NVIDIA has been working closely with Monolith for the upcoming Middle-Earth: Shadow of War and now NVIDIA has announced support for SLI and HDR for the upcoming release.
During NVIDIA’s Gamescom 2017 conference, Monolith VP Michael de Plater announced the partnership between both companies. Now that we know for sure that NVIDIA will be bringing Shadow of War to PC for us we can also be guaranteed that SLI, HDR and many more juicy NVIDIA development goodies.
Here is the official blog post by NVIDIA:
“Our full arsenal of development resources – including visual effects libraries, developer tools, research papers, source code samples and more – is at Monolith’s disposal. Our team, made up of more than 300 visual effects engineers, is lending its expertise in game development to the project and helping Monolith add the latest in graphics technologies to the game”.~
Source: Tweak Town
Hello! My name Jak Connor I’m based in Australia and I picked up PCgaming as child when I was around ten years old. I mostly played RTS games back then, putting many hours into Age of Empires 1/2 and Age of Mythology. My love for PC gaming grew and stayed with me as I now have a passion for gaming and the amazing technology jumps developers show us all the time. I pledge that I will be bringing you fine people of DSOgaming the most unique and interesting news I can find!
Is it too early to re-link my GimpWorks gif? 😀
Rather too late. All of this gimpworks talk is way too old and was heavily overused, nobody wants to hear this anymore. Now it is used only in annoying troll dictionary, next to “retarded” and “oh, wait”.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5e5e860a94b6ef5e994612ec71f88492f3ebc04333ecb460dc9776523bc73efe.jpg
Qt
Nice. Not sure how much those Nvidia effects will add, because sometimes they are great, for example VXAO, and sometimes they are horrible, for example TXAA, but at very least SLI will be officially supported, there will be no need for tweaking the profile. And game is certainly going to look better with all of this support than without it. I just hope the game itself is good, because majority of those trailers are closer to a parody than something that would make want to play this game.
imba gameworks comments in 3,2,1…
that means the performance gonna be crap in my 1070 ……. i dont want nvida crap in the game …..
Disable the NV features then..
Exactly. I do not understand people who are complaining that these features are used in game. They can turn them off and let others to use them if they want.
This has me worried. Not only does this usually mean crap performance on AMD cards at launch, but a lot of times these nvidia only features dont even work well (or work at all) on Nvidia’s own hardware. And if they do work, the performance penalty is not worth the silght bump in visual quality. (And before Nvidia fan boys jump at me, I have a GTX 1070)
This has me worried. Not only does this usually mean crap performance on AMD cards at launch, but a lot of times these nvidia only features dont even work well (or work at all) on Nvidia’s own hardware. And if they do work, the performance penalty is not worth the silght bump in visual quality. (And before Nvidia fan boys jump at me, I have a GTX 1070)
When Gameworks features did not work? I know only one case – broken HBAO+ in Gears of War 4.
Hbao+ works well in many games. txaa while very demanding does it’s job. People are angry, i can see that but i for one am happy that i can, if i want, turn those options on.
Just turn them off if you can’t afford the 90fps drop lol.
It’s definitely not 90 FPS drop. It’s much less, but in some cases significant. The problem here is, that many people are angry without reason. They only don’t know how these features work and often blame Gameworks from bugs or issues which can’t be influenced by this library. That’s all. They see Gameworks in a game and they already “know” what is responsible for every issue they will have with the game.
The 90fps drop was a wanted aberation. People over exagerate and yea, it can be fun but we’ve been over this countless times already.
Indeed. People claim they dont work, are usually the same ones claiming game isn’t optimised whilst trying to run maxed out settings on insufficient hardware.
When not utilising gameworks, Most gameworks games run as well if not better at times on AMD hardware.
They just need an excuse to blame Nvidia when AMD performs poorly
Because Nvidia never did it before, lol you guys are such scumbags!
Why not study the history of Nvidia vs AMD?
Yes they did. There are few examples. But it doesn’t mean they are doing that always and in every game. And it is very weak argument to blame gameworks for issues which are not related with its functionality. The most of the gameworks games run good and do not cause any problems on AMD HW.
I know the historic context thank you.
Not Nvidia’s fault AMD card are useless with tesselation, and if we explore current situation we see amd pushing async compute as it suits their hardware design, or other AMD sponsored games whete deus ex where certain settings hit Nvidia cards harder.
In here and now show me games where AMD gpu lose out because of gameworks features. For a start specific gameworks features are reserved for Nvidia cards anyway and those features are performance heavy even on Nvidia cards.
Non vendor specific gameworks features are not going to impact on performance anyway and gameworks simply acts as tool to get features running on Nvidia cards easier for developers..
It’s up to AMD to provide developers support in similar way for their gpu.
