It's $36
Where do you see this price? Cheapest I see is GMG for 45
It's $36
Considering there's a season pass, I'm wondering if they're planning on extending the game with DLCs. If the ending is rushed as a few reviews are saying, they may just need more time to flesh it out?
yikes what's up with the pc ultra setting. they were using a 6700k and a 980ti.
![]()
yikes what's up with the pc ultra setting. they were using a 6700k and a 980ti.
![]()
One or two Witcher 3 tier expansions down the line would be awesome. Basically anything that isn't a shitty horde mode/time trial addon and/or mid-game DLC (because I hate nothing more than playing a middle part of a game again months later like with The Missing Link, eventhough it was a wellmade DLC or the PoE Addon).
yikes what's up with the pc ultra setting. they were using a 6700k and a 980ti.
![]()
Is it just me or does "High" look almost identical to "Ultra", but you get nearly twice the framerate?
I'm finding that High looks practically identical to Ultra, yet offers nearly twice the framerate.
I'm finding that High looks practically identical to Ultra, yet offers nearly twice the framerate.
It's not just you. If you look at the settings comparison you can pretty much assume that most of performance is lost because of going from 2x to 4x MSAA between these modes.
Masterrace always trying to justify the money they spent on pc.
Don't expect nothing else from them
I'm buying this. Waiting for neo version tho
Thanks for posting this Nirolak!
I had been seeing that graph posted numerous times lately and always felt it was really dumb! It always felt like something someone who was too young to be critically aware of reviews in the late nineties and early-mid '00 had cooked up. Nice to see someone has actually looked at the data to prove it wrong. I can remember debates over review scores and ad-revenue from way back when.
Is anyone else disappointed about the "piss filter" look of the previous game being dropped?
I know it had a lot of haters but it gave the game a unique visual style, like everywhere was lit with cheap incandescent lights. MD looks a lot more generic to me in terms of the visuals, where HR had it's own character. I can't be alone in that surely? I mean, there must be... dozens of us?
Game reviewers complaining about the story makes me even more excited to play it. Usually their opinions on story are worthless.
It's not just you. If you look at the settings comparison you can pretty much assume that most of performance is lost because of going from 2x to 4x MSAA between these modes.
I absolutely agree that HR's and MD's allegory for discrimination and segregation seems poorly conceived but I don't think Deus Ex 1's story can be easily dismissed as Alex Jones material. That's a very surface level reading of the story. I don't think it's nearly as good as people claim but I don't think it presents as much of a cynical singular view of the world as you imply.Deus Ex Human Revolution had a very underwhelming ending and the game never really went anywhere with its themes. Nor did we actually get any well-depicted characters and the antagonists were hollow and barebones. From a narrative perspective, Human Revolution wasn't particularly imrpessive.
Deus Ex 1 was just silly Alex Jones material.
And with Mankind Divided you seemingly have "Segregated Water Fountains" and "Augs Lives Matter" ("but the game has nothing to do with race!!!" according to the developers) and the ending is supposedly abrupt and anti-climactic.
I don't think Eidos Montreal are capable of crafting a solid narrative with excellent characters and seeing how they handle constructive feedback and criticism like children, I'm not sure how they'll ever improve.
I don't always trust IGN reviews but when they review a game I'm looking forward to highly then I always trust IGN reviews
I kind of like this aspect honestly because I usually care more about side stories than the main plots and if they can make those interesting then that's nice. I rather prefer a lot of smaller vignette type things
I have read some reviews and I am totally disappointed, not because the game is bad or sth, because I was expecting way more.
Human Revolution was pretty good for 2011, since then many prolific games have come and gone and the industry has changed, especially the narratives and depths of stories.
yeah i posted that image a bit too fast. at the end of the video it shows that image. ultra is using 4x msaa that's why.
Update:
They kind of mixed things up after looking at the source code. They upscaled the 1080p PS4 picture to 4k for the comparison. The "FullHD Slider" moniker is false here.
http://www.pcgames.de/commoncfm/comparison/indexb2.cfm?id=134402
edit: they are talking about good PS4 and X1 performance though.
I don't get it.
I'm very sold.
While reviews don't suggest that it's an outta the park home run, they tell me what I wanted to know:
Is it at least as good as HR?
Yes, it is.
So basically it's like HR with a few key flaws fixed but the story still ends abruptly and doesn't take off.
I'm still excited about the game since I loved HR but I don't get why the developers don't take the story aspect more seriously.
It's dumb for a whole other reason too -- those two scales are the same. Logarithmic and power transformations are monotonic. Whether the space from 9 to 10 is bigger or smaller than the space from 7 to 8 is irrelevant. They still express information the same way. Go to the California DMV and you get a 50 question test where you fail if you get more than 4 wrong. This does not mean that you yell at the DMV worker that "Uh, excuse me, 45/50 is a 90%, fuck you for failing me", it means you engage brain cells and understand that the scale can be different depending on context. Even in the world where it is just absolute imperative to transform the scale from the current scale to one where games are uniformly distributed between a 1 and a 10 (this is a quantile transformation, basically), it's still monotonic--games that review better than other games would still review better than other games. So from a comparative perspective this would change absolutely nothing. The question is whether or not you can understand what the scale is trying to convey. Which you can do by, shock of shocks, reading the reviews... or the summaries... or comparing review averages between games... or engaging your brain for even a second.
But it's also dumb for a whole other other reason. People aren't randomly buying games. Hundreds, maybe thousands even excluding iOS, of games come out every year. Most people, even on GAF, buy a dozen or so at most. You're not randomly selecting from all those games. You wouldn't expect your collection to have some 1/10s, 2/10s, 3/10s, 4/10s, 5/10s, etc. The "average" game should be semantically interpreted as "not worth playing". Granted that there might be some subject matter or dev loyalty or whatever it is that puts it over the top for you, but most of your games should be tilted far towards the right. And the same selection bias applies to reviewers. Even if the average game produced was a 5, the average game reviewed would not be a 5, because reviewers don't randomly pick games off the shelf to review, they can only review so many and they prioritize games that are high profile or interesting. So if the average reviewed game was a 5, then the average game produced with be below a 5, thus causing the opposite worry of the one that the chart advances--with games being bunched up over the bottom half of the scale and sparse over the top end.
People complaining about review scales are basically people wearing Hot Topic "You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because you're all the same" t-shirts. They certainly aren't people who have completed high school math.
Going from 2x to 4x MSAA isn't going to cause a 30-40 fps difference though. I'm assuming it's one of the Shadows settings. Maybe "Contact Hardening Shadows" or "Shadow Quality".
I don't get it.
Do you guys belong to some secret masterrace society or something.
I don't get it.
Do you guys belong to some secret masterrace society or something.