Even with the update and the latest Nvidia drivers it runs like crap and stutters like crazy for me.
Disappointing. Hope it gets better soon because it's just unplayable for now.
[QUOTE=Confuzzed Otto;49234633]does pcgamesn even proofread their titles[/QUOTE]
If you're implying they misspelled "explore" then I feel that was kind of intentional given what kind of game Just Cause is.
[QUOTE=Confuzzed Otto;49234633]does pcgamesn even proofread their titles[/QUOTE]
the game is about explosions
I really hope they patch this shit, I mean is it too much to ask for 30 fps on the consoles at least?
I want to like this game but holy shit that performance puts a total damper on my spirits.
This year is the year of PC ports fucking up, seriously
Although I have more faith in Avalanche to fix their port than Rocksteady in fixing theirs (Arkham Knight)
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;49235492]This year is the year of PC ports fucking up, seriously
Although I have more faith in Avalanche to fix their port than Rocksteady in fixing theirs (Arkham Knight)[/QUOTE]
Every year is the year of PC ports fucking up, that's what PC ports do.
I'm 100% convinced JC3 is not a bad port, and the performance issues some people are having are caused by some bug that will hopefully get fixed soon - I've read of people with 980Ti's who have problems running it, and I have a GTX970 that can run it maxed out with no stutter or frame drops at all, so it's definitely not bad optimization.
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;49235492]This year is the year of PC ports fucking up, seriously
Although I have more faith in Avalanche to fix their port than Rocksteady in fixing theirs (Arkham Knight)[/QUOTE]
Did rocksteady really port Arkham Knight? I thought it was a different studio.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;49235720]Did rocksteady really port Arkham Knight? I thought it was a different studio.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it was Iron Galaxy Studios who fucked it up, the previous games were ported in-house and ran just fine.
Well they still fucked up in a way, they outsourced the port instead of working on it themselves...
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;49236021]Well they still fucked up in a way, they outsourced the port instead of working on it themselves...[/QUOTE]
Iron Galaxy usually does perfect ports. Arkham Knight is the exception.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49237860]arkham city and origins had pretty bad ports as well
city had a bug for a couple of months that would randomly delete your save, ontop of some performance issues
origins ran terribly on launch and wb even announced that all continued patch support would be dropped in favor of dlc development[/QUOTE]
Can you imagine dropping cash on a game and having the company say "Get used to the bugs, fuckface and open your wallet up so we can fistfuck it dry."
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;49235492]This year is the year of PC ports fucking up, seriously
[/QUOTE]
JC3 runs better on a (relatively) low end PC than on the XB1 and PS4, if that's any comfort. It's a pretty good port, just riddled with bugs across all platforms
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;49248011]JC3 runs better on a (relatively) low end PC than on the XB1 and PS4, if that's any comfort. It's a pretty good port, just riddled with bugs across all platforms[/QUOTE]
Idk, it has massive problems on some setups.
It runs at around 1 fps on my friends GTX 560 & i5 build.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49248876]Idk, it has massive problems on some setups.
It runs at around 1 fps on my friends GTX 560 & i5 build.[/QUOTE]
The minimum needs a 670 so yeah no shit
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;49235492]This year is the year of PC ports fucking up, seriously
Although I have more faith in Avalanche to fix their port than Rocksteady in fixing theirs (Arkham Knight)[/QUOTE]
This year seemed actually pretty good for PC ports and or AAA PC games.
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;49236297]Iron Galaxy usually does perfect ports. Arkham Knight is the exception.[/QUOTE]
From what I heard, they fucked over Iron Galaxy by not giving them the whole game so it doesn't leak out that Jason Todd is the Arkham Knight which by the way, is extremely fucking obvious the first time he speaks and if you didn't realize it, it's because you've only played the games so you don't even know who he is in the first place so it's not even a spoiler.
On top of that, Iron Galaxy is all hands on deck working on their own game so instead of rocksteady fixing it themselves, they hand it back to them even though they're still working on that game
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49248926]The minimum needs a 670 so yeah no shit[/QUOTE]
No, see the thing is that it momentarily runs at ~40fps but then it starts loading things and just completely craps itself. At worst it's around 10 seconds PER FRAME.
At the lowest, it should be running just fine with those specs. It's ~25% weaker than PS4, and probably a bit better than the GPU in the Xbox 1.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49251057]It's ~25% weaker than PS4, and probably a bit better than the GPU in the Xbox 1.[/QUOTE]
You can't compare a console to a PC like that, for instance the GPU within the PS3 is roughly equivalent to a 7600GT
Also the GPU within the XB1 is roughly equivalent to a Radeon 7850, so slightly faster than his 560. The one within the PS4 is roughly equivalent with a Radeon 7870
[IMG]http://cdn.sweclockers.com/artikel/diagram/2798?key=88e2a28c7a6711ad2a388c71649bf9c1[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;49251176]You can't compare a console to a PC like that, for instance the GPU within the PS3 is roughly equivalent to a 7600GT
Also the GPU within the XB1 is roughly equivalent to a Radeon 7850, so slightly faster than his 560. The one within the PS4 is roughly equivalent with a Radeon 7870[/QUOTE]
We just made the game run fine for ~2 minutes, until it fucked up again.