Mirror’s edge, Resident Evil 5, all Batman series, Unreal Engine games overall, Gear of war 4 that later was patched, seems always need a patch for those games, just for amd cards, anyway there are countless examples, everybody knows about the black box it is with nvidia, meaningless discussion.
Yes i agree with you after many years taking punches AMD tryed the same tatic as nvidia with Async compute, but nvidia said the hardware supported it on dx12, Basicaly lied, and hurried up the 10 series, so… Not as low as nvidia, i think it can be put as a bad behaviour.
You guys can deny it as much as you want the proofs are all over the internet.
Thing is consoles are the lower common denominator and both are using AMD hardware so nvidia needs something else to justify it’s existence and hamp the competitor’s hardware and code advantage, since ports are generaly based on console first and much of the code is reused on the PC port, so it will run decently on AMD cards, the obvious example is Witcher 3 which without gameworks was running better on AMDs with equivalent Nvidia cards, but with gameworks on it looses quite dramatically.
Nvidia will push gameworks as much as possible until AMD console almost monopoly ends.
It’s an exclusivity to PC gamers and an exclusivity over AMD, even though AMD can run it, but badly.
When Tesselation advantage ends they will enforce other arcthtural advantages on gameworks. And that’s it. Stop blaming AMD for the Nvidia shenaningans, dirty tatics.
“proofs are all over the internet”
Conspiracy theories made by AMD fans like you. That’s your proof? There are people who try connect gameworks in every game with something bad. In the most cases it is just not logic. They are connecting GW features with issues which can not be influenced with them. Or made theories based on imagined information like GPU PhysX in Project Cars when there is not nothing like that. But there are people who still believe it. There are only few cases where behavior of NV can be criticized. Like over tessellated Crysis 2 or Hairworks in Whicher 3. But you can not tell, that every game with gameworks is bad because of this library. That’s false information. The most of them are fine.
Yes conspiracy…ok nothing more to say.
One easy question. Do you know anything about game development or you are just person trolling against company you don’t like? Because people who know the background, easy understand that many of these “proofs” in the internet are just delusion imaginations of people who know nothing about it. Then they are making up their theories based on their misunderstanding of what they see. The most of the information about Gameworks in the internet are from people who do not understand what this library is. This should I consider as proof? Really? I take real claims like problems with Crysis 2 or Witcher 3. But these are only few games. The most of them works well.
Well maybe you shoudon’t only try those features if your card can handle it. I have NEVER had issues with Nvidia Gameworks features. You do know that they are optional right? You simply don’t use them if you have a mid to low end system. I would say that the mass majority of people who complain are people trying to use these features on a 750ti and expecting 60fps in 1080p. At that point it’s user error no Gameworks.
That’s what i said. I like these options ON. I can run it, some prefer not to/can’t take the fps hit….
If you like tanking your performance then grin on, but those of us who want that nice balance will continue to wait for someone else to deliver, because it sure as hell won’t ever be nvidia.
It depends, some options are eye candy and some others are useless. So you choose. But i’m glad i have the choice and most of the time i’m using them. People being mad at Nvidia for this lol… Plz
Some of those “eye candy” options ask for double if not triple the power in return, that isn’t really a perfect 50/50 balance when you look at it, especially when you look at how many out there own enthusiast level GPU’s to the low end, it’s quite telling.
People get mad at nvidia for various reasons, some stupid and some well founded. It’s utter insanity and trite fanboyism to claim nvidia doesn’t do anything stupid and cares for you as a person. No company on this planet gives a toss about what we think or do, they just want more of your cash at the end of the day.
Quite agree for the second part. As for the first part, 4k needs what twice as much compute power compared to 2k if not more. I don’t run 4k because it’s too taxing. Same goes for the nvidia effects. If i can run them, good if not i just turn them off. You can’t expect all the options to magically run without any need of horse power behind it.
Except when they try to sell you £850-2k GPU’s, yes, you should expect them to run all those GW effects under the sun, because they marketed those GPU’s as dealing with “more power”.
I don’t expect a NV defence of marketing, but I imagine there will be a counterpoint made for that pretty soon.
They run them all, albeit maybe not at the players desired framerate. I must agree on the fact that they need good gpus to run but i mean at this point, so do you to run 2k/4k/8k… The industry must push boundaries. Otherwise we’d still be stuck with quake1 gfx..
See that’s the thing. If you are paying 800-2k+, you should expect to run the game without any if much an issue at all. This is why I was talking about the whole balance part, because in this scenario you are paying 800-2k+ and it somehow manages not to run the games well with gameworks at a more than reasonable frame rate, the balance has clearly been shifted into NV’s favor, not the consumer, because the consumer is still paying more but getting less as they have to force a trade off (which you shouldn’t have to do when you’re spending £800-2k+ on a single piece of hardware, I’m sorry but there is no arguing with paying more and getting less).
