Best FPS to push GFX?

[Luc2k]

I don't get all this talk over "next-gen" as PC has been beyond it for a very long time.

 

Anyway, another vote for Metro 2034, although that PC might have trouble with it maxed, especially because it favours nV cards. Far Cry 3 on the other hand is a looker and runs damn well too but will require uPlay. You might also try War Thunder which free to play. Unfortunately the part that might be more relevant to your wish, ground/tank combat, is still in closed beta.

[MillionVoltss]

Also consider mods, GTAIV Icenhancer ( New version 2.5 soon ) and Skyrim with some various texture, graphic mods.

 

My take on Next-Gen is when cutting edge technology is affordable or mainstream, My example would be 4k ( 3840x2160 ) being in most homes with people hitting a min of 30fps, how 1080p is seen as quite nice now but 4k is Wow. Maybe a topic for another thread.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

Am I the only one who thinks that Bioshock Infinite looked very nice?

it does look good, but a bit cartoony...

 

OP - i'd load up Metro, Crysis, BF3 or 4

[+Asmodai MVC]

I don't get all this talk over "next-gen" as PC has been beyond it for a very long time.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm just looking for a marquee game to push the gfx limits of my new hardware.

As for what "next-gen" means sure PC hardware has been able to go beyond what the PS4 and XBone are capable of for some time but the fact is developers don't target that. If you look as the Steam statistics the average PC gamer has worse specs then the "next-gen" consoles and you certainly aren't going to beat them for $500 or less. You could spend that on just a gfx card on the PC side. That's beside the point though because again developers don't target high end PCs. Console game sales far outweigh PC game sales and have minimal (if any) piracy so developers tend to target consoles first then port to the PC and just add a few tweaks here and there (higher resolution support, better AA modes, higher textures). The gfx pipeline is still fundamentally a DX9 pipeline because that's what the PS3 and Xbox 360 are and then a few extra DX10+ effects are tacked on after the fact. Just take a look at 32bit vs. 64 bit. PCs have been capable of 64bit for a long time now but how many games are launched fully utilizing it, virtually none. Every PS4 and Xbone game is probably going to be 64bit so just now are you starting to see PC games talking about requiring 64bit. The hardware has been there for ages but developers don't target.

With the PS4 and XBone supporting DX11.2 and 64bit (complete with > 4GB of RAM) "next-gen" games will be those designed from the ground up with DX11+ rendering pipelines, full 64bit support, etc. For a short time games will even be developed FIRST on PC then ported to consoles because of how similar the new consoles are to standard PCs (PCs were used as make-shift dev consoles for the next gen consoles while the official dev consoles were still be finalized.) As time goes on though development will shift back to consoles first because that's where the $$$$ is once again PC gaming will eventually be held back by what the consoles are capable of. The PC Master race will always look better than consoles though if you're willing to throw enough money at it but games just aren't designed specifically to target the high end like that.

Anyway, another vote for Metro 2034, although that PC might have trouble with it maxed, especially because it favours nV cards. Far Cry 3 on the other hand is a looker and runs damn well too but will require uPlay. You might also try War Thunder which free to play. Unfortunately the part that might be more relevant to your wish, ground/tank combat, is still in closed beta.

So Metro 2034 requires Steam, Far Cry 3 requires uPlay, and Crysis 3 requires Origin... is that correct? Does nothing just install off a disc and run anymore without requiring an online service... even just in single player mode?

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

So Metro 2034 requires Steam, Far Cry 3 requires uPlay, and Crysis 3 requires Origin... is that correct? Does nothing just install off a disc and run anymore without requiring an online service... even just in single player mode?

pretty much. you're best off just giving in. Steam and Origin wont bite. they arent really that bad.

[+Asmodai MVC]

pretty much. you're best off just giving in. Steam and Origin wont bite. they arent really that bad.

