RTX is a effect by the latest video cards? I'm not familiar with pc gaming at all anymore.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Metro Exodus Review Thread
- Thread starter CenturionNami
- Start date
RTX is a effect by the latest video cards? I'm not familiar with pc gaming at all anymore.
Delete this nephew.... It's a different time of day and location. Look at the trees in the background.
Edit: I was wrong...
Last edited:
I don't think it's a joke. I think it's more that AAA have so much money and time put into them that at worst they'll be mediocre or average. A publisher/developer usually won't keep pumping money into a game that is obviously not turning out to the extent that it would score below like a 70. Time and money ensures a baseline level of quality, but not that the game will be truly excellent or great.
Jörg is definitely a great writer, but don't agree too often with his scores.
Love his writingstyle and approach to game in general. 68% is low though,.
Xbox One X here, game worked fine, except for a few framedrops and three times that it completely froze.
Also, this happened 3 times in various locations. What.
Also, this happened 3 times in various locations. What.
"You know you screwed up when" is the kinda shit that grinds my gears. lol's and smh's for a game scoring about an 80 is fucking crazy, for real.
The PC has it fair share of crashes. As I mentioned, I experienced several during important parts of a mission and one during the damned ending scene.
Slow-paced shooters really don't jive with a ton of people in the modern Call of Duty era.
Still relevant...
This whole thing is so overblown. Greg Kasavin, former editor in chief for gamespot and, I maintain, the greatest game reviewer of all time (now a writer and designer with Super Giant as an interesting aside) said it best: most games are pretty good. Truly bad games are rare. The second presented scale here is normalized against the population, which a consumer doesn't really want. You want to know if you're gonna buy a good game in an of itself.
Yeah, I'm sure Gamers Nexus is trying to trick everyone
Edit:
Yup. By the time a game by a major publisher is going to come out, enough time and money has been put into it to ensure that at worst it's decent. Any game that was going to be worse than that would have been scrapped or revamped once the publisher/developer realized it. There are exceptions to this of course, but you can't suddenly adjust the review scale to account for most games being good, because then how do you grade the games that are truly bad? Go into negative scores?
That's weird...
Yeah, this is weird. My GTX 1080 paired with a Ryzen 1700x was nowhere near close to 94.8 fps. It barely hit an average of 60 fps. Love to know how these numbers were arrived at. And reading the article didn't help.
8+ means great by many review site/magazine standards, IGN, Gamespot, Pcgamer etc.
Also with outlets that have many reviewers in their staff, the review is usually done by someone who gravitates towards the game to begin with. And the sites don't often review absolutely atrocious games like Life of the Black Tiger or Quiet Man. Like we can see that Quiet Man only has 21 reviews for PS4 in MC while God of War has 118. So we much more often see high review scores than low ones.
Last edited:
Didn't even see that it was from GN. At a passing glance, it can't be hard to see why I'd be skeptic. The comparison in the video is actually one to one whereas this gif is well, not....
Yeah both games got barely over 80 and are some of my favourite games ever. Getting Exodus day 1.
Quick glance at the video, and I'm left with the same feeling I generally have when I've seen people talk about RTX, namely that it really doesn't seem to be worth it. The visual difference is absolutely minimal, and really doesn't seem like it'd amount to more than a subjective choice whether you prefer it on or off. Meanwhile the performance hit is astronomical, it's like a 50% fps hit.
It's really no wonder that the tech demos nvidia puts out or it are full of glossy reflective surfaces, which is one of the main areas where it really does something visually.
I thought it might average out a bit higher, but still great scores almost across the board. Can't wait til Friday.
I think they are low 70's games but its going to get a bunch of free bumps with how visually stunning it is.
My Nostradamus skills suck ass. Please rise 3 more points, so I can win the jackpot and earn Era's respect.
The gif is literally a segment from the video I made using GIFit.
So excited.
Is phys x hardware accelerated?
I have a spare 1050 I could use for it, it gave good results in the previous metros (and batman, and all the phys x hw accelerated games).
I just have to find it if it's worth it.
It's only a brief clip, but that looks fine to me. I definitely would like to know how it compares to E3 2017 on X though.
it isn't
the trees are brighter with rtx on because they are receiving more light than just from the sun overhead
Not really blown away by that. Not for the extra $ cost or performance cost.
As a base PS4 owner, sounds like I'm best waiting for a big Black Friday discount or holding off entirely in hope that they do a Exodus Redux for next gen systems.
Ok cool, thank you very much for the info. I thought that might be the case. Super Meat Boy and Shadow Complex are the only single-player games I own from their store, and SMB will start via the exe, Shadow Complex won't. I figured third party publishers might not be using Epic's launcher as DRM, but this was the only way to know for sure. I just feel like people should know if they try to launch the game via the launcher without an internet connection, they'll get an error message. BUT if they launch it directly via the exe itself, it seems like they can still play it.
Reading the reviews it sounds like they nailed the main aspect that I come to Metro for which is the atmosphere and that the aspects that have always been the weakest haven't really improved much.
Which I'm definitely fine with. There's plenty of games that scratch my itch for shooters or a strong story, few games actually deliver atmosphere and tension as well as the Metro games though.
Which I'm definitely fine with. There's plenty of games that scratch my itch for shooters or a strong story, few games actually deliver atmosphere and tension as well as the Metro games though.
Hmmm. That and no built in FoV slider are making me a little wary on picking this up Friday....
"A brilliant sequel that wrestles control away a little too often."
Fuck, that's one thing I hope they would improve from the previous games.
There's just so much unskippable long animations that honestly doesn't even look very good by AAA standards.
It serve no purpose but to disrupt the fun gameplay loop and break the immersion.
Fuck, that's one thing I hope they would improve from the previous games.
There's just so much unskippable long animations that honestly doesn't even look very good by AAA standards.
It serve no purpose but to disrupt the fun gameplay loop and break the immersion.
Which I had not seen prior to seeing the gif. You honestly can't see why someone would skeptical? In your video gif, the background switches from one with green trees to one with dead trees. In the Gamer Nexus video, the rtx on/off switch occurs while the green trees are present in the background thus removing the cause of my initial skepticism. Compare 2:22-2:27 of the video to your gif.....
Never mind, you replaced it. Thanks.
I don't spend a lot of time caring about review scores, but surely there's some kind of middle ground here that allows a fuller use of the scale. Or more specifically, I think beyond a certain point I don't need to know how terrible a game is; I just need to know that it's terrible. So if we somehow are suddenly finding that a ton of games get 0.0 ratings, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The difference between a 0.0 and a -10.0 probably doesn't matter to anyone who actually cares about making a purchasing decision, unless it becomes genuinely difficult to say that a 0.0 is absolutely not worth your time.
But maybe it's all for the best that review scores are so weird, because I think it just encourages people not to pay attention to them and to actually read a review to see if the game works for them. With so many games at 8.0-8.5 or whatever, you really don't get a lot of information out of that numeric rating.
Then maybe ask a question instead of making a snarky statement telling me to delete my comment.