We try to push here and there, but all we end up going with is the same kind of state, where we ask for more and give less in return. How many decades until we reach a point where a GPU can come out and tackle what it’s supposed to and not break the bank?.
GTA V is an old game, the PC port hit in 2015 and some like to claim that it’s well optimised, yet a 1080ti struggles to tackle the ultimate to very high settings at 1440p when paired with an i7-6700k (which is way more than enough for a CPU, even when OC). Even the advanced settings end up tanking performance for little gains (the extended view distance doesn’t render absolutely everything, I know because I’ve been testing every inch of the slider bar for days now).
As a species, we push, but we hardly reach very far. The last time we made a big push and saw insane gains was centuries ago back in the renaissance.
Your whole point is good but doesn’t apply only to gameworks. It applies to every game that doesn’t have gameworks too. Bad performance isn’t tied to nvidia’s assets.
And the math is easy, i mean, if you compare the 1080ti vs gtav/780ti vs gtav there’s no loss, you paid more you got more. But when you compare new cards to new games, it’s only normal not to expect as much since the game is “in theory” pushing further the boundaries. I don’t think a general statement like buying the best card should give us the 100% experience for games in the year to come.
Alot of other variables are at stakes too.
I’m aware of that, but that isn’t to say that GW is perfect and comes with zero performance hampering, nor are they on the same exact level either.
When you compare an old GPU to a new one, that clearly becomes a no brainer, but what I’m on about is an old game vs a new GPU, not old GPU vs a new one here.
I don’t see how a game from 2013 is the current Crysis of PC gaming, I’m sorry but I fail to see the magnificence of GTA V pushing things to the limit.
Well gtav is probably a so-so port to begin with. It mght have been considered good when it came out considering the hardwRe available at the time. When you have better hardware and thegame doesn’t scale etc yea it’s a big tell. GW isn’t perfect. As re any of pc ports. But my whole point was just that if you want it it’s there, to a price (performance) and if not you turn it off 🙂 no harm done.
I always saw it as one from the very beginning. The marketing and side by side swipe panels were proof of that. We basically got a console GTA V, with “demanding” settings that ended up not yielding as much (the grass especially when you consider how it cannot be interacted with or harmed like the grass in the latest Zelda game, that’s proper grass tech right there and it’s not gloated either).
That’s another issue with GTA V I’ve noticed, even with 1080ti’s and SLi, the game still likes to think it’s the Crysis of modern games, but it’s really not. I’ve seen devs toss in settings before that ask for a lot but don’t function properly nor look the part of what is being asked, it’s entirely possible with GTA V when you look at R* and their history with PC gaming in recent years (like lacking care to give us RDR1-2 for example).
I know I have the option to, it’s that I have bought into higher end, their highest and it’s still not enough to handle GW, which is annoying to hell because it shows that marketing is falsified and people will defend the tech by claiming it’s crysis levels of demanding. This rings back to me asking when we;’ll reach a point when we stop bloating ourselves and start refining technology. Look at phones, look at how we went from big to small and back to chunky again, we’ll go back to small at some point, but we could have done that to begin with if we just refined the tech from the beginning (which is very much within the realm of reality to accomplish).
You know it’s funny, while we’re on the subject of not expecting much from newer hw with newer games, I’m able to play Witcher 3 perfectly, as well as Planet Coaster ( a game which recommends a GTX 980 and is quite CPU intensive, more so than GTA V) and DOOM 2016. I find that DOOM plays like the most optimised PC game within the past 5 years, if not more. GTA V on the other hand, not so much.
Well witcher and doom (played both) we in a league of their own. Especially DOOM2016. One of the first game to support Vulkan and boy… beautiful , smooth.
That game was 10/10 in my books. So did Witcher3 and the expansion.
I’m not entirely sure on the league of their own, that basically allows anyone to claim GTA V was perfectly optimised, yet it doesn’t really show for it compared to the performance of an open world game (with hair physics as well) like Witcher 3 and a shooter like DOOM.
I find the latter two optimised better for PC than GTA V. Especially Witcher 3 when you consider CDPR having to come up with their own AA option that wouldn’t conflict with their style, rather than being like every other dev out there and shoving in the ever taxing MSAA and calling it a day.
The second part of your comment is true. But it is the same for AMD too. For the first part, these “eye candy” effects are advanced and they need performance to run. There are other effects which are not developed in NVIDIA and they sit to your definition too (like SSAA, SSAO,….). I never see people complaining about them. Nobody care how much performance they take. But when NVIDIA comes with performance hungry advanced effects, it’s a problem. Why is it like that?
So suddenly now, everyone doesn’t care about other effects or performance but now everyone is bullying just Nvidia?.
