Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Arlong said:

Fucking prove it! Because I call bullshit. If it’s stronger then it’s stronger by like 2-5% at bedt(are we talking its original 400-500$ I’ll also ask) . What’s your GPU and processor that’s all I want to know and need to know. 

Here you go. Its not a great system, but its more than enough for 1080p gaming. Its a whopping $65 more than an Xbox One upon release.
Though I'd highly recommend spend just a little bit more and getting a Ryzen 5 3600, you can still use the exact same setup as whats linked. (I also knocked another $35 off spending a little more time finding cheaper alternatives)

1 hour ago, JordanB said:

Even if true, when you want to upgrade your PC you have to do it completely on your own. You need knowledge of the hardware you need to buy and upgrade. 

When I want to upgrade from og to X or X to Scarlet I take my console into Best Buy or Gamestop or Microsoft or whoever for credit toward the next console and only pay a partial amount, for one piece of equipment that I need no knowledge of and don't ever have to tinker with or modify. 

Console gaming isn't for everyone, but neither is PC, let's not pretend that console don't have a place in the market just because this gen had a mid cycle half upgrade. 

I understand this mentality and why people might go that way, but I will always 100% try to convince people to build a PC. Once you do it you figure out how stupidly easy it is. There is also nothing stopping you from buying prebuilt PC's that are stronger without the need to modify or tinker with your setup, expensive I know, but still an option.

Still I would never make a PC to use as an entertainment center like I do my Xbox One S, boot it up, pop in a bluray and start watching. Plus its incredibly small form factor its easy to take on trips and pack in your luggage. You can build smaller PC's, but I feel in general an Xbox and a controller will always be easier to pack than a PC, keyboard, and a mouse.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Arlong said:

Consoles weren’t ever about being on the same hardware. Hells the only reaSon consoles are more popular is because they’re ChEAP. Sure in the long run you get your 1000$+ pcs worth, but a console is just easier managed, controller is easier to handle than mouse and key, and EXCLUSIVES! If you could play Spider-Man ps4 on pc you’d never even think of getting a ps4. 

Maybe to you this wasn't a factor, but I know tons of people who would appreciate the fact everyone is using the same hardware when competing online. The 360 was sold for almost a decade and while chipset and stuff changed they never upped the specs for it. Consoles were known for having longer generation cycles and not requiring constant hardware changes like people say PC gaming does. The original Xbox One was made obsolete two years after launch and now scarlet is gonna make that obsolete as well next year. Meanwhile a good PC can last at least three to four years.

I mean yeah exclusives and ease of use are the other pillars consoles' success was built on, but in the last few years consoles lost the equal hardware aspect and made tons of steps backwards in the ease of use department. I can't remember the last time I booted my One and something didn't go wrong like the headset not working, party chat randomly disconnecting etc. And don't get me started on the constant useless updates that lock you out of the entire console for 20 minutes. As a whole this generation of consoles is a massive step down in perceived value.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Basu said:

Maybe to you this wasn't a factor, but I know tons of people who would appreciate the fact everyone is using the same hardware when competing online. The 360 was sold for almost a decade and while chipset and stuff changed they never upped the specs for it. Consoles were known for having longer generation cycles and not requiring constant hardware changes like people say PC gaming does. The original Xbox One was made obsolete two years after launch and now scarlet is gonna make that obsolete as well next year. Meanwhile a good PC can last at least three to four years.

I mean yeah exclusives and ease of use are the other pillars consoles' success was built on, but in the last few years consoles lost the equal hardware aspect and made tons of steps backwards in the ease of use department. I can't remember the last time I booted my One and something didn't go wrong like the headset not working, party chat randomly disconnecting etc. And don't get me started on the constant useless updates that lock you out of the entire console for 20 minutes. As a whole this generation of consoles is a massive step down in perceived value.

Don't forget about insert and play, where you could just insert the disc without the need of installing and managing your ever full hdd. Another factor where "hi end" consoles lost their charm. 

That is why Nintendo is still so popular without trying to push the tech aspect. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Hemlax said:

Don't forget about insert and play, where you could just insert the disc without the need of installing and managing your ever full hdd. Another factor where "hi end" consoles lost their charm. 

That is why Nintendo is still so popular without trying to push the tech aspect. 

 

It’s the main reason I don’t buy disc

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Hemlax said:

Don't forget about insert and play, where you could just insert the disc without the need of installing and managing your ever full hdd. Another factor where "hi end" consoles lost their charm. 

That is why Nintendo is still so popular without trying to push the tech aspect. 

