ciri leaving with Geralt to continue witching is the best ending possible?
Anyone who has played the DLC -- is it worth it and how many hours of gameplay did you get out of it?
Yeah. How the hell did you beat it in 3 weeks? Shit took me like two months. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Kony
I left my old job a month ago to treat myself to an extended vacation before I start working in June since I had a lot of money saved, I've been living the life of a childless housewife :lol
kinda bummed though as I always am when I finish a really good storied game. At least there are still a good amount of contracts and side quests to do plus two expansions but that was a pretty great story, although I thought I was going to beat it last week when I fought the wild hunt at Kaer moren but it still took me another week :lol
Wait, you been fucking black men? smhQuote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Kony
have this game, still need to finish witcher 2 though
boys* I am Joseph Kony after all tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Man this game has gotten some massive improvements in performance via patches since I last played it almost a year ago. I loaded this up with my old settings I was getting 60 fps on and I'm getting 75-80 fps now, I can even run Hairworks with AA on it on my 970, which was unthinkable last year if you wanted to keep 60 fps on this card. DJR210, if you haven't played this make it your first game after getting a 1070. That card will easily allow you to max shit out and you'll probably still get 80 fps. RandomGuy man, I highly recommend getting this game to show off your new system once you get the gpu. Though it has some tits in it so not sure if you want the kids playing. :lol
And the Blood and Wine expansion is supposedly finally bringing the level of graphics we saw them tease at E3 a few years ago. Though it's only for that section of the game, it doesn't revamp the base game.
I'll probably get both expansions and get on this once I finished the Nathan Drake collection, let me know if it's worth the 24.99 tbh
You'll probably play it before I do. Once I finish AC Revelations I'm jumping on Fallout 4 Far Harbor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Kony
oh yeah, I forget I need to do that too. And finish the Following. and DS3 :lol
so far, I've finished one side quest in the latest expansion. It was more fun and engaging than anything that happened in Fallout 4.
Yeah I heard Far Harbor was pretty disappointing which is why I don't feel bad getting rid of Fallout. I havent looked into it, does Blood and Wine take place within the main areas somewhere or did they make a new map for this?