Darren Comments

Page 1 of 252

  • Yakuza 0 review

  • Darren 20/01/2017

    I pre-ordered this game after watching a playthrough of the first hour on YouTube over the Christmas period. I've heard of the series before but never got around to playing any of the games. Yakuza seems almost like a spiritual successor to Shenmue in many ways and I am really looking forward to playing this next week. As a newcomer to the series this prequel works out well for me and I understand that a remake of the first game is planned for release later on this year as well as Yakuza 6. Reply +8
  • Super Bomberman R for Nintendo Switch costs 50, Konami says

  • Darren 19/01/2017

    It looks like a game that should be priced at 20 RRP and not a penny more IMO, more so because this runs at 30 fps from what I've read and not the expected 60 fps for such a simple looking game.

    Not that the game interests me anyway; even with the Switch's weak launch lineup the only game I will be buying with the console is Zelda: Breath of the Wild (if I don't decided to cancel and just go with the Wii U version), as I expect most people will be doing.

    If Zelda had been delayed then I cannot imagine many people would be excited about buying the console at launch just to play 1-2 Switch (which should be included with the system IMO), Just Dance 2017 and Super Bomberman R. The Switch must surely have the poorest launch lineup of any console to date?
    Reply +1
  • 60 Zelda: Breath of the Wild for Nintendo Switch now 50 on Amazon UK

  • Darren 18/01/2017

    I've just cancelled my 54.96 ShopTo.net pre-order and placed it with Amazon instead since I'm a Prime user so I can get the game for 48. Still pricey for a console game but they always are at launch so no surprises there. Luckily for me, Zelda: Breath of the Wild is the ONLY Switch game I want at launch (typically I usually pick up 5+ games with a new console) so I won't be spending a fortune on what ultimately turn out to rushed/lacklustre third-party games for a change.

    Still feel a bit underwhelmed by the Switch personally. The excitement just isn't there yet. I am more excited about playing Zelda than owning the Switch. I obviously want one to play the Nintendo games but the launch lineup is extremely poor IMO, perhaps the worst I can remember of any console launch yet, and it doesn't help that I could just buy Zelda: Breath of the Wild for my Wii U and not bother with the Switch until Christmas when some proper games come out that aren't Wii U ports. The system certainly looks cool and while I don't really have any need for a handheld at all, I like the idea of being able to play Zelda in bed on a nice quality screen... though that said, I can likely do the same with the Wii U version anyway albeit at 480p on a crappy LCD display as the Wii U is in the same room.

    I'm currently debating whether to keep my Switch pre-order or not. I want one, I can afford it easily but I can't shake the feeling that once the buzz of Zelda has worn off that the system will sit unused for months until Super Mario Odyssey comes out near Christmas 2017. :(

    P.S. I hope Digital Foundry can show footage from the latest Wii U build of Breath of the Wild rather than the E3 2016 footage, which many sites are misleadingly using to compare against the Switch version. That build was reported to have framerate issues but I've read that the current Wii U build runs much better. If it runs the same as the Switch then I might just cancel my switch pre-order and stick with the game on Wii U. I can then pick up the Switch later on when there's more games out, and even pick up Zelda cheaper if I want to replay it on the new system. It's really hard to justify actually buying a Switch at launch when you own a Wii U and I think this is why the excitement is so lacking for me personally.

    But... it's new. And shiny. And I like new, shiny things! :lol:
    Reply +2
  • Zelda: Breath of the Wild's Switch and Wii U differences outlined

  • Darren 18/01/2017

    @bonito - I should have said that the Zelda TARGET 30 fps as that is what I meant not that all the games have a locked 30 fps. Reply 0
  • Darren 18/01/2017

    @BobbyDeNiro - Not at launch and with THOSE weak launch titles. There's really only Zelda worth buying the system for so unless you want to play that on the go then there's little reason to pick the system up at launch IMO if you already have a Wii U. The month after then sees the release of Mario Kart 8 and later comes Splatoon 2, both Wii U games that owners will likely already have. The Switch isn't a great upgrade really for existing Wii U owners until nearer Christmas when Super Mario Odyssey comes out. Reply 0
  • Darren 18/01/2017

    @Alestes - The reason people are disappointed is because Nintendo target 60 fps in all their other games. However, as far as I am aware Zelda has always been 30 fps, even the Wii U HD Remasters of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess only ran at this framerate. As such I was not expecting Breath of the Wild to be 60 fps personally. However, I was expecting it to be 1080p with decent AA and texture filtering so 900p is a tad disappointing, not that it will stop me enjoying the game. Reply +9
  • Darren 18/01/2017

    @rep- - It's very underpowered as a console to rival the PS4 and Xbox One, yes absolutely and in that respect it is as disappointing as the Wii in my view, but as a handheld it is very good and this is clearly what it is intended as, which explains the use of cards for games and its measly 32 GB of internal storage.