Well I've got Steam.  I've had every Elder Scrolls and every Civilization game since the series began so the fact Skyrim and Civ5 required Steam pushed me, grudgingly, to get it.  I'm not happy with it but I see it as a necessary evil in rare cases. I try to get non-steam versions of games whenever possible and sometimes avoid games entirely that I would have otherwise gotten if it weren't for steam.  For example I have and enjoyed GalCiv 1 and 2 but I don't plan on buying GalCiv 3 because it's Steam only (were there a non-steam version it would be on my to get list).  While I enjoyed the prior ones they were not to the level of Elder Scrolls or Civ and so my good feelings for them are not enough to overcome my bad feelings for Steam.  I also often refuse to back Kickstarters if they don't offer a DRM-free version to the point I actually got a refund for Shadowrun Returns (though they later were able to release on GoG).  I'm certainly not going to install a whole new service just for what amounts to a video card gfx demo in my mind so Origin and uPlay are out of the question, like I said I do have Steam though.

 

With the Humble Bundles, GoG, and Kickstarter it's not hard to find quality games that have no DRM or online service requirement if you care.  Perhaps that's not the case though in the FPS genre though and if that's true then that just makes me all the happier it's not a genre that really appeals to me.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

i just think youre sol at this point. I like Steam, personally. It's a central spot for my games and makes it easy to maintain and organize. Also, you can buy directly through Steam.

 

anyway, that's my 2c. Those games will destroy your system.

[McKay]

I would say Battlefield 4, hands down,

 

 

Battlefield 4

 

 

BF3 or 4

 

I wouldn't choose Battlefield 4, it does look fairly pretty but it managed to do it with fairly moderate hardware. My video card (AMD 7770 2GB) is now so old AMD have moved it to their Legacy page and it can still run BF4 at 1080 with everything on high at 50-60FS.

 

So Battlefield 4 won't push your video card. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

i just think youre sol at this point. I like Steam, personally. It's a central spot for my games and makes it easy to maintain and organize. Also, you can buy directly through Steam.

 

anyway, that's my 2c. Those games will destroy your system.

 

Ok now I'm curious.  How can it be a central spot for your games unless ALL of your games are on Steam?  If you have to go to steam for one set of games and go to origin for another and go to GoG for another how is there a central spot at all.  How is that more organized then just putting all your games, whatever the source in your Windows "Games" Folder?  Also perhaps I'm missing something but because I buy just about every Humble Bundle I have a lot of indie games on Steam (you get the steam code in addition to the DRM-free version so I just go ahead and put them in... now their even linked so I can just click a button)  This however has caused a HUGE problem in that my games list in Steam is very long and there is no great way to organize them that I know of.  Sure I can manually assign a category to each game but that's tedius and again in no way better then creating subfolders in a Games directory in windows.  At least then I can drag and drop a bunch at once which I can't seem to do on steam... though maybe I'm doing something wrong.  The only thing that makes it usable at all is the fact it has a search (something windows has anyway) and I can favorite games I'm regularly playing... I wouldn't call that organized though.  Also I have trouble remember which games I have on Steam, which games I have on GoG, which games I have elsewhere so again I don't see how it in any way provides a central spot unless you go all in and ONLY use it, refusing to buy any game that doesn't have a steam version.  I just can't see myself going there.  I am interested however in tips on how I can organize what I do have in Steam because in my case it's a feaking mess and if there is something better then search and favorite I'd love to know what it is.

[Luc2k]

So much wrong with what you said.

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm just looking for a marquee game to push the gfx limits of my new hardware.

As for what "next-gen" means sure PC hardware has been able to go beyond what the PS4 and XBone are capable of for some time but the fact is developers don't target that

 

I was just feeling that you misuse the term in this case, because any games released on the current consoles doesn't mean it will automatically be better just because they have beefier specs. Also take into account that the engines running these games are much older than the new hardware and it will be a while until they adapt them to specific new functions.

 

If you look as the Steam statistics the average PC gamer has worse specs then the "next-gen" consoles and you certainly aren't going to beat them for $500 or less.