It seems like that to me. I do not see discussions about other effects. People don’t mind if they can turn them off or use alternatives in some cases, they accept it and it’s fine for them. But when it comes to Gameworks, it’s like hell.
it seems like it to you, but to me I see discussions elsewhere. I’ve seen plenty a site dump on AMD no matter what, so it’s not just Nvidia that gets flak either.
Have you ever thought that maybe Nvidia aren’t 100% precise perfect with GW?. WE are humans, humans are very much capable of error and well, greed, it’s not hard to imagine why nvidia is the way the are currently.
“Have you ever thought that maybe Nvidia aren’t 100% precise perfect with GW”
I was never say something like that. There are missteps like Crysis 2 or Hairworks in Witcher 3. But the most of games with Gameworks work well. And these effects are optional. So you can turn them off or use alternatives (for example there are several AA o AO techniques). There is really nothing solid to complain.
You imply it though.
There is room to complain, how about refining the technology to lessen the hw requirements and maybe make it so the advertised “power cards” being able to run them with more than enough performance?.
I find it completely redundant to see them advertise “true power” with their highest end, only for said highest end to magically buckle like a wimp against a few of their own effects. One would think that they would have prepped their effects to play very nicely with their absolute highest end, you know, making the highest end very tempting and viable than simply costing a lot more and having to trade settings all the time.
“how about refining the technology to lessen the hw requirements and
maybe make it so the advertised “power cards” being able to run them
with more than enough performance”
I would be rather if they let these effects like they are, but better configurable. So people would have in games more options to set their complexity to better fit it to their HW. You can see that in some games, where you have these options and even people with weaker HW can run them (of course I am not talking about low end GPUs). It’s not just on and off. This should be base for games from their first official release.
Then they could advertise what they want. Even the best possible result with everything set on max. I don’t care.
I would rather we push forward and refine the existing technologies, so that more can make use of them, so that more can buy into said technology than simply a few that treat it entirely as “optional”.
I care about the tech and the performance gains. I know you don’t because you see them as entirely optional, but to me it’s like having no options because the tech doesn’t play nice with their marketed “high end” GPU’s.
So you think, they are power hungry by purpose and that people with weak GPUs can have them in the same quality? I know you want them to be more standard. And I agree with you. But this is on game developers or engine developers to make it happen. No AMD or NVIDIA. They are HW producers in the first place.
I’m not even on about weak GPU’s here, I’m on about the high end, the “enthusiast” end.
I want the tech to be refined for the high end GPU’s, to keep refining it like they did with older tech back in the day.
Nvidia makes the hw and the tech. The devs can add it in for sure, but it;s still up to nvidia to advance and refine it. It’s up to devs on how they *implement* it.
“The devs can add it in for sure, but it;s still up to nvidia to advance and refine it. It’s up to devs on how they *implement* it.”
Is not this current status? NVIDIA is implementing libraries which provide the tech and developers are using them in their projects. Or do you think NVIDIAs implementation in their libraries is not good enough and can be better?
“Is not this current status?”.
Don’t you mean “is this not the current status?”.
It should be, but I haven’t really seen any information from Nvidia in regards to refinement of their currently implemented tech. I have definitely seen driver and bug issues being dolled out, but hardly “improvements to GW.perf gains on X cards increased by Y%”.
They could definitely do better. They like to show off the tech for a few show cases, but outside of that, they hardly give any meaningful info on how the tech has progressed in terms of performance gains.
See, without that piece of information, their marketing of high end can easily delude someone into thinking X high end card can tackle Y settings, but in reality, Nvidia didn’t specify just how far their tech has gone in terms of performance margins, thus we know nothing of how far the tech has gone, outside of a few “wow” factor showcases (which are designed to just show the tech, rather than explain it’s perf costs/gains).
“Don’t you mean “is this not the current status?””
This is exactly what I meant. From this point of view I agree what you wrote. We can only guess if it could be better or not. There is only one example where we have this information – PhysX SDK. In this case, we know what was implemented better and how different are its releases from performance view.
What are you talking about?
Nvidia has pioneered many high-performance effects that most gamers take for granted or are widely available. FXAA for example, is provided almost universally now. Decent AA at a nonexistent performance cost.
Another example is HBAO+. It’s used heavily in games and it performs faster than SSAO or HBAO (both at full res) while also being higher quality.
To say that Nvidia can’t deliver a “balanced” graphics feature is utter bs.
It’s utter BS to hold them as if they are god damned NASA, like they are the only GPU manufacturer in existence that does anything worthwhile, but sure, let’s ignore everything before Nvidia showed up, let’s ignore AMD.