    It might have perhaps been better for Nintendo to have released the Switch as a handheld without the dock which retails for, I believe, 90 separately. That would then have brought the system down to 200. They could then have sold the dock as an extra and offered performance and visual upgrades via an internal CPU/GPU boast, to give, say, 1080p rendering, 60 fps support and basics like anti-aliasing and texture filtering, which are woefully lacking in most Nintendo games.

    That way Nintendo would have adequately covered all their bases; a reasonably powerful console for the core gamers not interested in handheld gaming and a good performing handheld for those that want it. Oh and waggle for those three people still interested in it! ;)

    With the focus on it as a handheld then the specs would not have mattered so much because it is a clear leap above the PS Vita and 3DS. Yes, it lacks the resolution of smartphones and tablets but let's be honest here almost all mobile games are crap with rare exceptions plus they lack proper controls (it's the reason I do not play mobile games at all). Also because games are optimised for handhelds they generally run smoother than mobile games. A handheld is always going to offer a superior gaming experience IMO to a smartphone or tablet for that reason.
    Reply +9
  • Nintendo: Switch launch day "not be-all and end-all"

  • Darren 16/01/2017

    It's no wonder Nintendo changed their minds about launching Zelda with the Switch in Europe (if rumours were true)... without that game there would have been no reason to buy one at launch! Even then I can't imagine anyone buying one at launch won't be getting Zelda with it since I cannot see anyone rushing out to buy the new console on Day One for the other games. And if you own a Wii U then there's no reason to buy Switch at all until Christmas unless you want to play games on the go.

    A really poor launch lineup IMO with lacklustre third-party support? Where's FIFA from EA for example? Why isn't Skyrim available either; it's ancient yet not out on Switch until autumn 2017!!! Unbelievable. :o
    Reply +4
  • Super Mario Odyssey revealed, due this “holiday season”

  • Darren 13/01/2017

    Looks great and seems good fun to play except for the real world environment, which looks jarringly out of place for a Mario game. :confused:

    Why not keep the same idea but have the people, buildings and cars all in the style you would expect for a Mario game?

    Really don't understand the need to use a real world environment at all; the game already looks childish (in a good way) and colourful so its not like having a Grand Theft Auto-style environment is going to pull the punters in!!! :lol:
    Reply +1
  • Nintendo Switch out 3rd March for 279.99

  • Darren 13/01/2017

    Consoles rarely have must-have games at launch, the exceptions being the Xbox's Halo: Combat Evolved and the N64's Super Mario, so it's great that Switch is launching with a new Zelda game IMO.

    However, Zelda is the only game I would want Switch for in March and it is also coming out on the Wii U the same day anyway. As such I'm not really feeling the urge to pre-order the console unless somehow Zelda is vastly superior on Switch. And with the disappointment of the Wii U's short life and lack of third-party support I'm kind of wanting to sit on the fence anyway to see how the console sells before committing myself.

    P.S. I think the 280 price of the hardware would have been reasonable had Nintendo included a game (Zelda: Breath of the Wild?) and 128 MG or better still 256 GB of internal storage. As it is the system seems inadequate for today's digital downloads with its measly 32 GB of internal storage. I used that within week's on my Wii U. Sure, you can add external hard drives and memory cards but those cost extra. Nintendo really do seem to be out of touch IMO.
    Reply +1
  • A pair of Nintendo Switch Joy-con controllers costs 75

  • Darren 13/01/2017

    Absolutely obscene pricing IMO!!! I mean 65 for a wireless Pro controller is really taking the biscuit. And I thought 40 for PS4 and Xbox One controllers was steep... :o Reply +4
  • Let's compare and contrast the US and European Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild box art

  • Darren 13/01/2017

    Not that it makes much difference once I'm playing the game but I prefer the European artwork personally as it is more colourful and you see Link's face. That said, I still think the U.S. artwork is good.

    Would be nice to have both as a reversible cover really so you could choose. :P
    Reply 0
  • GeForce Now streaming coming to PC and Mac

  • Darren 05/01/2017

    I'm not sure NVIDIA understand the concept of "value for money" personally as you only have to look at how expensive their mid to high end graphics cards have become over the last few years due to a lack of proper competition to see that.

    At those prices I'm not sure that this service will catch on as it does not strike me as good value at all. How much will they charge to use their ridiculously overpriced Titan X Pascal for streaming games, I wonder?

    If you have a decent CPU then you might as well put that money towards buying an actual graphics card IMO.
    Reply +4
  • Platinum's Turtles game delisted from Steam, PSN and Xbox

  • Darren 04/01/2017

    Nearly picked this up in the Christmas Steam Sale out of sheer curiosity as it was fairly cheap but now I kind of regret I didn't...

    ... well, OK, not THAT much since it is generally considered to be a fairly mediocre game.
    Reply +1
  • It looks like Microsoft just accidentally released the debug version of Forza Horizon 3

  • Darren 04/01/2017

    Well done Microsoft. That's aother nail in the coffin for an already shaky and much disliked (if you believe the comments) distribution platform on PC. As if a clunky interface and uber-slow download speeds weren't bad enough for the Windows Store... imagine having to download the game twice to get the "right" version!!! 106 GB?!?!?!?!