 

The beauty of games on PC is that they have lot of options to scale to various hardware capabilities (it's not always the case, but it seems to be the rule rather than the exception). I'm not going to beat them but I'll come damn close. I think it was ~550$ for something slightly better in specs than the PS4 when I tried it some months ago. But then PC hardware manufacturers don't get cuts from game sales or online services or offer the consumer bulk price (like Sony/MS would get).

 

You could spend that on just a gfx card on the PC side.

 

I could but I don't have or need to.

 

That's beside the point though because again developers don't target high end PCs.

 

Most don't but some do, and those that do are relevant to your current topic.

 

Console game sales far outweigh PC game sales and have minimal (if any) piracy so developers tend to target consoles first then port to the PC and just add a few tweaks here and there (higher resolution support, better AA modes, higher textures).

 

I very much doubt that because PC sales come from all over the place. There's countless shops and countless online games where people sink their cash but there's no place that gathers all that data (if it's reported at all). You can compare retail sales where PC is behind I suppose. As for piracy, I advise you to have a look at any public torrent site and see console piracy in all it's glory. I was hyping myself earlier with Thief and had a look to see if it had leaked, and the 360/PS3 versions were already there. It will take a while with the new ones but it's inevitable that they'll be cracked eventually.

 

The gfx pipeline is still fundamentally a DX9 pipeline because that's what the PS3 and Xbox 360 are and then a few extra DX10+ effects are tacked on after the fact. Just take a look at 32bit vs. 64 bit. PCs have been capable of 64bit for a long time now but how many games are launched fully utilizing it, virtually none. Every PS4 and Xbone game is probably going to be 64bit so just now are you starting to see PC games talking about requiring 64bit. The hardware has been there for ages but developers don't target.

 

If a game is made to push the PC, it will do that regardless if it targeted consoles or not and just because a game is a PC exclusive doesn't mean it will look very good. As for 64bit, there's still a good chunk of 32bit gamers out there. Look at free to play games that were exclusive to PC for a very long time (eg. World of Tanks, War Thunder) and they don't target 64bit (Planetside 2 is going to apparently). Some of the AAA Devs have made the jump, but that hardly means everything will be 64bit from now on.

With the PS4 and XBone supporting DX11.2 and 64bit (complete with > 4GB of RAM) "next-gen" games will be those designed from the ground up with DX11+ rendering pipelines, full 64bit support, etc. For a short time games will even be developed FIRST on PC then ported to consoles because of how similar the new consoles are to standard PCs (PCs were used as make-shift dev consoles for the next gen consoles while the official dev consoles were still be finalized.) As time goes on though development will shift back to consoles first because that's where the $$$$ is once again PC gaming will eventually be held back by what the consoles are capable of. The PC Master race will always look better than consoles though if you're willing to throw enough money at it but games just aren't designed specifically to target the high end like that.

There will be a higher base for development, but I still believe you're short-changing the PC. And just because a game is next-gen doesn't mean it will be better for PC. Look at Assassin's Creed IV where they flat out said they have no intention of optimising for PC. In the end it's still down to the developers' skill and the publishers' allowing them to work for PC.

I hope it ain't a problem with this going off-topic since the most relevant games to what you asked have already been mentioned.

[Dotdot]

Ok now I'm curious.  How can it be a central spot for your games unless ALL of your games are on Steam?  If you have to go to steam for one set of games and go to origin for another and go to GoG for another how is there a central spot at all.  How is that more organized then just putting all your games, whatever the source in your Windows "Games" Folder?  Also perhaps I'm missing something but because I buy just about every Humble Bundle I have a lot of indie games on Steam (you get the steam code in addition to the DRM-free version so I just go ahead and put them in... now their even linked so I can just click a button)  This however has caused a HUGE problem in that my games list in Steam is very long and there is no great way to organize them that I know of.  Sure I can manually assign a category to each game but that's tedius and again in no way better then creating subfolders in a Games directory in windows.  At least then I can drag and drop a bunch at once which I can't seem to do on steam... though maybe I'm doing something wrong.  The only thing that makes it usable at all is the fact it has a search (something windows has anyway) and I can favorite games I'm regularly playing... I wouldn't call that organized though.  Also I have trouble remember which games I have on Steam, which games I have on GoG, which games I have elsewhere so again I don't see how it in any way provides a central spot unless you go all in and ONLY use it, refusing to buy any game that doesn't have a steam version.  I just can't see myself going there.  I am interested however in tips on how I can organize what I do have in Steam because in my case it's a feaking mess and if there is something better then search and favorite I'd love to know what it is.