Wut?? Acknowledging one company isn’t ignoring the other. You explicitly said “it sure as hell won’t ever be Nvidia”. I simply told you why that wasn’t true. I never said anything about AMD or what it didn’t do.
And yet no one has talked about what AMD or others have done before have they?.
Since you seem to be up to the plate for talking good things of Nvidia, let’s hear some rounds on AMD.
Wtf are you being serious right now? Am I not allowed to dispute untruths about nvidia without also mentioning every other GPU company? Is this some kind of joke?
Nobody has talked about AMD in recent times because they haven’t done much in recent times. When they announced GPUOpen we all talked about it. People talk about things that are relevant.
But sure, if you want me to praise AMD for some reason, they’ve done quite a bit. TressFX and FreeSync immediately come to mind.
“untruths”, ah so that’s what they are called these days, interesting.
No it’s not a joke. All I’ve been seeing the past few months are a pocket collective of die hard NV fanboys on here and PCgamer. I’m a consumer of Nvidia products myself, but I owe them nothing in terms of unspoken loyalty of “defence” of any sort.
See when you say AMD haven’t done much in recent time, you mean to shrug off anything they have actually done within the past decade, but you’re more than willing to defend NV tooth and nail against so called “untruths” while saying they pushed us so very far.
Also while we’re at it, AMD share their tech to benefit everyone, NV doesn’t. You’d think that mankind would be better off sharing, to push tech/life advancements forward than to horde them for a quick buck.
I agree that AMD is more generous when it comes to sharing but they haven’t created nearly as much as NVIDIA. You can’t blame NVIDIA for wanting to make their own innovations give them an advantage.
And no, when I say AMD hasn’t done much in recent times, that does NOT shrug off what they’ve done in the last decade. Recent times to me means at most the last 3-5 years. And in those 3-5 years they really haven’t done much.
I don’t see how presenting basic facts about what Nvidia has done is defending them “tooth and nail”. You’re trying to paint me as a fanboy when all I’ve done is stated facts about what technologies Nvidia has created. FXAA and HBAO+ were just 2 such examples.
Why are you being so sarcastic about me saying “untruths”?
There’s literally nothing true about what you said when you stated (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Nvidia can’t ever bring technologies that are balanced between perf. and graphics.” That simply isn’t true. Not even remotely. And because it’s not true it’s an “untruth”.
Except their own innovations hamper performance, thus they try selling you more expensive GPU’s, GPU’s that cannot take on what they offer, so you are basically being gypped on a pipe dream they created, I honestly cannot fathom why some of you fail to see this. They aren’t goody two shoes and they aren’t your best pal, the cream of the crop. They are a company that wants to maintain their monopoly at the cost of the consumer.
I like how you treat them as “facts”, while something you disagree with as “untruths”, that speaks like a fanboy to me. You also try counterpointing AMD at any point in time, “yes I cannot deny that they did something a decade ago, but they’ve done zip[ now”, and yet that’s somehow a textbook fact?, that they have done virtually nothing for the industry at all within the past 5 years?.
wtf someone else in the comments has the exact same thing too say….either there copying you, your copying them or amd just got busted trying to spread disinformation. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7828b7f933bded5742105ccdb7f6f993f1f2ad1c38a5fe6332bbd264892944f.png
posted a screen cap in case they try deleting it
Nandiman posted it an hour before KUJO.
Every comment of KUJO is a copy of someone else’s post.
It seems Dracula also has an alt account. Well, lot of comments and upvotes here are made by alts. I don’t think it has to do with AMD, nVidia or Intel; just fanboys really.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/092da88c85b35c0200a3ec59d04dccb82d34bdc4d057ffbc330b6194cce0fa63.png
Just disable the damn options. My god, the entire argument against having game works is so asinine. Let those of us who have the power to enable them, enable them. Those who don’t, TURN IT OFF.
exactly.
I dunno why, but nvidia seems to do more harm to everyone else and even their own consumers than pushing technology forward.
Fanboys love claiming that they give big boons to the industry, but honestly, the biggest boon is providing adequate tech to the industry, without asking for triple the power in return, you know a balance of sorts.
“but honestly, the biggest boon is providing adequate tech to the
industry, without asking for triple the power in return, you know a
balance of sorts”
And then you go to buy AMD GPU with +100W power consumption against their competition. 🙂 Is this balance too?
The difference between kepler and pascal is staggering in terms of how it is more powerful and how it needs much les power and produces less heat.
That’s not pushing tech forward ?
And yet we’re not looking at the perf loss with gameworks?.
There has to be a performance loss you’re adding more to compute for the gpu. Isn’t that right ?
Except when you have more compute power, you shouldn’t be taking that big of a loss, remember?.
Why you should not? Are there solutions better in performance with the same result then these advanced effects provide by Gameworks? I would like to see examples. Maybe TressFX is one of them. But I can’t see nothing else.