    /shudders :eek:
    Reply -1
  • Intel Kaby Lake: Core i5 7600K review

  • Darren 04/01/2017

    CPUs are possibly the most unexciting part of a gaming PC upgrade these days IMO as they never give the kind of performance improvements you get from, say, upgrading from a 12-18 month old high end GPU to a new one.

    I owned an i7-920 (@ 3.8 GHz) from 2008 for almost four years before I upgraded to an i7-4770K, which I still use now overclocked to 4.0 GHz. Even then the main reason I upgraded at all was to finally have SATAIII, USB 3.0 and PCI-e 3.0 as standard not because the i7-920 was in any way limiting the games I was playing. On the basis of this feature it looks like I will be fine for another year, possibly two before I need to upgrade.

    The fact is that the games I play benefit far more from more powerful GPUs than CPUs and at least they are far less hassle to install since I don't need to buy a new motherboard and memory then reinstall everything again to use them.
    Reply +2
  • At the moment, Astroneer is a fascinating inversion of typical sci-fi wonder

  • Darren 03/01/2017

    This does look very interesting but having already bought a number of very similar open world survival-type games (surely 2016 most oversaturated genre?) in the Steam sale over Christmas: Stranded Deep, Eden Star, The Long Dark, The Forest and Empyrium, I really did not want another, especially one also in Early Access.

    However, I have added this to my Wishlist and will check it out once it goes final release.
    Reply +1
  • Nintendo Switch CPU and GPU clock speeds revealed

  • Darren 20/12/2016

    @ontoff - I've never really bought third-party games for Nintendo consoles; I only buy the exclusive first-party games and buy everything else for PC or the most powerful console available.

    While I am interested in Switch simply because it's a Nintendo console that will be the only platform I can play their exclusives on, I am far less interested in the Switch as a portable gaming system. That might change but I'm not someone who has any need for portable gaming on the go and even with my PS Vita, which I hardly use now, I mostly only played on it at home.

    Switch will make or break Nintendo, I think. They may have lots of money but they cannot afford a second flop console in a row as it is damaging to their reputation and likely to deter third-party support if it fails to sell. And with Nintendo's output their consoles cannot exist on inhouse games alone.

    However, I cannot help but wonder just appealing Switch will be to the masses out there, i.e. the non-core gamers. While I am sure there will be great games for the system, I'm not sure it has the appeal to pull in the same numbers as the Wii or even the PS4 for that matter. The Wii U had some terrific games but look how badly that sold? With tablets and smartphones, there is less need for handhelds and I cannot see my own parents, aunts or sisters, who all bought a Wii, wanting a Switch.

    Nintendo will have do a great job, nay perform miracles with the marketing to sell this to people other than the core gamers. Pricing will be especially important. The Wii was 'just' 199 which helped make the console an impulse buy so that is the price point they need to be selling Switch at IMO, even if it's just a cutdown base model.
    Reply +2
  • Digital Foundry's guide to PS4 Pro game upgrades

  • Darren 19/12/2016

    The article needs updating... Rise of the Tomb Raider was updated to v1.06 a few days (it might have been Friday) and, although I've not yet had the chance to test it, I have read that it reputedly fixes the input lag reported in several of the game's modes. Reply +1
  • The Last of Us patch 1.08 for PS4 Pro analysed

  • Darren 06/12/2016

    I must admit to being a little underwelmed by my PS4 Pro so far as an owner of a 1080p TV, mainly because my choices of modes (if I have any) are being further restricted by lower performance or, in the case of Final Fantasy XV, poor framepacing which makes the High Resolution mode unplayable for me. Dishonored 2 also doesn't seem to run or look any better on the Pro and still feels somewhat laggy in play.

    As for The Last of Us: at 30 fps it feels absolutely horrible (i.e. laggy and heavy) IMO compared with the 60 fps mode on Pro but it was exactly the same on the original PS4 anyway so I do not feel I'd gained anything by playing it on the Pro. Sure, image quality is better but it was never an issue on the original PS4 in my view.

    Downsampling is nice to have; I use it on the PC, but not if it adversely affects performance which seems to be the case in several of the games I've played on the Pro. It's all a bit of a mess at the moment I feel but it is early days as someone else pointed out.

    My biggest gripe with the Pro though is Sony's decision to lock out the addition power of the console unless the games are patched, which means older games that will never be updated still run at sub-30 fps framerates and/or with the same poor framepacing and/or screen tearing on the Pro as they did on the PS4, e.g. Bloodborne with its god-awful framepacing. It's a real waste of the console's potential.
    Reply +8
  • Performance Analysis: Final Fantasy 15

  • Darren 30/11/2016

    @Outpostmodern - It's not just consoles than can have bad frame pacing; I've come across plenty of PC games that have the issue too although it can be fixed or reduced on that platform by using something like MSI Afterburner to force even delivery of frames.

