Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Tech Bits

View
23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

23. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 22, 2012, 11:36 Bhruic
 
The UI is quite annoying, imo. Definitely a step backwards from the first. There's no reason, for example, they can't have all of the skill trees on screen at the same time, rather than forcing me to scroll between them. It worked fine on the first one, there's no real change to the way the trees are displayed on the second, so it's really sloppy UI work to add an extra step in order to make selections. Ditto with the inventory system, it's a real mess. I'm sure they work better on consoles, but for the PC, they are horrible.

The game itself is pretty similar to the first, and is enjoyable from that perspective. The plot is - unbelievably - worse than the first. At least in the first, when you were a Vault Hunter, that's what you were doing - hunting for the vault. Without getting into spoilers, let's just say that in the first, what, 20 hours of gameplay? - I've been called "Vault Hunter" fequesntly, but have done no actual looking for a vault. Now, admittedly, the plot isn't a super-important facet of a game like this, so it's a relatively minor point, but it's still a bit annoying.

The items are decent for the most part, but my personal opinion is that they've gone overboard on the "trying to find different stats to have to ensure weapon 'variety'". One or two new stats are decent - the shield recharge timer for example - but a lot of them feel like they were added purely for the sake of having more options, not because they actually added anything. Still, there's lots of loot to be found, and you can generally find better stuff as you go, so that aspect of the game is mostly unchanged.

My biggest annoyance with the game is probably with the damage scaling. You'll be fighting some enemies, and in small numbers they aren't much challenge, but then you'll come across badass varieties of specific enemies that can just one-shot you. Sometimes unavoidably. They seem to make a point of forcing you to rely on second-wind, where before it was just a lifeline in case you got overwhelmed.

Overall I'd probably say that the game is a slightly worse version of the original. If you liked the first, you'll almost certainly like this one, if you didn't, you won't. They really seemed to struggle on trying to improve the game, and for the most part didn't seem to, but they didn't really do that much damage to the formula either.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 22, 2012, 06:31 DG
 
Performance been great for me so far - i5 2500k, ATI 6850, 8gb ram, installed to SSD, all at stock speeds.

Game defaulted to high settings across the board I think, only oddity is it reduced the resolution from my native 1680x1050, though I put it back.

That said I have the preferred FPS as "smooth 22-60" or whatever it was. Doubt it's dropped below 60, perhaps it's culled some things to make that so, but it's not like I've noticed. Being EU I only played last night and am only just into the second area (though this is after the dragon/boat mentioned below, where I didn't have any issues).

So far enjoying the game. Initially felt a little less open-world than B1 but based on the start of this new Act, I suspect that's about to change. Huge weapon diversity even just these few hours played, but about enough in the stats to identify if worth trying out.

The UI is a bit "hmm". Everything fine except I've not decided on the backpack which feels a bit clumsy so far, and if B1 is anything to go by there will be a lot of backpack management to come.
 
Avatar 14793
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 22, 2012, 00:42 HorrorScope
 
nm  
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 22, 2012, 00:40 HorrorScope
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 12:39:
HorrorScope wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 10:51:
On those GPU and CPU performance benches they do.

Does anyone else find it odd that they always test say 10 GPU's but always only one CPU and it is always the $1000 CPU? If it's a test of GPU And CPU, why not test various CPU's? You know a few in the $150-$300 area, Intel and AMD.




Aside from them testing CPUs later, this is how you do an experiment. You can only have one variable (GPU) and you try to isolate it as much as possible (by putting in the best CPU possible to create a higher ceiling.)

If you put in other CPUs you just ruin the data, and if you put in a more mainstream CPU then you'll have more tests where the CPU is the limiting factor rather than the GPU being the limiting factor, mooting the entire test.


edit - oops, read the topic backwards and missed that it claims to be a CPU test, so this is all stuff you know. Sorry.

