Deep Silver Delivers Metro: Last Light PC Requirements
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lieutenant PC Gaming Elitist reporting for duty.
I can run the game on optimal settings. I guess that somehow makes me better than all of you plebeians. My hardware is the greatest yadda yadda yadda...
Seriously though, those optimal settings are rather steep. Is this the way most games are going at the moment? I mean, I have them, but was hoping that my system would've remained overkill for a little longer.
Captcha': win hands down.
Well thank you Captcha', I suppose there's hope left after all...
I can run the game on optimal settings. I guess that somehow makes me better than all of you plebeians. My hardware is the greatest yadda yadda yadda...
Seriously though, those optimal settings are rather steep. Is this the way most games are going at the moment? I mean, I have them, but was hoping that my system would've remained overkill for a little longer.
Captcha': win hands down.
Well thank you Captcha', I suppose there's hope left after all...
I fall short of Optimum only because my graphics card is a GTX 590. Oh well, time to go find my wallet.
The game is also being released on consoles. 360 and PS3 can't support DX11. PC version supports DX11 though, did you even read past minimum?KingsGambit said:
The game will look fine with recommended hardware. Hell, it'll look great. "Optimum" is when you call strangers over to your house and say "HAY OMG LOOK AT THIS!"
But in a good way, of course.
Agreed. Maybe it's the die-hared PC weirdo in me but I find it oddly comforting to know that there's at least one publisher out there willing to say, "You know what? Fuck you."fix-the-spade said:
But in a good way, of course.
Metro 2033 was one of the most brutally punishing games on framerates so this would fall in line.
However the aesthetics didn't really make me go "wow, so beautiful!", the art direction didn't make optimal use of the sheer amount of polygons/tesselation when compared to truly beautiful and expansive games like Battlefield 3 or Crysis series.
However the aesthetics didn't really make me go "wow, so beautiful!", the art direction didn't make optimal use of the sheer amount of polygons/tesselation when compared to truly beautiful and expansive games like Battlefield 3 or Crysis series.
Everyone should remember that Metro 2033 "only" gets around 45 fps @ 1200p at max settings with a Nvidia Titan
, so needing it for optimum for a newer games isn't that surprising.
Mneyh Should run pretty well on my baby.
Looking forward to this game. I'll have to finish the first one. It's tense as hell.
Looking forward to this game. I'll have to finish the first one. It's tense as hell.
Ready with my 3930K and Titan.
Just need to get the CPU under sub-zero cooling and it'll go further than 5.1ghz.
Honestly I wish more games would just ramp up the maximum graphics, as long as the game runs well and looks good even on less powerful hardware there is no reason not to want more eyecandy for the peeps with the machines to run it.
Just need to get the CPU under sub-zero cooling and it'll go further than 5.1ghz.
Honestly I wish more games would just ramp up the maximum graphics, as long as the game runs well and looks good even on less powerful hardware there is no reason not to want more eyecandy for the peeps with the machines to run it.
Wait what? My 5 year old laptop can run it and it couldnt run last metro? what is this i dont even.....
Also remmeber how fast graphic technology moves(not to mention speculation of a boom during the nextgen console launch, to keep PCs way ahead graphically), in 5 years you will be looking at "titan" and thinking "meh this is slow ass GPU i cant run anything on".
Optimium usually means max settings on everything, and if they got something like 64xAA it surely will ask for that kind of card. does not mean any sane person really need it. 4xAA is perfectly fine for most games. I play most with none, as its a resource hog for questionable improvement.DTWolfwood said:
Also remmeber how fast graphic technology moves(not to mention speculation of a boom during the nextgen console launch, to keep PCs way ahead graphically), in 5 years you will be looking at "titan" and thinking "meh this is slow ass GPU i cant run anything on".
beign able to keep a lot of information, especially big space ones like textures that are used often in RAM makes heaven come to earth. Though mostly strategy games optimize that (they need to run a lot of processes calculating troop patchfinding and whatnto in background and thus put a lot in ram so they dont need to acess the algorythm over and over agian from HDD, like CIV games used to save ALL models into ram, then on huge maps the ram woudl get so overfilled the game would crash. they fixed that in oen of CIV4 patches and forward whne ti flushes models that thep layer hasnt seen for a while at each (auto)save. but give a vanilla CIV4 8GB of ram and it will THRIVE in it. granted, this can be mostly attributed to poor programming, but its not like modern game makers care much for optimization now do they.Sgt. Sykes said:
Oh those aren't so bad, but honestly I'd rather download a demo to see how it work, those GPU detectors never seem to give me the right info.