I like how you’ve put the debate in question into the old “what has anyone else done greater than Nvidia?”.
The straws have been grasped.
“I like how you’ve put the debate in question into the old “what has anyone else done greater than Nvidia?””
No. It was not that question. I never generalize work what was done. We are talking about Gameworks. This library provide some advanced effects for lighting, shadowing, hair and fur, etc. You do not like how power hungry they are. I want to know only one thing. Did someone implement these effects in better way with the same or better results? I am asking this because these effects are complicated and performance hungry from their base. Not because NV implement them that way. For this reason I think that this all criticism about power used to some additional and optional effects have no sense.
I do not like how unrefined they are. You’re implying the power hungry side is justified, yet you put down the refinement logic. I’m sorry but I flat out disagree with that line of thought.
“Did someone implement these effects in better way with the same or better results? I am asking this because these effects are complicated and performance hungry from their base.”
I see we’re pushing the same argument forward, to a point where you want me to go “no” and then you can go “I’m right, well that’s the end of that”. I know how that dance goes rather well.
It makes no sense to you because you’re entirely happy and complacent with what you want, you are using that line of thought to argue against mine, to a point where it becomes a non argument because you think nothing anyone wants matters, no refinements, no accurate marketing etc.
I’m going to be brutally honest right here and now. You don’t care about what I think, let’s not try saying we don’t, because;
1) You don’t know me, you know nothing about me outside of the site.
2) You’re more than happy to argue for a company you’re clearly more than happy with, which puts your own bias into the mix when it comes to looking at technology in general.
I know you don’t think the criticism is warranted, but that honestly doesn’t matter at the end of the day, because you don’t really care what anyone else says about it since you’re already happy with the tech in the first place as well as the company.
“I see we’re pushing the same argument forward, to a point where you want me to go “no” and then you can go “I’m right, well that’s the end of that”
I am not pushing you to do anything. What I want to say is that if there is no better implementation, how can we complain that what we have is bad? If there were other solutions which has the same or better results and runs better with the same or similar feature set, then you can compare it and say that something is wrong with NVIDIAs solution. As my hobby, I implemented several graphical features included advanced like ambient occlusion or dynamic shadows (all from the ground up with C++ and DX11). NVIDIAs solutions are much further then what I had and I can imagine how complicated it is to implement something like that, which has to run in real time with acceptable FPS.
“you’re already happy with the tech in the first place as well as the company”
I had GTX 780, now I have GTX 1080 and I am using gameworks from the beginning. In games I play, I had no problems with it. Never. So you are right. I have no complains about it, because from my point of view, I like what I got.
?????????
?????????
?????????
Please be good 🙁 and I hope the micro transactions are really just for the end game which is the MP portion of the game. I want to believe.
Also lets hope GameWorks is implemented in the right way and it doesn’t crush your GPU.
?????????
?????????
All off
?????????
?????????
?????????
“Middle-Earth: Shadow of War Has NVIDIA’s “Full Arsenal”
So it’ll crash and burn next May like every year? /s
so people now worried that this game will use nvidia related tech? isn’t that to be expected already? the first game also doing partnership with nvidia. i still remember back then for ultra texture they were recommending GTX Titan with 6GB VRAM lol.
Wow so Nvidia has this game. And Now FFXV with full on gameworks
The greatest victim in this train wreck is Monolith themselves. The company that gave us original IP’s like Blood, SHOGO, NOLF , F.E.A.R. and Condemned shouldn’t be relegated to regurgitating licensed games.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a50fe791792d6eb85eabe756d1566a4f80d796886dafd4db6ece0e144c157d83.jpg
I will give nvidia one more chance not to mess this up.
Nice. Not sure how much those Nvidia effects will add, because sometimes they are great, for example VXAO, and sometimes they are horrible, for example TXAA, but at very least SLI will be officially supported, there will be no need for tweaking the profile. And game is certainly going to look better with all of this support than without it. I just hope the game itself is good, because majority of those trailers are closer to a parody than something that would make want to play this game.
I finished Agents of mayhem yesterday which is another new gmae that uses gameworks and on my 970 the only nvidia feauture that i had to disable was HTFS(i used PCSS instead). Evry other game wotk feauture i had it enabled and it perfomance was ok. That with evrythinh maxed 1440p.
Jesus how much of a sucker are you to buy that garbage?
I bought it only due to denuvo becasue i coudlnt wait for it to get crackedd. And now that i finished it all missions i can tell that not is not garbage. If you like action games then you will also like it. It has lot of fast paced action and violence. I believe that the reason it got bad reviews is becaue it is made by small developers and not by a awell known and big one. I didnt find any issue with the game. It is the usual action adventure third person shooter game! Not something special but also not garbage. Dont trust revoews .