Dont know where to begin with this. Firstly you can add non-steam games to steam and they function just as if they were native. Also having a few gaming portal apps isnt the worst thing in the world. Tho Uplay is.....

As for remembering and having a huge games list, well im at 200+ on steam and about the same in non-steam. Dont get confused or have serious organizational issues.

Maybe just my personal interpretation of your problem, but mountains out of mole hills etc? or a bit of a stick in the mud?

[psionicinversion]

Ok now I'm curious.  How can it be a central spot for your games unless ALL of your games are on Steam?  If you have to go to steam for one set of games and go to origin for another and go to GoG for another how is there a central spot at all.  How is that more organized then just putting all your games, whatever the source in your Windows "Games" Folder?  Also perhaps I'm missing something but because I buy just about every Humble Bundle I have a lot of indie games on Steam (you get the steam code in addition to the DRM-free version so I just go ahead and put them in... now their even linked so I can just click a button)  This however has caused a HUGE problem in that my games list in Steam is very long and there is no great way to organize them that I know of.  Sure I can manually assign a category to each game but that's tedius and again in no way better then creating subfolders in a Games directory in windows.  At least then I can drag and drop a bunch at once which I can't seem to do on steam... though maybe I'm doing something wrong.  The only thing that makes it usable at all is the fact it has a search (something windows has anyway) and I can favorite games I'm regularly playing... I wouldn't call that organized though.  Also I have trouble remember which games I have on Steam, which games I have on GoG, which games I have elsewhere so again I don't see how it in any way provides a central spot unless you go all in and ONLY use it, refusing to buy any game that doesn't have a steam version.  I just can't see myself going there.  I am interested however in tips on how I can organize what I do have in Steam because in my case it's a feaking mess and if there is something better then search and favorite I'd love to know what it is.

 

Alot of games require steam or orgin or something like that to run, you have no choice in the matter really. Most new games you buy install it to one of those, you can get around it in "various ways" but generally itll always install it to steam or origin or uPlay etc.  

 

You say you want bleeding edge gfx but buy a mid range card, doesnt make any sense to me. BF4 will push it someat @ ultra settings 4x MSAA etc but your maybe best off holding out for watchdogs or something like that. Not usre how intensive metro LL is cus i played it for a bit then got bored with it and didnt get far.

 

You could always try FFXIV it is an MMO but when youve got lots of people raiding with all the particle effects that will push your system.

[riahc3]

Hello,

Why exactly do you want to push your graphics card? Just run whatever games you like at the highest quality :)

Are you doing it for benchmarking or something?

[+Asmodai MVC]

Dont know where to begin with this. Firstly you can add non-steam games to steam and they function just as if they were native. Also having a few gaming portal apps isnt the worst thing in the world. Tho Uplay is.....

Having a few gaming portal apps is not "a central spot for your games". However at no time did I say it was "the worst thing in the world" so I have no idea where you got that from. I was just curious how you could use Steam as "a central spot for your games" and an organization tool when I find it excels at neither. I don't see how adding non-steam games manually to Steam is any easier then just having them in your Windows "Games" Folders no matter what the source. Steam may have a lot of advantages but I just don't see being a central spot for your games or it's organizational capabilities as some of them. I admit I'm no Steam expert though so I am honestly interested if there are better organization capabilities in Steam that I just missed.