 

Yeah I mentioned it in a previous post. Fuck 100 GB cancer like H5. Fuck 50 GB day one patches, fuck installing games on consoles. This is what console gamers used to make fun of, now its being shoved down our throats.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Basu said:

Yeah I mentioned it in a previous post. Fuck 100 GB cancer like H5. Fuck 50 GB day one patches, fuck installing games on consoles. This is what console gamers used to make fun of, now its being shoved down our throats.

I think this is just where gaming is going to head. More assets, more information, more data. Bluray discs only hold 50GB of data and most games are pushing that limit. 4K blurays can hold up to 100GB of data. Even then transfer rates from the optical disc drive will always be slower compared to storing the information on the HDD. I think we've just hit the point where we need that speed transfer in order for the game to work properly. Honestly at this point it would be more beneficial to sell games on a flash drive rather than a disc. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Nokt said:

I think this is just where gaming is going to head. More assets, more information, more data. Bluray discs only hold 50GB of data and most games are pushing that limit. 4K blurays can hold up to 100GB of data. Even then transfer rates from the optical disc drive will always be slower compared to storing the information on the HDD. I think we've just hit the point where we need that speed transfer in order for the game to work properly. Honestly at this point it would be more beneficial to sell games on a flash drive rather than a disc. 

So, like, I know this is only a tangential statement rebuffing your point and I don't want to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but brand new bloated over produced AAA games are the only things with file sizes that big today. Almost all of my favorite games, including one or two recent and highly anticipated releases by massive studios and publishers, have file sizes of <~20 GB on modern systems.

I know the scale of small storage is still in flux and will only get bigger in the future, but plugging in a flash drive with capacity in the triple digits isn't an inevitability for a lot of games even in the next 2-5 years imo.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, L377UC3 said:

So, like, I know this is only a tangential statement rebuffing your point and I don't want to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but brand new bloated over produced AAA games are the only things with file sizes that big today. Almost all of my favorite games, including one or two recent and highly anticipated releases by massive studios and publishers, have file sizes of <~20 GB on modern systems.

I know the scale of small storage is still in flux and will only get bigger in the future, but plugging in a flash drive with capacity in the triple digits isn't an inevitability for a lot of consumers even in the next 2-5 years imo.

You aren't wrong, there isn't like a huge list of games that top a 50GB download. Those that do are most assuredly AAA games. There is definitely some valid criticism to be made about these games and why they are hogging up so much space like Destiny 2 and Gears 4 topping 100+GB. Obviously data requirements will rise as we push higher resolutions and more GPU power, but we probably aren't really at a point yet where something needs to be done. 

I personally don't see the flash drive suggestion ever coming to fruition. Its just an example of a better solution to what we have now, faster transfer rates, smaller footprint, could possibly push higher GB flash drives to lower prices due to mass production. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Most games that are that big have absolutely no business hogging up all that HD space. It's just laziness and devs getting away with it since there are no restrictions or penalities. Titanfall 2 had like 30 GB of uncompressed audio files because they couldn't be assed to find a better way to optimize the game. Shit's crazy.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Basu said:

Most games that are that big have absolutely no business hogging up all that HD space. It's just laziness and devs getting away with it since there are no restrictions or penalities. Titanfall 2 had like 30 GB of uncompressed audio files because they couldn't be assed to find a better way to optimize the game. Shit's crazy.

I feel like I misconstrued my point, so despite size being one of the issues. File transfer speed is the other issue here. Optical drives aren't fast, which is why the data is being downloaded to the HDD so that it can access the information faster. Devs decreasing file size isn't changing the transfer speed.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Botheredhat360 said:

How come consoles now can't just play the game when you insert the disc in now?

The data transfer rate on discs is nowhere near enough to keep up with demand from the hardware. Unless you want poor graphics and extremely long load times, games need to be on the Hard Drive.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like, reading through all of this, people should be reminded that if you stop to build a top end PC you don't actually need to upgrade it or change anything (unless it breaks) for years and years. Games typically aren't designed to be played by the masses on top end hardware. For example a 4690k and gtx 970 from 2014 will still run anything released today and those weren't even the best of their generation just a decent place between performance and cost. In some instances you would have to lower some settings but unless your goal is to fully max out everything on every game you play your PC will last you quite awhile

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Snipe Three said:

I feel like, reading through all of this, people should be reminded that if you stop to build a top end PC you don't actually need to upgrade it or change anything (unless it breaks) for years and years. Games typically aren't designed to be played by the masses on top end hardware. For example a 4690k and gtx 970 from 2014 will still run anything released today and those weren't even the best of their generation just a decent place between performance and cost. In some instances you would have to lower some settings but unless your goal is to fully max out everything on every game you play your PC will last you quite awhile

Depends what you’re playing, if you play battle Royales like me you need a high end pc if you want frames close to 144 or higher.  I don’t want 60fps I want 144! 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Basu said:

Maybe to you this wasn't a factor, but I know tons of people who would appreciate the fact everyone is using the same hardware when competing online. The 360 was sold for almost a decade and while chipset and stuff changed they never upped the specs for it. Consoles were known for having longer generation cycles and not requiring constant hardware changes like people say PC gaming does. The original Xbox One was made obsolete two years after launch and now scarlet is gonna make that obsolete as well next year. 