No worries, the article got me two. Missed the cpu slide.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 19:04 killer_roach
 
PHJF wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 18:17:
I expect full and comprehensive user reports as to the merits and faults of Borderlands 2 within the coming days. All you preordering guinea pigs are needed to sway such a conservative consumer as myself.

I ended up getting it for $36 from GMG, so I figured that was worth it, then I went out like a stupid person and bought Torchlight 2 as well, and that happens to be occupying my time now.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 18:17 PHJF
 
I expect full and comprehensive user reports as to the merits and faults of Borderlands 2 within the coming days. All you preordering guinea pigs are needed to sway such a conservative consumer as myself.  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 15:46 Creston
 
John wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 14:16:
Creston wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 11:55:
That really shouldn't bottleneck the way it does... According to the test, the GTX560 runs right around 60fps? Have you updated to the lastest drivers? They increase BL2 performance quite a bit.

Creston
How does it run on your system, Creston? Just curious since you also got the 660 Ti as I do now. I haven't completely finished building my new rig yet but it's close! Then I will have to find someone with a fast ISP so that I can download the game.. Uneasy

It's rock-solid. There is one spot near the big flaming dragon where I can notice my FPS dropping a little, but other than that it's just smooth as silk. I'm pretty sure if I checked the FPS, it'd just be a steady 60. (I play with Vsync on as tearing irritates the crap out of me. Without VSync, it tears continually.)

As you can tell from the test, the GTX660ti is probably the best value for the buck right now out of the Nvidia cards. It's not noticeably slower than a 680, but it's a lot cheaper.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 14:16 John
 
Creston wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 11:55:
That really shouldn't bottleneck the way it does... According to the test, the GTX560 runs right around 60fps? Have you updated to the lastest drivers? They increase BL2 performance quite a bit.

Creston
How does it run on your system, Creston? Just curious since you also got the 660 Ti as I do now. I haven't completely finished building my new rig yet but it's close! Then I will have to find someone with a fast ISP so that I can download the game.. Uneasy
 
This space is available for rent
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 21, 2012, 13:37 nin
 
Others report that you may want to set your Nvidia Control Panel to force Physx to your GPU. It defaults to auto and some seem to pick the CPU instead.

I need to double check that as well. Thank you!

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 13:26 The Half Elf
 
nin wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 11:29:
Really? What system have you got?

Some sort of i7 (I forget, it shows up as like 8 cores in the task mangler), 8 gig of ram, and a GTX560. I will say it's the first time I've seen it, but it made the fight in question rather difficult to aim.


nin I've experienced that as well in a few area's, and I think it's more due to the physX (can't remember how it's spelled) and the draw distance), like for example the Dragon boat you have to escort Claptrap to in the beginning has a few spots that can drop framerate.
 
Avatar 12670
 
"I've never seen a feature like this before. It warms your ass. It's wonderful" -Walter Bishop
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 21, 2012, 12:39 Beamer
 
HorrorScope wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 10:51:
On those GPU and CPU performance benches they do.

Does anyone else find it odd that they always test say 10 GPU's but always only one CPU and it is always the $1000 CPU? If it's a test of GPU And CPU, why not test various CPU's? You know a few in the $150-$300 area, Intel and AMD.



Aside from them testing CPUs later, this is how you do an experiment. You can only have one variable (GPU) and you try to isolate it as much as possible (by putting in the best CPU possible to create a higher ceiling.)

If you put in other CPUs you just ruin the data, and if you put in a more mainstream CPU then you'll have more tests where the CPU is the limiting factor rather than the GPU being the limiting factor, mooting the entire test.


edit - oops, read the topic backwards and missed that it claims to be a CPU test, so this is all stuff you know. Sorry.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 21, 2012, 12:26 Lorcin
 
I have a i7-920 and a AMD 5870. Looking at those benchmarks I'm not going to be upgrading when I finish paying for this one in may  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 21, 2012, 12:07 HorrorScope
 
nin wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 10:15:
Borderlands 2 GPU & CPU Performance Test - TechSpot Reviews.