As for remembering and having a huge games list, well im at 200+ on steam and about the same in non-steam. Dont get confused or have serious organizational issues.

Oh well, silly me. If you don't have any issues I guess no one else can either. What was I thinking.

Maybe just my personal interpretation of your problem, but mountains out of mole hills etc? or a bit of a stick in the mud?

Thank you for this truly insightful response. I don't know what I would have done without this valuable input you have provided. /s

[+Asmodai MVC]

Alot of games require steam or orgin or something like that to run, you have no choice in the matter really. Most new games you buy install it to one of those, you can get around it in "various ways" but generally itll always install it to steam or origin or uPlay etc.

Sure I have a choice. I choose not to buy them. I buy games ALL THE TIME, typically multiple a month, and I've had no great trouble avoiding origin or uplay. Only Steam, due to Skyrim and Civ5, has gotten me to accept it and even then I still avoid many games that are Steam only. I have a lot of steam games only because a lot of games I have come with BOTH a DRM-free version (the one I tend to play) as well as a Steam code (which I always just put in since I got it). I'm not a FPS gamer so I don't know much about the genre but I AM a gamer, I just prefer other genres. I have zero interest in trying to get around a developer/publishers DRM/Online Service requirement. If I object to it I just won't buy their product, it's not like there is a shortage of good games out there to play.

You say you want bleeding edge gfx but buy a mid range card, doesnt make any sense to me.

I thought I made that pretty clear but I'll try again. I'm NOT looking to just ramp up the resolution or use super intensive AA techniques. I didn't upgrade my monitor so I have a 1080p60Hz monitor so it makes no different to me at all if the game runs with it's lowest fps 60 or 300, I'll never see the difference since my monitor only refreshes 60 times a second. What I am looking for is games to that demonstrate extensive use of the new capabilities of the newer (post DX9) graphics APIs. I'd like to see games that push the use of the newly programmable instead of fixed function graphics pipelines (new in DX10). I'd like to see games that fully utilize the newest capabilites of Shader Model 4+ (DX 10+). I'd like to see games that extensively use geometry shaders (DX10+) and tesselation(DX11). I'd like to see game that utilize the new DX11 Multithreaded rendering capabilities and even Direct Compute. That's what I mean by "bleeding edge" not the ability to run a DX 9 game at 4k resolution and 120fps with some intensive AA applied. As a DX11.2 card I'm pretty sure my "mid range" card can do what I'm looking for if such games exist and I'm pretty sure if I spent more money on a more powerful card it would be pretty much a waste since I plan on sticking with 1080p60Hz for the foreseeable future.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Hello,

Why exactly do you want to push your graphics card? Just run whatever games you like at the highest quality :)

Are you doing it for benchmarking or something?

I just want to see what my new toy is capable of. I'm interested in seeing what new capabilities it has that were previously unavailable to me (specifically those introduced in DX10+). In the old days DX versions used to come out fairly regularly and be pretty big improvements. So often I'd want to buy a new graphics card every year or two to stay up with the latest DX versions. Now things have remained largely the same for a while and I've had the same gfx card for several years. I just replaced my old computer due to non-gaming related reasons and so built a new one with a new gfx card and I'm interested to see what it has bought me. My old card was an GeForce 8800GT and still works great on the old system which I've given to a family member... I probably would have just stuck with that for longer if gaming were the only concern because I've been reasonably happy with it but again I needed to build a new system for non-gaming purposes and since the old system is being used by others I got a new gfx card and I'm curious as to what it's new capabilities are (beyond simply higher FPS, higher rez, and more intensive AA). I just assumed that FPS games are what was still pushing gfx because that's how it used to be but perhaps that was a bad assumption. I don't play FPS games normally, I'm more of a strategy and RPG gamer which historically have tended to be behind the gfx curve, so I wanted a FPS gfx demo game to show off my new toy.