A whole paragraph of sucker rationalizing, then calling “revoews” fake news.
Why would I look at a review of a game that looks like garbage, all it took was to watch some uncut gameplay.
I already had seen many gameplays videos of it before buying and didnt notice anything garbage. You see i play all action games anyway.
” be guaranteed that SLI, HDR and many more juicy NVIDIA development goodies.”
So HDR is an Nvidia thing, hmmm, always thought it was an industry standard…:P
In this context it means, that NV is cooperating to get HDR support into the game.
There is no need for nvidia cooperation on HDR, is just a gimmicky cooperation, BS. It should be btw completely unrelated to AMD or Nvidia something so standard as HDR.
Of course there is no need. But now imagine situation when there will be no HDR support in this game without NV. Just because developers do not make it. But NVIDIA provide their developers and other resource to make it happen. Many advanced features in modern games come from NV or AMD cooperation with developers. Without it, we would have in the most cases just console ports of games. Do you have any idea how this business work? Or you are just theoretic without any knowledge about it?
Here they come storming folks, the people that think advanced graphical effects should come free of performance cost. Men, at the ready!
At least someone is trying to bring more games to PC. Valve is in control of the largest digital client on PC and they don’t give a crap about who brings what to Steam. Honestly i always thought the Hardware makers should get together and put on shows similar to Sony, MS and Nintendo. These guys live and die through gaming. IF PC has no big games pushing hardware people won’t upgrade, if people don’t upgrade they go under.
“At least someone is trying to bring more games to PC”
What ?
Usually when a game comes to PC its the publisher that does it. We don’t have anyone supporting and paying for ports to come here. Nvidia and other hardware makers could change that. Think about it. Whats the difference between Nvidia that sells hardware and Sony that sells hardware? they both want to bring in as many new customers as they can. More people PC gaming, more people buying Nvidia cards.
“We don’t have anyone supporting and paying for ports to come here”
We don’t need one. last thing we need is some greedy company tells us what to play or pay for and how to play our games.
Nvidia doesn’t care if they are 1000 PC games or 1, they only care to slap some unoptimized GameWorks stuff in an already announced title and sell their cards with.
Sony sells a complete package and it’s life depends on it, Nvidia only makes one piece of hardware. now imagine if nvidia control our games, exclusive nvidia titles, people with AMD can not run the game, AMD makes it’s own version, people with nvidia cards can not run the game, intel might do it as well, hell msi,asus and all wants a piece cake for themselves. it’s a good way to kill pc gaming.
“Nvidia doesn’t care if they are 1000 PC games or 1, they only care to
slap some unoptimized GameWorks stuff in an already announced title and
sell their cards with.”
How can you say that? Without PC games why should people buy their GPUs? I am pretty sure, they care about it. And that is why they enhancing games with graphics features. Exactly why AMD is doing the same. Without these 2 companies, we would be playing only console ports without any advanced graphics features.
“now imagine if nvidia control our games, exclusive nvidia titles, people
with AMD can not run the game, AMD makes it’s own version, people with nvidia cards can not run the game, intel might do it as well, hell
msi,asus and all wants a piece cake for themselves. it’s a good way to
kill pc gaming.”
This is not going to happen. These companies know they need PC gaming business.
“Without PC games why should people buy their GPUs?”
Because it’s impossible for PC to run out of games and they don’t care about the games or their quality as long as they put their stuff in there.
“we would be playing only console ports without any advanced graphics features”
We are playing console ports now but with some gimmicks added to them. how about some sorts of nvidia/amd optimization that works for all ? nah too much work, put some physics on the grass and tell them you own them.
”
Because it’s impossible for PC to run out of games”
I’m not talking about running out. Without graphical enhancements, nobody would buy better mainstream or high end GPUs. I think this is the reason why are NV and AMD cooperating with game developers. Plus to achieve better performance on their GPUs.
“We are playing console ports now but with some gimmicks added to them.”
We are talking about enhanced graphics features so what is the problem? It would be better without them? So we would play pure console ports? What would be reason for gamers to stay on PC and not to buy console if the games would look exactly the same?
“how about some sorts of nvidia/amd optimization that works for all”
What optimizations are you talking about? You can made lower polygon meshes, decrease graphics features, optimize source code or other changes to achieve more FPS. There are many possibilities. What do you have in mind?
Yeah we might not need it but it would be nice if AMD, Nvidia, Intel and even some parts and system builder companies got together and started help promote PC gaming. Sony and MS throw a lot of money around to give console gaming the attention it gets in the media, they influence big publishers to release games on console only or console first.
I would be nice if more of these companies that live and die by PC gaming helped bring more to the platform. As for exclusives They don’t need to make an entire game locked to their hardware. Select optional features and increased optimization is more than enough.