I finally got into a big enough fight last night where I wasn't getting a low frame rate so much as the game was pausing for like a half second here and there. Time to turn down physx from high, I guess.


Others report that you may want to set your Nvidia Control Panel to force Physx to your GPU. It defaults to auto and some seem to pick the CPU instead.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 12:03 Creston
 
nin wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 11:57:
Yeah, I grabbed the ones from last week (Friday?). It could have been fluke caching on the drive (which would explain the pausing as opposed to a low framerate/lag).

Like i said, it's only happened once...but if it happens again, I'll turn it down.

The card is decent, but I'll openly admit there's faster ones out there...

My old system would pause for a few seconds once every few days. I could never figure out why the hell it did that. Your card's not the fastest in the world, but it really shouldn't choke like that. (I doubt it's the card, though.)

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 21, 2012, 11:58 Creston
 
HorrorScope wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 11:36:
Your screen link points out to those who think AMD is close to Intel these days. Yes these people do exist.

Yeah, that's crazy. Intel is so far ahead of AMD it's just embarrassing. Even if you consider "performance per dollar", Intel currently just thrashes AMD.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 11:57 nin
 

Yeah, I grabbed the ones from last week (Friday?). It could have been fluke caching on the drive (which would explain the pausing as opposed to a low framerate/lag).

Like i said, it's only happened once...but if it happens again, I'll turn it down.

The card is decent, but I'll openly admit there's faster ones out there...
 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 11:55 Creston
 
nin wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 11:29:
Really? What system have you got?

Some sort of i7 (I forget, it shows up as like 8 cores in the task mangler), 8 gig of ram, and a GTX560. I will say it's the first time I've seen it, but it made the fight in question rather difficult to aim.


That really shouldn't bottleneck the way it does... According to the test, the GTX560 runs right around 60fps? Have you updated to the lastest drivers? They increase BL2 performance quite a bit.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 21, 2012, 11:36 HorrorScope
 
Creston wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 11:22:
HorrorScope wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 10:51:
On those GPU and CPU performance benches they do.

Does anyone else find it odd that they always test say 10 GPU's but always only one CPU and it is always the $1000 CPU? If it's a test of GPU And CPU, why not test various CPU's? You know a few in the $150-$300 area, Intel and AMD.


Oh then I read this at the end:
"It seems your CPU choice may be more crucial to Borderlands 2's performance than your GPU choice and you'll definitely want to play with a quad-core chip."

Which backs up what I write. If you feel the CPU could play a bigger factor, then why not test different CPU's?

Did you read the whole article? They test 14 CPUs after they test the graphics cards.

http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page6.html

Creston


LOL, I guess not, I cherry picked, but here is what I based it on: (It gives us their test system, all gpu's, one cpu and I never stopped at the page you supplied.).

http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/

My bad.

Your screen link points out to those who think AMD is close to Intel these days. Yes these people do exist.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 21, 2012, 11:29 nin
 
Really? What system have you got?

Some sort of i7 (I forget, it shows up as like 8 cores in the task mangler), 8 gig of ram, and a GTX560. I will say it's the first time I've seen it, but it made the fight in question rather difficult to aim.

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: More Big Picture Details Sep 21, 2012, 11:22 Creston
 
HorrorScope wrote on Sep 21, 2012, 10:51:
On those GPU and CPU performance benches they do.

Does anyone else find it odd that they always test say 10 GPU's but always only one CPU and it is always the $1000 CPU? If it's a test of GPU And CPU, why not test various CPU's? You know a few in the $150-$300 area, Intel and AMD.


Oh then I read this at the end:
"It seems your CPU choice may be more crucial to Borderlands 2's performance than your GPU choice and you'll definitely want to play with a quad-core chip."

Which backs up what I write. If you feel the CPU could play a bigger factor, then why not test different CPU's?

Did you read the whole article? They test 14 CPUs after they test the graphics cards.

http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page6.html

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo