@davidswitch84:Two 980tis vs three 980s should be close/ in favor of the specific enhancements of the 980ti in high resolution cases. At 4K with super high AA and all that, two 980tis probably should beat out 3 980s. Remember, anything past 2x SLI has awful scaling in pretty much any case so 3x isn't much better than 2x most of the time. Tomb Raider is the only one that should be taking advantage of those 3 cards especially well, others have legitimate SLI issues and may have SUFFERED if they didn't tweak the testing to account for that. Even in synthetic benchmarks, 3x 980 is 20-30% better than 2x 980ti which means thats usually the best case scenario. Some games don't use the third at all, yadda yadda. Basically benchmarks with 3x SLI for anything other than specifically testing 3x SLI and doing an article focusing on that is silly. a single 980ti would have been FAR better because ALL games are optimized for a single card.
Just Cause 3 runs like a fucking CHARM at absolute max, on my 980 ti. Your numbers cannot possibly be accurate unless it's a bottleneck. That or you're doing unrealistically high settings, and I don't remember that game having especially intensive AA options so that doesn't even make sense. Even at 4K that seems weird.
This sort of screams of someone who just took a college course on imperialism or some other liberal leaning class on how bad America is. What do you want them to do, invent a completely fictional race of people to attack? North Korea has on several instances released videos showing America being bombed into oblivion. This isn't a fuckin' grey area. N. Korea is an aggressive, albeit spineless and limited, power in the world. That, and this is a work of fiction.
Huh. One of the two sticking points for the quality of the game is the camera? That mind as well not be an issue for me at this point unless it is substantially worse than DS/II. Good to hear!
@ender003: People are always upset, because they are entitled little brats. Apparantly you have to charge for DLC for a game to be worth $60. "You aren't going to charge me more later??? WHY SHOULD I PAY $60 NOW??"
Hell, I can think of games play the same couple of small maps over and over and over again for hours and hours. And then later in the series you see those popular maps return in practically un-altered states. Halo, Battlefield, Call of Duty all do that kind of stuff, and I've enjoyed most of it. This is a pretty significantly changed experience from the last one. Most of the hard work was still there to be done. Height Maps are usually a simple blocked out terrain with a bunch of processing to make it look realistic. The tough part is putting all the stuff into that world.
Is this really such a big deal? It almost seems like a neat call back. The terrain doesn't LOOK or FEEL the same really, so who cares? Maybe this is supposed to be the same area, just a long time before.
Honestly? Heightmaps don't take THAT much work to create. It's placing everything in that terrain that makes terrain creation so time consuming, it's tweaking the blocked out terrain into something more specific.
@wendopolis_bruh: The PC beta is stripped down somewhat from what I heard, so wait until you see final code before you whine about this stuff. That said, early target stuff shouldn't be trusted. If you expect the game to stay unchanged over years of time, you're just fooling yourself.
@Lord_Sesshy: As far as I know, the PC version of the BETA is not final asset-wise. I don't know when or where I saw it, but supposedly assets weren't at full ultra levels, I assume to keep download size down and focus on gameplay rather than technical stuff. Also there's no way you can tell the differences with a barely 720p video (even if the pixel count is whatever it is on here). At this point the difference is smaller than what compressed internet video can show, period. Look at Gamersyde.com if you want to compare that sort of stuff, they don't compress their video nearly as much.
Mordeaniis' comments