One of them told me I couldn't play Dishonored at all, which was hilariously ironic since I've been playing it with the graphics maxed out for months.
One of them told me I couldn't play Dishonored at all, which was hilariously ironic since I've been playing it with the graphics maxed out for months.
Let me explain this to you: 4A is Ukrainian. And Metro 2033 runs well even on my HD6670.Sgt. Sykes said:
That said, their idea seems to have been to optimize it fro low CPU/GPU/RAM machines while also being able to utilise what a more powerful system has to offer. Do you have any idea what systems most people here in eastern Europe run? That HD6670 was the best the computer store had in stock, just so you know.
On the subject of RAM usage:
- Models and their applicable collision data
- physics algorithms
- textures (although those mostly use up GPU memory, just like the models)
- general usage engine algorithms (ALL OF THEM)
- developer scripts for the level
- the whole level (just FYI: that island in Far Cry 3 is broken up in so many chunks you don't even want to know)
- lighting and effects instructions to feed to the GPU
- lots more stuff I keep forgetting about (like BINK video stuff and audio files)
Logically, the higher in poly count and texture size you go, the more RAM you're going to need. Also, if you use more exact physics, that takes up a lot of space, too (and don't go telling me "PhysX is the solution to everything". some of us don't own NVidia cards).
I'll also drop a word on the subject of Tesselation: unnecessary. Only ever useful if you have a soft-body deformatiuon system like Rigs of Rods or BeamNG.
You have no idea what you can do to a level... no idea. I'm not even going to recount it here, but look up raytracing and you might get a glimpse.Sgt. Sykes said:
Even the number of light sources (actually especially the number of light sources) does a lot to performance. So does texture quality. Have you ever seen terrain with an applied 16384x116384 texture? It looks amazing. Shame I can only do it to 512x512m maps because otherwise Sandbox crashes... tee hee hee.
I don't even want to start factoring it up, but basically the higher you go in quality, the higher your RAM usage will be. And it's really not the high poly count of the models that matters all that much... All the effects you have cached, all that memory that's being taken up. Unreal games have this problem (they use UNHOLY amounts of memory even though it isn't required... TERA for example uses up to 3GB RAM ALONE).
And graphics don't matter all that much. It's actually all about getting the atmosphere right. You remember Fallout 3? The graphics are really not that good, but the game none the less feels really good. Still, exploring new frontiers is always good. And we'll be alright so long as we know what's possible and , more importantly, know at what price that comes. With most games, you can't put it all on crappy optimization though (SR2 was really badly ported* - not emulated as you stated because then it wouldn't run on a normal dual core x86_64 CPU, because Xenon - Xbox 360 arch - is PowerPC based).
And another thing to note is that Minecraft actually exhibits horrible performance... I get, what, 120fps? On an i3-3220 and an HD6670 I might add. But here, there's actually a tangible explanation - it's Java, it performs horribly by default.
Hmmm... ex eastern bloc games now actually seem to be better optimized from what I've played (granted it isn't much though). It's the lot of GamesForWindowsLIVE games that are optimized to run on super future space computers instead of actual, real, state-of-the-art computers. The only GFWL game I remember that worked well was Fallout 3, and that was because LIVE was largely unused and the game is based on Gamebryo, which means that they couldn't screw it up a lot.
*Though the big reason why it's considered an awful port is because it's got an awful lot of unfixed bugs, no option to turn mouse acceleration off, and no adjustment whatsoever for the switch from controller to mouse and keyboard.
But will it blend?
OT:
Looks like its time to put a new graphics card in my box. The Radeon HD 7450 (Overclocked and repackaged 6450) stutters hard sometimes on Metro 2033 at medium-low so I should probably see about getting that Gigabyte 7870 I've been eying.
OT:
Looks like its time to put a new graphics card in my box. The Radeon HD 7450 (Overclocked and repackaged 6450) stutters hard sometimes on Metro 2033 at medium-low so I should probably see about getting that Gigabyte 7870 I've been eying.