[+Asmodai MVC]

I was just feeling that you misuse the term in this case, because any games released on the current consoles doesn't mean it will automatically be better just because they have beefier specs. Also take into account that the engines running these games are much older than the new hardware and it will be a while until they adapt them to specific new functions.

First this thread isn't even about consoles. By next-gen graphics I meant the capabilities introduced beyond DX9. Second I tried to make it clear from the start that I'm not interested in which game is "better" as a game. I totally agree better gfx doesn't make a better game, in fact the games I typically play tend to be behind the gfx curve so that's why I'm asking for examples off bleeding edge gfx tech. Beefier specs does indeed play a large part in better graphics capabilies and that's ALL I'm interested in for the purpose of this thread.

The beauty of games on PC is that they have lot of options to scale to various hardware capabilities (it's not always the case, but it seems to be the rule rather than the exception). I'm not going to beat them but I'll come damn close. I think it was ~550$ for something slightly better in specs than the PS4 when I tried it some months ago. But then PC hardware manufacturers don't get cuts from game sales or online services or offer the consumer bulk price (like Sony/MS would get).

~$550 is a significant cost increase from the $400 PS4 (>37% is not insignificant and that's not counting the controller and such). Furthermore you need to get better specs to take into account that console games are developed closer to the metal and with less OS and other app overhead then a PC. Also the PS4's 8GB GDDR5 RAM is faster than any system RAM you are going to get and way more then you are going to get on any sub $400 PC. Simply throwing a Jaguar CPU and a Pitcairn GPU in a PC isn't going to match the performance of a PS4. This is WAY off topic though and I'm not sure why you even feel it necessary to argue consoles vs. PC in a PC game suggestion thread. I have a PS4 but I'm a PC gamer first so we're on the same side here. My PC will smoke my PS4 but it also costs a lot more though it is used for far more then just gaming. Consoles are a good bang for your buck though if that's all someone cares about.

I very much doubt that because PC sales come from all over the place. There's countless shops and countless online games where people sink their cash but there's no place that gathers all that data (if it's reported at all). You can compare retail sales where PC is behind I suppose. As for piracy, I advise you to have a look at any public torrent site and see console piracy in all it's glory. I was hyping myself earlier with Thief and had a look to see if it had leaked, and the 360/PS3 versions were already there. It will take a while with the new ones but it's inevitable that they'll be cracked eventually.

I didn't just make that up. It's what devs themselves have said about why console games seem to be developed first but again as this is way off topic I don't care to argue the fact. If you don't believe it fine, I'm not interested in trying to prove it to you so believe what you like.

As for 64bit, there's still a good chunk of 32bit gamers out there. Look at free to play games that were exclusive to PC for a very long time (eg. World of Tanks, War Thunder) and they don't target 64bit (Planetside 2 is going to apparently). Some of the AAA Devs have made the jump, but that hardly means everything will be 64bit from now on.

You are supporting the point I was trying to make. My point was that PC games are just starting to go 64bit even though the hardware has been available for YEARS (since around 2003?) Developers don't target bleeding edge PCs because most people with PCs don't have bleeding edge ones and consoles aren't capable of what bleeding edge PCs can do and they often want to be able to support console versions. (even if the developer doesn't they often use engines made by those who do). So why are PC games suddenly STARTING to go 64bit? Because the consoles are. If you make a PS4 or Xbone game then you are guaranteed that everyone who is going to play your game has a 64bit system with > 4GB RAM. So bleeding edge games are going to shift there because the PC's been able to do this since 2003 and consoles can now do it so you can release your 64bit game on PC, Xbone, PS4, Mac and Linux just fine. Sure there will be 32bit games and 32bit gamers for a LONG TIME, I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that wasn't the case. Just as PC game devs didn't jump on 64bit games because there were still 32bit PC gamers out there PC game devs don't jump on the highest end graphics pipelines right away because they have to support the majority of gamers who don't have the latest and greatest video cards. That's why I mentioned the average gaming system according to Steam data is actually worse then the next-gen consoles, that's what PC game dev are going to target, the average gamer. High end gamers just get a few bones thrown to them after the fact and things like higher resolution support.

