PC gamer being honest about the inconsistencies of PC gaming.

Far Cry 3 is a great port, not sure what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the bad performance that a lot of people are getting with the game. If that counts a great port for you, well that's you.

@Heil68: if you have a problem with how I post feel free to ignore it or bring it up with a mod. I don't see how you spamming irrelevant post is helping to contribute or make the board any better.

I quit PC gaming a long time ago and happy i did. I used to struggle to get games running at 60 even with latest GPU at the time... and so much error.. and omg the hacks lol. I know today GPU's have overkill performance with huge power consumption so that might not be a problem anymore lol.

I was beast BTW with monster KDR but PC gaming just become boring and a waste of time. I moved on to PS3 then PS4 and no longer i had to deal with error or hackers. Only on PS3 there were a few hackers... very rare. mfs with hack firmwares lol but they were mostly on games like GTA or Noob of Duty. While on Killzone 2 there were just 2 hackers i believe that unlock the debug mode xD.

Anyway im so happy right now on PS4. 0 hackers. I'm also older so i cant waste my time with PC gaming like when i was a kid. I just want play UC4 and beast!

I'm talking about the bad performance that a lot of people are getting with the game. If that counts a great port for you, well that's you.

I've never had a problem with it and I've owned it since it came out, I've been through 3 GPU configurations since it came out and I've got 150 hours in it and Blood Dragon.

It's good that you don't have a problem with performance in FC3, but how does that change the fact that a lot of people do? I also never had a serious problem with AC:Unity, yet that doesn't change the fact that for thousands of people the game is/was near unplayable.

Also for some reason Blood Dragon ran better for me on that config (better than FC3).

I ran Far Cry 3 on medium settings across 5760x1080 using two 570s in SLI that had a heavy OC on them. They held 40-ish fps for the most part. I then moved to my 980Ti and with the same settings it just blew the game out of the water.

I can't find my info for the results on maxing the game settings for Far Cry 3 on my 980Ti.....anyway, the game ran well on 1080p (1920x1080) with my 570s and okay on 5760x1080. The 980Ti played the game without a hitch, all settings maxed at 1080 and 5760x1080.

I wouldn't say the game was badly optimized, it's just that the game wasn't terribly exciting. Overall, I had good performance on the 570s and the 980Ti with the game.

@neatfeatguy said:

@walloftruth said:

@dynamitecop said:

@walloftruth said:

I dunno what his specs are but either way, FC3 is a pretty shit port IMO. I remember I couldn't max the game at 1080p/60fps with a 760 (or 750TI, I don't remember). CPU and RAM were all above recommended requirements as well, typical Ubisoft bull.

Far Cry 3 is a great port, not sure what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the bad performance that a lot of people are getting with the game. If that counts a great port for you, well that's you.

I ran Far Cry 3 on medium settings across 5760x1080 using two 570s in SLI that had a heavy OC on them. They held 40-ish fps for the most part. I then moved to my 980Ti and with the same settings it just blew the game out of the water.

I can't find my info for the results on maxing the game settings for Far Cry 3 on my 980Ti.....anyway, the game ran well on 1080p (1920x1080) with my 570s and okay on 5760x1080. The 980Ti played the game without a hitch, all settings maxed at 1080 and 5760x1080.

I wouldn't say the game was badly optimized, it's just that the game wasn't terribly exciting. Overall, I had good performance on the 570s and the 980Ti with the game.

If that diagram is for 5760x1080, then that's pretty good I guess, though personally I can't play a games with jaggies (no AA) and I'd wager that the low shadow resolution didn't look all that great either.

And ha, of course your 980ti runs the game like a dream. :P

@walloftruth said:

@neatfeatguy said:

@walloftruth said:

I'm talking about the bad performance that a lot of people are getting with the game. If that counts a great port for you, well that's you.

I ran Far Cry 3 on medium settings across 5760x1080 using two 570s in SLI that had a heavy OC on them. They held 40-ish fps for the most part. I then moved to my 980Ti and with the same settings it just blew the game out of the water.

I can't find my info for the results on maxing the game settings for Far Cry 3 on my 980Ti.....anyway, the game ran well on 1080p (1920x1080) with my 570s and okay on 5760x1080. The 980Ti played the game without a hitch, all settings maxed at 1080 and 5760x1080.

I wouldn't say the game was badly optimized, it's just that the game wasn't terribly exciting. Overall, I had good performance on the 570s and the 980Ti with the game.

If that diagram is for 5760x1080, then that's pretty good I guess, though personally I can't play a games with jaggies (no AA) and I'd wager that the low shadow resolution didn't look all that great either.

And ha, of course your 980ti runs the game like a dream. :P

Yeah, that graph was for 5760x1080. I was also only running my i5-4670k at stock. AA/AF are the first things I turn down, then followed by shadows - if I need to gain fps. I only have the 980Ti running at the same settings to see what the performance difference between my 980Ti and my aging 570s were. Most of the time once I get into a game I don't notice the jaggies much and shadows, well, I could care less about in all honesty.

I more enjoy particles being maxed out - I love seeing bullet holes riddle things and shell casings going flying! To each their own.