    Of course, you don't get that choice on consoles so you are at the mercy of the developer, e.g. Bloodborne a great game but one seriously marred by pathetic frame pacing.
    Reply +2
  • Darren 30/11/2016

    What is it with Japanese developers and frame pacing issues on consoles? Dark Souls III, Bloodborne and now this game? Bloodborne had nine patches at least and the issue was never once addressed or fixed, meaning that the game feels like it is running at a lower framerate than it actually is. Are developers really proud of their games when they have this issue? Do they not notice it?

    On fixed console hardware, IMO there is really no excuse for it and if the Xbox One version can run fine then why can't the PS4 and PS4 Pro versions, especially as their hardware is more powerful anyway. :confused:

    Seems like poor frame pacing has replaced poor anisotropic filtering as this year's most annoying console issue...
    Reply +6
  • I'm still searching for the SSX in Steep, but there's one thing it absolutely nails

  • Darren 22/11/2016

    I found the beta to be competent but dull, and I say that as someone who has enjoyed many of these kinds of games over the years from Amped (a personal fave on the Xbox) to the over the top and stylish SSX series.

    Of course, it didn't help that I missed the first orange marker during the opening Wing Suit tutorial without realising it only to land and find that I was unable to reset to the starting point, only the point I had reached. Duh! Instead I had to walk/climb back which took me 20 minutes!!! Sure this is a beta but I was astounded that there was no way to reset the tutorial or that said tutorial did nothing to warn me or reset me once it became obvious I'd missed the checkpoint by some way (I was literally half way down the mountain).

    Poor tutorial design aside, I found the game to be devoid of any personality and excitement. The sense of speed is there but the courses all looked and felt the same. True, this is a more realistic take on winter sports than SSX so course design is going to be subdued and normal in comparison but, even so, this just never felt thrilling even when racing at speed. The trick system, which should have offered the most fun, was also lacking.

    Maybe the final game will be much better? I certainly hope so because it has been a long time since anyone made one of these games. I will keep my eye on it in hope it turns out great but secretly I am hoping EA announce a new SSX title! :D
    Reply 0
  • Dishonored 2 to receive a New Game Plus mode in December

  • Darren 18/11/2016

    The PC beta patch is a staggering 6.4 GB by the way for what is basically a mouse fix!!! The second performance patch is supposedly coming next week.

    It can't come soon enough because the game runs like crap on my machine which has a 4.0 GHz i7-4770K, 16 GB of memory, a GTX 1080 and Windows 10 Pro v1607. 35-45 FPS on the Royal Conversatory mission at 2560x1440 with a handful of enemies and in an enclosed area is not good IMO... :confused:
    Reply +3
  • Dishonored 2 review

  • Darren 16/11/2016

    The game itself is fantastically entertaining to play and explore but performance is absolute garbage on my PC (i7-4770K, 16 GB, GTX 1080, Windows 10 Pro v1607) at maxed out 2560x1440 settings.

    Peformance rarely feels smooth with the framerate frequently dipping below 60 fps (this is even with dynamic resolution at 75%, which it annoyingly resets to every time I load game!). Aesthetically the art style is really nice as is the lighting but I'm not really seeing a huge leap in terms of level size and detail over the older Dishonored which ran absolutely fine on Unreal Engine 3.

    I think the performance issues may be due to the engine being a heavily modified version of idTech5 as CPU usage seems unusually high for a game of this type. I am currently playing through the Royal Conversatory level and the framerate is tanking to 27-35 fps even though there's only a handful of enemies and the area is basically enclosed. Even when the game is running at 60 fps, it constantly feels stuttery, like it has framerate pacing issues and Xbox One controller input response feels really sluggish/laggy. It's truly shocking and has put me off playing it further until it is patched.

    I've also had the chance to play the game on PS4 Pro and it at least feels more consistent in terms of framerate than on my PC but even that still has stuttering and laggy controller response.
    Reply +3
  • Zelda: Breath of the Wild to miss Nintendo Switch launch

  • Darren 15/11/2016

    I'm sure that news is going to do wonders for the console's launch...

    No matter, I was planning on buying the console because of that game but if it is delayed then I will just buy it for Wii U instead and pick up the console later on once it has enough games to justify purchasing it. I may not even buy one at all if sales are poor.
    Reply 0
  • Why are some PS4 Pro titles running slower than base hardware?

  • Darren 15/11/2016

    I think it is ludicrous that Watch Dogs 2 runs with screen tearing and framerate drops that are not present on the base much less powerful PS4, all for the sake of outputting an 1800p upscaled 4K image. As soon as I noticed that in a YouTube Pro stream over the weekend I immediately cancelled my pre-order.

    It just defies belief that Sony would rather have games running at 4K (or rather not-quite-4k in the case of most games on PS4) for seemingly bragging rights rather than using the Pro's extra power in a more logical manner to deliver a more impressive 1080p game with higher quality visuals, a locked 30 fps framerate and NO screen tearing.