“Select optional features and increased optimization is more than enough”
That’s exactly about this article. But see how many people is angry on NVIDIA just because of development and usage of some optional features which they can turn off.
“got together and started help promote PC gaming”
In theory it might sound good, but in practice it only means more walled garderns and less freedom/choice for users.
“they influence big publishers to release games on console only or console first”
If they don’t do that then their console will die. PC survived without it, got stronger without them, have better games without them, have more games without them, why tie our hands and give more power to a bunch of companies ?
Juicy, Delicious, succulent goodies that will cost more, tank more and look far less enticing for everyone who hasn’t shelled out for the highest end GPU (that will suffer anyway).
I can taste the prime steak rib of goodness already, plus MT’s on the side plate, yum.
It is not just latest problem. 🙂 Now it is just bigger then before. NVIDIA is not doing only GPU too. They have also Tegra business and they invest and cooperate in deep learning so there is big effort in other sides too. It is not as big as CPU like in AMD, but they have to invest significant resources to other industries.
“AMD does do more within the industry than a company willing to destroy the competition”
Heh. If you believe this, it is hardly something to say. NVIDIA do many things for industry – in HW and SW development. But if you just negate everything, then nothing stay to see.
I like the age old arguments of “they are the exact same as the other company if not better” types. 🙂
That’s your argument with better AMD. Not mine. Sorry but I’m not praying to any company. I appreciate AMD too. But I am not blind to NVIDIA. BTW your argument with high power consumption effect is odd (do you have the same opinion on TressFX?). That’s only your way how to protest against company you obviously don’t like. I don’t have to making up nonsense arguments to forcibly complain about some company. I don’t have enemy here. I like computer graphics and how it is still better and better. Because of this I don’t understand people like you who criticize this (but only when NVIDIA is behind it and AMD is fine).
“because you think it’s a fact that Nvidia>everyone else when it comes to tech and advancements”
I don’t think this. I am just looking for comparisons.
“You seem to have the idea that Nvidia is a pure company that has never ever done anything wrong, that hasn’t made mistakes and a company that wants to “share” and be happy go lucky with everyone else.”
I don’t think this either. 🙂
“can you be bothered to refine it now rather than later?”
I want this too. What I am saying all the time, we do not know in how status is their tech. You are assume that they are not refining it and I think this is not just black an white case. Good example of this is PhysX. And what I saw, they enhanced and get better the APEX Turbulence module. HBAO+ is better in results as any other AO solutions and cost only few FPS more. TXAA has less performance demand as MSAA and do its job good. Then there are features like God Rays or Hairworks which are big questions. They take performance significantly away because of huge tessellation usage (which is maybe not necessary and according to me, it should be better configurable in game settings). So as I said. For me it’s not black and white.
That’s why I want them to notify us on how the tech is progressing, rather than wasting a tech showcase to wow the press for 20 minutes and then seeing hype articles on said tech. I’d rather know how it’s gone from it’s early public release stages to the current time frame.
The early stages could require more power compared to 2 years later with possible refinements, but Nvidia never tells us this.
I find TXAA having to be used with MSAA as detrimental to an AA solution as MSAA still requires that performance hit. I found running DSR with GTA V for example to be less taxing and doing a better job than MSAA+TXAA. MFAA doesn’t really seem to add much when used with MSAA either as I’ve seen for myself.
I wouldn’t say godrays are Nvidia exclusive. The godrays in F4 for example on ultra required more power than on high and yet there was that horrid blurred artifacting that was very noticeable for most who sported the setting.
It’s not black and white for you, but that doesn’t mean to say it’s the same for me either.
“thanks to NV and AMD cooperation with devs, we are playing console ports
with benefits – better visuals, no FPS caps in many cases”
Again, we were playing console ports with benefits before all this, they are still console ports but the benefit came with the raw power of the hardware and the money we spent on it. better resolution/AA and fps and having option to choose between what to sacrifice and what to gain was always there even before NV/AMD.
“I am calling pure console games only ones which don’t have nothing above console version.”
Even bad console ports are still looks and run better on PC than consoles without anything anyone’s interference. but it’s only visual which is not that much important and adds nothing to the gameplay, but better controls do.
“I like better visuals and definitely”
Of course, anyones loves that but when we become more obsessed with better visuals and when it becomes the only thing that is matter, we only going to get that. this is where creativity dies and we get the same games every year but with better visuals and worst gameplay.
“I had GTX 780 from the beginning to last year. I had no problems with performance at all”
Well they screwed the performance of kepler cards for months when maxwell got released. specially in Project Cars and Ryse. older drivers ran these games smooth but with newer one they had performance issues. they fixed it but i don’t thing that was a mistake, they got caught.