I'll be interested to see if next gen does have a mid cycle upgrade. IMO we only got a mid cycle upgrade because both Xbox One and PS4 were pretty weak at launch (especially the former). 

Microsoft needed something to not just outdo the PS4, but show that they are about gaming again with their horrid og launch. Sony tried to counter by making their own more powerful console, and release it earlier since it wasn't quite as strong as the X. 

Even when Xbox One/PS4 launched pretty much any new TV would be 1080p and 4k TVs were becoming more popular and affordable. Meanwhile there were games that the Xbox One couldn't even do 1080p. 

Now the X, and definitely next gen should be able to do 1080p minimum on everything and very likely 4k 30 FPS at the least. But it's not like the market is flooded with 8k TVs, so as long as next gen can produce consistent 4k on the popular games, a mid cycle upgrade seems less likely. Although they could do it anyway and say "Scarlet does 4k30fps but Scarlet 2.0 does 4k60fps" just to produce more sales, so I'm not saying it definitely won't happen. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Arlong said:

Depends what you’re playing, if you play battle Royales like me you need a high end pc if you want frames close to 144 or higher.  I don’t want 60fps I want 144! 

Most streamers/pro's have the settings set to low/medium anyways. As long as the optimization is okay you should still hit pretty good frames with an older computer. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Nokt said:

Most streamers/pro's have the settings set to low/medium anyways. As long as the optimization is okay you should still hit pretty good frames with an older computer. 

Highly doubt it, and yes I do too. Pc players do that so we’re not getting FPS drops during game time, to reduce input lag. We easily could play all BRS and MMOS at the highest settings if we wanted too. You don’t understand to have FPS drop on you in a fight during pubg and that to cost you. 

  • Downvote (-1) 1
  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Snipe Three said:

I feel like, reading through all of this, people should be reminded that if you stop to build a top end PC you don't actually need to upgrade it or change anything (unless it breaks) for years and years. Games typically aren't designed to be played by the masses on top end hardware. For example a 4690k and gtx 970 from 2014 will still run anything released today and those weren't even the best of their generation just a decent place between performance and cost. In some instances you would have to lower some settings but unless your goal is to fully max out everything on every game you play your PC will last you quite awhile

My PC is the Ship of Theseus

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Arlong said:

Highly doubt it, and yes I do too. Pc players do that so we’re not getting FPS drops during game time, to reduce input lag. We easily could play all BRS and MMOS at the highest settings if we wanted too. You don’t understand to have FPS drop on you in a fight during pubg and that to cost you. 

3 year old GPU averaging higher than 100fps in PUBG

5 year old GPU averaging 90 fps in PUBG on Low

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it would be interesting if we went full circle and return back to cartridges for AAA consoles.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

My PC is still rocking an FX-6300 cpu and R9 380 GPU.  I can get 60 fps most of the time if im willing to be on medium or low settings. Despite that relative shit, both Apex and CoD4 look WAY better on my PC than my OG Xbox One.  If only they had input-type matchmaking and cross play.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The D Pad changes the grenade’s behavior.  The difference between grenade types is what kind of effect they release (Explosive damage, EMP damage, Stun, or Push).

Up and Down toggle between Bounce or Stick.

Left and Right toggle between Fuse or Remote Detonation.

Bounce-Fuse is a Frag.

Bounce-Remote Detonation is a Grenade Launcher.

Stick-Fuse is a Plasma Grenade.

Stick-Remote Detonation is a Sticky Detonator.

  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Boyo said:

The D Pad changes the grenade’s behavior.  The difference between grenade types is what kind of effect they release (Explosive damage, EMP damage, Stun, or Push).

y tho

giphy.gif

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Arlong said:

Are you dumb? The GTX 1070 is still a very good GPU. This isn’t some GTX 750 were talking here.

What does that have to do with anything? Snipe Three's comment said if you stop to build a top end computer you won't have to upgrade it for years and you refuted it. The GTX 750 is a lower-mid range card, not a high end card. The GTX 1070 is a high-mid range card, you don't even have to have a completely high end computer to achieve high frame rates with an older computer. I even went a generation behind with the GTX 970 and showed you can still achieve good frame rates.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.