    Hell, at least give us a choice instead of forcing inferior versions of games on us 1080p TV owners. Rise of the Tomb Raider and The Last of Us at least give us a choice of rendering modes and that is how ALL PS4 Pro games should be. At worst, we should always be able to fall back to the base console version if the 4K version is running worse as is the case with Skyrim, Dishonored 2 (which is horribly stuttery on the Pro) and this game.

    *sigh*
    Reply +9
  • Darren 11/11/2016

    This is exactly why I feel that ALL PS4 Pro games should not only offer a choice of the same base performance of the PS4 version but have enhanced 1080p modes with the same or better performance (and visuals if there's sufficient headroom) as well as the 4K option. The PS4 and PS4 Pro are fixed hardware unlike the PC so there really is no excuse not to offer this and for performance to be adequate in all modes.

    It's really not good enough to only offer the 4K mode if performance is going to be worse. I mean a 1-2 fps might not sound like much but if the game is targeting a locked 30 fps at 1080p like Skyrim Special Edition then any dips below 30 fps are going to be noticeable to varying degrees depending on the person as stuttering.

    Perhaps developers and publishers don't really want the hassle of having to support several different modes on the PS4 Pro; after all we see games coming out that have issues on the standard version so it's not hard to see why supporting PS4 *and* PS4 Pro might not be popular. I can see two things happening if this is the case; one, if the PS4 Pro sells well then we might see more and more games running better on PS4 Pro at 1080p due to the superior hardware and noticeable worse on PS4 to the point where there's no point owning the base model anymore (something Sony claim won't ever happen...); or, two, if the Pro fails to sell as well as expected then the number of PS4 Pro enhanced games drop except for Sony published exclusives as publishers deem it not worth the hassle supporting it.

    The decision by Sony to lock out not only the extra GPU but also the CPU performance in all games is also something of an oddity and one I hope they change their stance on because it works perfectly fine on Xbox One S where games with sub-optimal framerates and/or screen tearing immediately benefit from the superior hardware even without patches. If Sony do change this so that all PS4 Pro games benefit then it makes the machine a much more appealing buy IMO even if the game has no PS4 Pro enhancements. For example, Thief on the PS4 runs with framerate drops below 30 fps but it should be running much better on PS4 Pro due to the faster framerate. Skyrim Special Edition could also easily manage 1080p at 60 fps too bearing in mind that at native 4K it is rendering FOUR 1080p images 30 times a second, equivalent to TWO 1080p images 60 framed a second. Yet all we have on the Pro is a 4K mode that runs at 30 fps but with overall performance less than that of the base PS4 at 1080p.

    Rise of the Tomb Raider is a perfect example of what all PS4 Pro games should be if not in performance then certainly choice of resolutions/graphics. This has not only an enhanced 1080p and 30 fps mode but also a performance mode that runs at mostly 60 fps and an upscaled 4K mode at 30 fps, something for everyone really. Personally, in that game I much prefer the higher 50-60 fps framerate than the modes with improved IQ because the game just feels so much better to play with a smoother camera and responsive controls. It's hard to go back to 30 fps after playing it IMO even though there's nothing wrong with the 30 fps mode since it is locked at 30 fps for a consistent experience. It really is a case of not missing it until you've tried it then it's hard to go back.
    Reply +13
  • We're set for a rollercoaster video game face-off next week

  • Darren 11/11/2016

    Rollercoaster Tycoon World is supposed to be a bit rubbish, isn't it? I went ahead and bought Planet Coaster instead after watching early alpha footage that showed real promise. Reply +2
  • Arkane looking into Dishonored 2 PC performance complaints

  • Darren 10/11/2016

    Thankfully, I have a fairly beefy PC with an i7-4770K, 16 GB and a GTX 1080 running Windows 10 Pro so the game runs reasonably well at 2560x1440 Ultra settings with TXAA (for some reason the Adaptive Resolution was set to 75% though so I set that to 100% for a native 2560x1440 image at all times). Indoors in holds 60 fps but outdoors the performance can drip to 50-55 fps and even 35-45 fps for no real reason. That and the poor framepacing in form of microstuttering, which makes the game feel slightly juddery, makes the game a little disappointment in terms of performance but otherwise I'm really enjoying it even if it is just more of the same.

    I'm sure that patches and new graphics drivers will improve performance bot that I'm excusing the issues. However, this is sadly the norm for PC gaming these days and it is very rare to get a well-optimised PC game at launch.
    Reply -1
  • Skyrim on PS4 Pro runs at native 4K - but there's a catch

  • Darren 10/11/2016

    @kirankara - I was speaking generally about 4K on PS4 Pro not specifically Skyrim SE. My concern is that Sony are so focused on PS4 Pro games running at 4K that we'll end up with the same situation as on PS4 where games are not quite hitting 30 or 60 fps. That would be ridiculous given the extra power that the Pro has over the PS4 but then I still think that 1080p60 should have been the priority for the Pro not 4K. But, hey, I'm not having to sell 4K TVs so... ;)

    The fact is that a locked 30 fps game on PS4 is going to feel smoother than one that has 1-2 fps dips on the Pro as that would introduce noticeable stuttering. While not crap per se it is a downgrade over the standard version which is why it perhaps should have used a slightly lower than 4K resolution to allow for a locked 30 fps experience.