There will be a higher base for development, but I still believe you're short-changing the PC. And just because a game is next-gen doesn't mean it will be better for PC. Look at Assassin's Creed IV where they flat out said they have no intention of optimising for PC. In the end it's still down to the developers' skill and the publishers' allowing them to work for PC.

There being a higher base for development was my point, so we agree then. I'm not short-changing the PC. This whole thread is about pushing the gfx capabilities of my new PC. If I preferred consoles over PCs why would I have spent more then 3x the price of my PS4 on a PC and posted this thread if I thought gaming on my PS4 was better? I'm a PC gamer first but that doesn't mean you can't acknowledge the strength that consoles do have (bang for your buck for example) and I actually don't like that game developers hold back advances in PC gaming in order to ensure their engines run on lower spec consoles as well but that's how it is.

[Dotdot]

Thank you for this truly insightful response. I don't know what I would have done without this valuable input you have provided. /s

Probably deserve that response, but wasn`t meant with any kind of hate or nastiness. Just that maybe getting bogged down by own stubbornness?

Again, no trying to insight a riot, just maybe a little self reflection?

I hate the advance of digital nonsense as much as the next man, but as a gamer it aint getting in the way of my enjoyment of whats fundamental and thats the games.

(Mind you I draw the line at the in game purchase bs that plagues android and ios, f2p models and this wait to win shite can go fornicate with a rusty spoon for all i care).

I can see your points about Steam, more evidently in other platforms, i.e Origin which is still imho terrible, and Uplay OMG, just kill it with fire!!

And as far as PC digital platforms and gaming stores/services/hubs. Think of the number of them weve had over the years. Be it GFWL, The service before that, GameSpy, and more. They were all HORRIFIC compared to whats now.

It may not be perfect, and it may never be. But seriously reconsider a little. Its not as bad as you make out.

By the way I also do Tarrot card readings and if you like I can read your gaming future thru the medium of dance? /s (just cause well...)

[ShadowMajestic]

Quake 3 can make modern GPU's sweat :P

[Luc2k]

snip

I gathered you were a PC gamer from before I even replied. I just felt you gave too much credit to consoles with game sales and piracy in particular.That and the term "next-gen" not meaning anything when it comes to PC IMO. Not going into that again since it doesn't serve much purpose to the topic at hand.

 

Anyway, did you try any of the games suggested? Far Cry 3 for example comes with an alternative DX11 executable. Haven't compared the two modes, but you might since you intend to use the games as a graphical showcase.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Anyway, did you try any of the games suggested? Far Cry 3 for example comes with an alternative DX11 executable. Haven't compared the two modes, but you might since you intend to use the games as a graphical showcase.

 

No, I haven't tried anything yet.  The sense I get from the thread is that FPS games don't in fact push the gfx limits beyond that of other genres as they did in the past.  Some have suggested Skyrim to my surprise, which I already have.  Some have suggested Crysis 3 but it requires uPlay as I understand it and is still using the CryEngine 3 engine from Crysis 2 (with some upgrades for sure) and I've already backed both Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Star Citizen which both use the newer CryEngine 4 (So does Ryse: Son of Rome but unfortunately that's Xbone only).  Some have suggested Battlefield 4 but I hear it's buggy as all get out, it requires Origin, and Dragon Age: Inquisition (which I already plan on getting... unless it requires Origin) uses the same Frostbite 3 engine which will hopefully be less buggy by the time it is released.  Metro Last Light is still a candidate and if I do choose to go Far Cry 3 then I'll probably wait to get the Far Cry: The Wild Expedition bundle.  Also Witcher 3, which is also on my list of games to get (through DRM-free GoG), has been mentioned as pushing graphics tech so that GREAT news to me as it is yet another RPG (which I love) being put up as a gfx pioneer over FPS games.

