graphics
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
What is the most graphically intensive game currently available for PC?
I'm going to get an AIB 1080 when they come out and want to push it to the limit.
Probably Witcher 3 with full hair physics on
Still Crisis.
>>340116893
I hope you mean Crysis 3, because a 660ti could probably max the original.
>>340116503
undertale
Star CitizenNever ever
>>340117125
I have an i7-2600k and a GTX 680, that was just enough to keep the game smooth all the time, although there was still the occasional dip.
>>340116781
This, but only if you follow this guide and pump everything to the absolute max with config edits.
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide
This before and after might be outdated due to the graphical upgrades the game got, but it shows a tremendous change
http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-config-file-tweaks-interactive-comparison-1-on-vs-off.html
This will kill any GPU you have though
>>340117604
Going to sound like a shill, but gave you seen their latest stuff? Coming along really well. FPS combat and shit.I still don't regret buying the Khartu-al. Wanted a ship like that since Babylon 5's ships and Shadows of the Empire's Virago ships.
Graphics don't matter.
>>340117604
>>340118180
SC is either going to be the greatest game to grace this planet or spore 2 X100000
>>340118180
honestly who wouldn't want this game to come out ? I wish it the best, of course I'm not giving it any of my fucking money until I see the finished product but fuck the people on /v/ that want more tortanics just so they can meme about it for a month.
>>340118180
I have seen the latest stuffsince I backed the game a while ago
It is coming along well, but I still have that hint of doubt.
>>340118286
probably more along the lines of Spore, the devs mean well and are trying hard but it's not easy to make good games, if it was Ubisoft and EA wouldn't constantly release shit
>>340116503
STALKER never had good graphics it was merely the technology (lighting/animation/etc) that makes the game appear to look better than current games, thats what happens when you try to use pc to its full potential
>>340116503
something horribly unoptimized like arma III
>>340118082
The difference is minimal. Actually, looks a bit worse since the skybox is different.
>>340120524
skybox isnt different, its just a different time of day.
also the only thing changed is flora/grass lod. not really something needed
>>340120076
Does "good graphics" just mean high texture and model resolution to you? Lighting and postprocessing are probably the most important part of making a game look realistic. The XRay engine had fairly advanced lighting for its time, which is the reason that Stalker looked good and needed a powerful pc to run.
>>340120809
>different time of day
>shadows are the same angle
Doesn't it have dynamic lighting?
>>340120076
>not good graphics
>goes and says things that are part of graphics arent
>>340121232
sorry. i meant the clouds are moving, they arent static so its a different 'time' in each picture