    The lack of a 1080p60 option on the Pro is a big disappointment IMO as I'm pretty sure that it would be possible given the age of the game. I suspect the PS4 could run the game uncapped at 40-45 fps so the Pro would certainly be able to manage the rest.
    Reply -1
  • Darren 10/11/2016

    This game really should have 1080p 60 fps support on PS4 Pro IMO. As for the lower framerate at 4K; I can't say I'm surprised. I've said this before but the PS4 Pro's hardware is not really suited for native 4K except in less demanding Indie/PSN games and is best used for either 1440p with higher visual fidelity than PS4 or 1080p at 60 fps.

    Whatever, the fact that this game runs worst than on the PS4 goes against Sony's "rules" for PS4 Pro games. Who on earth wants to play a game at 4K if it runs like crap?
    Reply 0
  • How to transfer data from PS4 to PS4 Pro - transferring saves, games, trophies, settings and more explained

  • Darren 10/11/2016

    This would have been the easiest option for me but since I had a three-quarters full 2 TB drive in my old PS4 and only a 1 TB drive in the new Pro then I've had to do the backup method. It took around 10 hours to backup yesterday and I've just started the restore on my Pro about an hour ago after swapping the drives around. It is currently about 15% complete.

    I really don't understand though why Sony don't just allow you to swap out a drive and keep the data on it when fitting it in a new machine instead of re-initializing it. It would makes things so much easier. :(
    Reply +4
  • Final Fantasy 15 to have 1080p60 mode for PS4 Pro

  • Darren 10/11/2016

    I really hope that these two modes 1080p60 and 4K30, become the standard for PS4 Pro games going forward. I got my Pro today purely for improved 1080p gaming as I won't be buying a 4K TV for a few years. I've played a few games so far and the improved image quality/better AA is really nice to see in games like Uncharted 4 and Ratchet and Clank, both of which look better than ever. Would have liked the choice of 60 FPS as well but it will do for now. Reply +5
  • The Last Guardian is getting PS4 Pro support

  • Darren 10/11/2016

    The PS4 Pro is not more a 4K console than the PS3 was a 1080p one, it's just one that supports 4K, is all.

    I sit here waiting for my Pro to arrive sometime between 2 and 3 this afternoon, very much looking forward to checking out games on the new system. However, I have a 1080p Sony TV and have no intention of buying into 4K for several years, when hopefully the specs for things like HDR will be established.

    I personally feel the PS4 Pro is more suited to gaming at 1080p with better framerates and image quality, certainly better anti-aliasing, rather than being pushed to deliver (not quite) 4K games with the same or slightly worst framerates than on the standard console. Really do not see the appeal of playing games at 4K if the experience is going to be tarnished by sub-30 or 60 fps framerate drops. At 1080p, the PS4 Pro has more overhead to deliver better framerates and more detailed graphics so I really hope that developers put as much effort into supporting 1080p as not-quite-4K because I believe core games who are interested in the Pro are more interested in solid framerates over higher resolutions.

    Tell me I'm wrong?
    Reply +9
  • PlayStation 4 Pro unboxed - and what's next for Digital Foundry

  • Darren 04/11/2016

    I would like to know if PS4 games with sub-30 (or 60) fps dips and/or framepacing issues run better by default on the PS4 Pro without any additional updates due to the 30% improvement to the CPU speed? After all, Xbox One games benefit from the faster Xbox One S CPU so one would imagine the same would be true for PS4 games on the PS4 Pro. Reply +1
  • Nintendo refuses to say whether Switch has a touchscreen

  • Darren 21/10/2016

    Personally, I hope the Nintendo Switch does NOT have a touchscreen. I hated using it on my PS Vita as the screen then gets all smeared with greasy fingerprints not to mention you end up blocking parts of the screen as you play. I've never found it particularly comfortable which is why I no longer play games at all on my smartphone or iPad. Reply -2
  • Inside PlayStation 4 Pro: How Sony made the first 4K games console

  • Darren 21/10/2016

    Quote: "First, we doubled the GPU size by essentially placing it next to a mirrored version of itself, sort of like the wings of a butterfly. That gives us an extremely clean way to support the existing 700 titles," Cerny explains, detailing how the Pro switches into its 'base' compatibility mode. "We just turn off half the GPU and run it at something quite close to the original GPU."

    That is such a waste of the extra power in my view. PC games scale with hardware such that a more powerful CPU and/or GPU gives better framerates and allows for higher graphical settings.

    By locking down the performance of games on the PS4 Pro to that of the PS4, it means that we are still going to get the exact same experience despite them running on much more powerful hardware. Take Assassin's Unity for example, a game on PS4 that runs at 900p with a very unstable 30 fps. On the PS4 Pro that game should be running better due to the higher CPU speed and could even manage 1080p too.