It ran at ~40 fps for 2 minutes.
It's not a GPU problem.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49251183]We just made the game run fine for ~2 minutes, until it fucked up again.
It ran at ~40 fps for 2 minutes.
It's not a GPU problem.[/QUOTE]
You're mad the game doesn't run on way under spec gear?
I don't get it. You're just wrong. Games don't tend to run on things below minimum but here you are insisting a game is trash because of that. I don't get it.
People are saying it's related to a memory leak and the only solution is to get 16 gigs of RAM since apparently 8 isn't enough. I'll just wait for a patch.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49252571]You're mad the game doesn't run on way under spec gear?
I don't get it. You're just wrong. Games don't tend to run on things below minimum but here you are insisting a game is trash because of that. I don't get it.[/QUOTE]
The game is consistently known to have even shittier performance on top-notch GPUs. It's the game's hardware utilization that is faulty, not GPU. His setup should actually run the game fine on lowest settings.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49255260]The game is consistently known to have even shittier performance on top-notch GPUs. It's the game's hardware utilization that is faulty, not GPU. His setup should actually run the game fine on lowest settings.[/QUOTE]
He has a 560.
The minimum required is a 670. So no.
You are fundamentally wrong that that is the issue.
I agree, the game is not fully optimized but asking a game to run on below minimum and getting mad that it doesn't is literally childish
[editline]5th December 2015[/editline]
To reiterate I agree the game is unoptimized but that doesn't mean it's supposed to run on underpowered gear
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49252571][B]You're mad[/B] the game doesn't run on way under spec gear?
I don't get it. [B]You're just wrong[/B]. Games don't tend to run on things below minimum but [B]here you are insisting a game is trash[/B] because of that. I don't get it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49255505][B]He has a 560[/B].
The minimum required is a 670. So no.
[B]You are fundamentally wrong[/B] that that is the issue.
I agree, the game is not fully optimized but asking a game to run on below minimum and [B]getting mad that it doesn't is literally childish[/B]
[editline]5th December 2015[/editline]
To reiterate I agree the game is unoptimized but that doesn't mean it's supposed to run on underpowered gear[/QUOTE]
We really need the bad reading rating back.
1 - What makes you think I'm mad? "Oh dear he wants to help a friend run this game, he's mad!!!"
2 - What am I "fundamentally wrong" about?
3 - Where did I "insist the game is trash"?
4 - I don't have a GTX 560.
Your arguments make no sense.
Again, the game on the GTX 560 configuration runs well [I]for a while[/I], but then it stops running well.
It has to do with time, which is why I don't believe it's related to the GPU.
But hey, just keep putting words in my mouth and continue arguing with your imagined projection of me.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49255716]We really need the bad reading rating back.
1 - What makes you think I'm mad? "Oh dear he wants to help a friend run this game, he's mad!!!"
2 - What am I "fundamentally wrong" about?
3 - Where did I "insist the game is trash"?
4 - I don't have a GTX 560.
Your arguments make no sense.
Again, the game on the GTX 560 configuration runs well [I]for a while[/I], but then it stops running well.
It has to do with time, which is why I don't believe it's related to the GPU.
But hey, just keep putting words in my mouth and continue arguing with your imagined projection of me.[/QUOTE]
I'm just basing the whole system requirements thing on the whole, you know, posted system requirements.
System Requirements
MINIMUM:
OS: Vista SP2 / Windows 7.1 SP1 / Windows 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required)
Processor: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Storage: 54 GB available space
RECOMMENDED:
OS: Vista SP2 / Windows 7.1 SP1 / Windows 8.1 (64-bit Operating System Required)
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz / AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (3GB) / AMD R9 290 (4GB)
Storage: 54 GB available space
I have no idea why it doesn't run, but to say it doesn't run is obvious to me, it's not supposed to.
Sure, I'm assuming you're mad. You did however say it was a mess.
Also, I was talking about your friend, sorry I didn't go into great detail about to whom the 560 belonged.
I was talking to Dark Raven, but sure, you can take the whole thing personally.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49255505]He has a 560.
The minimum required is a 670. So no.
You are fundamentally wrong that that is the issue.
[/QUOTE]
That is based on.... what exactly? System reqs stated by developer?
Besides your skewed idea of how these system requirements are gathered to begin with, there have been numerous examples of hardware which are below "system requirements" to run games alright. Coincedentally, even Just Cause 2 was a case of that.
The game isn't entirely unoptimized, seeing as some people have no problems on sub-recommended hardwares maxing it out and some people having ridiculous stutter with 970 GTX'es. I'm not sure what's the prob tho.
Based on the fact they probably didn't build in optimization for any 500 series card? I know a 660 can run it but I've yet to hear if a lower card than that doing it because it's not something the developers aimed to support
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.