 

As a non FPS gamer this thread has actually been quite encouraging as it seems bleeding edge graphics technology no longer seems to preside primarily in this genre that I don't like.

[Luc2k]

No, I haven't tried anything yet.  The sense I get from the thread is that FPS games don't in fact push the gfx limits beyond that of other genres as they did in the past.  Some have suggested Skyrim to my surprise, which I already have.  Some have suggested Crysis 3 but it requires uPlay as I understand it and is still using the CryEngine 3 engine from Crysis 2 (with some upgrades for sure) and I've already backed both Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Star Citizen which both use the newer CryEngine 4 (So does Ryse: Son of Rome but unfortunately that's Xbone only).  Some have suggested Battlefield 4 but I hear it's buggy as all get out, it requires Origin, and Dragon Age: Inquisition (which I already plan on getting... unless it requires Origin) uses the same Frostbite 3 engine which will hopefully be less buggy by the time it is released.  Metro Last Light is still a candidate and if I do choose to go Far Cry 3 then I'll probably wait to get the Far Cry: The Wild Expedition bundle.  Also Witcher 3, which is also on my list of games to get (through DRM-free GoG), has been mentioned as pushing graphics tech so that GREAT news to me as it is yet another RPG (which I love) being put up as a gfx pioneer over FPS games.

 

As a non FPS gamer this thread has actually been quite encouraging as it seems bleeding edge graphics technology no longer seems to preside primarily in this genre that I don't like.

Well, if you only focus on bleeding edge you tend to not make money, like Crysis 1 did. It has become harder as the years have gone by, there's only so much you can do. Hardware itself is moving much slower than it used to and the focus seems to be on efficiency rather than raw power. Maybe once 4K becomes mainstream, but that is a long way off I think.

 

That being said, all these games should make a good to great impression to whoever you're showing them. Depends how familiar they are with the games/level of detail.

 

Glad you're getting Witcher 3 straight from GoG. I'm having a hard time convincing my friends to do the same. I guess they just can't be arsed..

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

Asmodai - i think we need a thread reset here. I'm so baffled and confused about this topic now.

 

lets get back to the basics. forget the Steam/Origin argument and focus on the specific game(s) youre interested in playing. in the end, you can hee and haw all day about how inconvenient those services are, but theyre here, and have been for years. at this point, i dont have a clue how you avoid them.

 

even though 1080p is still the standard, it's not exactly "high def" these days. High end graphics cards can easily push those pixels. If you want to really make your card struggle you need a game that not only has some stunning visuals, but will also run at >HD resolution.

 

Again, to my knowledge, the only games doing this today is BF3/4, Metro, and Crysis. I havent played any of the RPGs listed here, like Skyrim. I havent played the latest Splinter Cell game, but that looked pretty darn good too.

 

lets get back to the original question here and focus on what games might tax your new card (Y)

[+Asmodai MVC]

Maybe once 4K becomes mainstream, but that is a long way off I think.

I agree and I'll almost certainly have a new gfx card to go with my new monitor by then.

Glad you're getting Witcher 3 straight from GoG. I'm having a hard time convincing my friends to do the same. I guess they just can't be arsed..

I already have 194 games on GoG, including the first two Witchers, so it's a no brainer for me (I actually came to Witcher from GoG as I'd never heard of it before that.) Along with my Humble Bundle library (I supported just about every humble bundle from the beginning... except the Steam only ones) that's where most of my digital games preside (along with a few where the developers have you download them directly from them). I don't see myself as an advocate though so if people prefer Steam more power to them. Just because I don't like Steam doesn't mean I think no one else should and I'm actually happy when games I love support Steam IN ADDITION to having a DRM-free download because it means more sales for the devs I care about.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3 are the most-demanding and perhaps best-looking FPS games right now. So what if it requires Origin? You say that like it's a bad thing. Try to think of one good reason why it's bad and if you can't come up with one, then you're just regurgitating FUD from 2011.

 

Anyway, other titles like Far Cry 3 and Metro: Last Light will really push your video card.