    Why not let the console utilise the power to give its users a "free" performance boost for all of the existing games?
    Reply +4
  • Darren 21/10/2016

    I would much rather see the PS4 Pro's extra power devoted to delivering better framerates and higher quality visuals rather than being pushed to render "fake" 4K at the same inconsistent 30 or 60 fps framerates as 1080p on PS4. It's like trying to run before you've learnt to walk properly IMO. Reply +2
  • Nintendo to unveil NX this afternoon

  • Darren 20/10/2016

    @cowell - With the release of the PS4 Pro in a few weeks and the Xbox One Scorpio next year I think the NX will be SIGNIFICANTLY underpowered myself. Not that prevents a console from having good games but with the utter failure of the Wii U this console absolutely needs some kind of gimmick akin to the Wiimote to make it appealing to the masses.

    I think this could be the console that makes or breaks Nintendo...
    Reply +1
  • Watch Dogs 2 delayed two weeks on PC

  • Darren 18/10/2016

    Quote: ""The extra time will be used for additional polish and will help ensure the game runs smoothly across a broad range of PC hardware," Ubisoft stated in a blog post."

    Bet it doesn't... ;)
    Reply +15
  • Gears 4 debuts ahead of PlayStation VR game flood

  • Darren 17/10/2016

    I bought Dragon Quest Builders and was shocked that the entire game is less than 1 GB in size when installed!

    While I realise game install size doesn't correlate to pricing, I am glad that I bought it from Amazon for a more reasonable 31. Everywhere else seems to be selling the game for 38+ which IMO is a bit too high for what is basically a Minecraft clone. I can't help but wonder if the game would have sold better at a sub-30 price point though, say, 24.99 RRP.
    Reply +4
  • Mafia 3 review

  • Darren 12/10/2016

    I've been enjoying this game (on PC) but it really is a glitch, unpolished and unoptimised mess in my experience. A.I. acts odd, lighting can often look very strange (the main character takes on a silverfish appearance when wet for example), there's frequent clipping errors, textures flicker and the skybox can go from looking beautiful to hideous in the blink of an eye. Yet despite all that the gameplay, story complete with great voice-acting and superb soundtrack help overcome the technical issues. This game clearly needed a bit longer in the oven and I don't think the developers will ever be able to fix all the issues and bugs this game has (no doubt DLC will become a priority sooner rather than later).

    Disappointing, I guess, but perhaps I was expecting too much? Not every game can be as polished as GTA V.
    Reply +17
  • Face-Off: Gears of War 4

  • Darren 11/10/2016

    The amount of options to tinker with just blew me away as does the quality of the PC version in general. The developers should be commended for not only delivering a great game but one that is superbly designed to make the most of the host hardware. Even the built-in benchmark is as comprehensive as you could hope for and, unlike others, actually does represent what you can expect for the game.

    Gears of War 4 is astonishing, it really is. :)
    Reply +9
  • Gears of War 4 review

  • Darren 11/10/2016

    Bought this for my PC and Xbox One digitally last week although I've only played a couple of hours of the campaign so far on PC. Looks and runs great on my settup at 2560x1440 Ultra settings with Dyanmic Resolution scaling up to 4K.

    I haven't really played a new Gears since Gears of War 3 but this one, while familiar, looks like it is going to be very entertaining. Can't wait to get home later and play some more.
    Reply +1
  • Mafia 3 is locked at 30fps on PC, much to Steam users' chagrin

  • Darren 07/10/2016

    You know I accept that 60 fps is better, heck I prefer it for all my PC games obviously (it's why I bought a GTX 1080 for my 2560x1440 display), but 30 fps is fine as long as the framerate is locked at a solid 30 fps. Unfortunately, very few PC games feel "right" at 30 fps compared with the console version running at the same speed but Forza Horizon 3 is one of the few that does get it right (even if the input latency is a teensy-weensy bit higher than on Xbox One).

    Sure, you can unlock Forza Horizon 3's framerate but on my system with an i7-4770K, 16 GB of memory and Windows 10 Pro v1607 I am unable to maintain a solid 60 fps at 2560x1440 even if I lower settings. With Framerate Smoothing on the game has a bizarre slowing down/speeding up effect and with it turned off the game stuttering badly every few seconds. Neither are ideal so I settled for a locked 30 fps at 4K with maxed out 8xMSAA settings, which runs perfectly fine, thanks to excellent motion-blur, great controls and a superb sense of speed.

    Mafia III on the other hand is one of those PC games that just does feel good to play at 30 fps. On my system, the game stutters from time to time and the controls feel heavy and unresponsive. Camera motion also looks bad, not helped by the overall blurry image quality the game has. It's not completely unplayable but I suspect that 30 fps on consoles feels and looks better than it does on my PC.

    Disappointing but not altogether unexpected given that 9 out of 10 PC games these days launches with issues. It's like developers don't test these games on enough hardware setups and instead rely on paying customers to do the beta testing for them. When you've just bought a new game and are eager to play it then the last thing you want to hear is that the devs are working on optimisations to improve the game, fixes that are likely days or even weeks away.
    Reply 0
  • Face-Off: Forza Horizon 3

  • Darren 30/09/2016

    Quote: "...it's interesting to note that Forza Horizon 3 is one of the very, very few PC titles that actually frame-paces 30fps correctly - each update persisting for the required 33ms. The downside is that controls seem slightly muggier than the Xbox One version operating at the same frame-rate."

    I absolutely agree that Forza Horizon 3 is one of the few games that feels perfectly fine running at 30 fp on PC. I think Transformers: Fall of Cybertron was another. Too many PC games seem to feel horribly laggy when locked to 30 fps yet aren't on PS4 or Xbox One. In fact, I prefer 30 fps on PC to the inconsistent 35-60 fps I get otherwise. It allows me to run the game at 4K with 8xMSAA and everything maxed out on my i7-4770K, 16 GB, GTX 1080, Windows 10 Pro system whereas the game fails to hold 60 fps at 2560x1440 (the native resolution of my display) even with MSAA turned off and just FXAA enabled. Running the game on this kind of hardware and having to turn off MSAA, which the Xbox One version has, just does not sit right with me so 30 fps it is until the developers optimise/patch the game further.

    My PC is far more powerful than either my PS4 or Xbox One so you'd expect input latency to be better overall and certainly the same at worst. And why is it that so many developers fail to get framepacing right on PC, forcing us to have to resort to MSI Afterburner or NVIDIA Inspector to fix it?
    Reply +9
  • Forza Horizon 3 review

  • Darren 27/09/2016

    Like the big kid I am (I'm 49!) I waited until midnight for the game to unlock on my PC to play it for 15-30 minutes but it ended up being more like 90! This game is fantastic and is brilliant to see Microsoft (finally) committed to releasing its games on PC alongside the Xbox One versions. That I can switch between the two and continue my progress depending on whether I'm in front on my TV or 25" monitor is also a superb feature and almost (almost) makes up for the steep 49.99 asking price on the Windows Store.

    The game defaulted to 5K Ultra dynamic settings on my system but I dropped the resolution down to 4K, left the framerate at 30 fps and turned off the dynamic optimisations, in favour of maxing out the settings including using 8xMSAA. The game runs very good, maintaining a solid 30 fps except for some rare but very noticeable half second freezes (which I thought was the game about to crash but it wasn't). The game is installed to a 7,200rpm hard drive rather than an SSD so I assume these are streaming 'hiccups'. Nevertheless, the feel of the game is identical to that of the Xbox One demo I played last week, which is rare with PC games as while I find 30 fps on consoles to be perfectly fine (if not exactly ideal), usually I find them annoyingly laggy on PC. Not so with this game which seems to play identically to Xbox One except for the aforementioned stutters. I have an i7-4770K @ 4.0 GHz, 16 GB of memory and an EVGA GTX 1080 FTW graphics card running on Windows 10 Pro v1607 and using the latest v372.90 drivers for my card.

    I did try the game at 2560x1440, the native resolution of my Dell display, and a 60 fps framerate but the game just felt too inconsistent in terms of controller response and movement so I switched back to 30 fps. I did also encounter some weird issues with parts of roadside fences disappearing and reappearing as I raced by plus distant hills and mountains seem to have some kind of flickering going on that oddly seems to pulsate with the music (I don't think it's intentional).

    Even with those issues, I am thoroughly enjoying this game. It's built in a way that keeps you entertained and it is always rewarding or praising you. It's a game that is a delight to play IMO and I can see this replacing PGR 4 as my favourite arcade racing game to date.
    Reply +12
  • Digital Foundry: Hands-on with COD Infinite Warfare on PS4 Pro

  • Darren 25/09/2016

    I still think Sony should be focusing on 1080p60 games with better overall performance and image quality than this fake 4K (FakeK?) thing on PS4 Pro. The PS4 struggles to run many of its games at stable framerates so the extra power really should be used there IMO. But as usual Sony want to run before they've learn to walk... ;) Reply +66
  • FIFA 17 review

  • Darren 23/09/2016

    So on the one hand we have PES 2017 which plays great but suffers from a lack of licenses, slapdash presentation and odd menus and on the other we have a polished looking game with all the licences and players you'd expect, the atmosphere and the looks but that doesn't play quite as well as the competition? Seems neither offers the best all-round package this year.

    I know gameplay is the most important aspect of any sports game but I find it difficult to commit myself to PES for long periods due to its lack of licensing and its scrappy, sometimes ugly presentation (more so on PC where Konami continue to churn out inferior hybrid versions of the last and current gen versions).

    This year's The Journey in FIFA 17 is exactly what I've been waiting for in a game like this as someone who likes to play games solo and isn't interested in competitive multiplayer. In fact, I started playing the full game briefly on PC this morning, thanks to EA Access, and I am really looking forward to checking out this new mode more tonight. From the demo and opening to the full game, it does a great job of showing off the new engine IMO such that I suspect that this is the reason why EA changed from IGNITE in the first place. The Journey at least is adding something fresh to the genre and EA should be commended for that even if the gameplay itself is as refined as it could/should be.
    Reply +2