Seriously, what the heck Feral Interactive! First Dawn of War II, then Mad Max and very quickly after Deus Ex: Mankind Divided!
That's right, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is launching on SteamOS & Linux on the 3rd of November!
On the 3rd of November, become Human 2.0 as Deus Ex: Mankind Divided arrives on Linux. pic.twitter.com/clhYuYejVW
— Feral Interactive (@feralgames) October 21, 2016
Feral are doing an insane amount of porting recently for us, this has truly made 2016 our best ever year.
As usual, I will do a livestream on the day of release, be sure to follow us on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/gamingonlinux
I am also hoping to get access to the game, so that I can do my usual report on how it runs.
About the game
The year is 2029, and mechanically augmented humans have now been deemed outcasts, living a life of complete and total segregation from the rest of society.
Now an experienced covert operative, Adam Jensen is forced to operate in a world that has grown to despise his kind. Armed with a new arsenal of state-of-the-art weapons and augmentations, he must choose the right approach, along with who to trust, in order to unravel a vast worldwide conspiracy.
Direct Link
Quoting: MblackwellThe framerates are only bad on Windows if you enable Contact Hardening Shadows (which is future-tech, and actually slightly broken), and/or MSAA which everyone should know tanks framerates.Even without those settings game lags like hell. I mean, my PC can run Doom and Witcher 3 with decent graphics but DE:MD often shows less than 30 fps even on low settings. Especially in DLC location where it is raining outside.
If I have not bought this game earlier for windoz I would not buy it now. Its not only about performance, but also about uncompleted story and DLCs that are obviously taken out of the main game just to make more money.
Of course i would like to support more Linux ports but f**** square enix.
Last edited by MadVillain on 22 October 2016 at 8:38 pm UTC
QuoteNixxes, who handled the PC port of Mankind Divided, have detailed the settings you can expect to run if your rig matches the game's minimum or maximum requirements.
"At minimum spec, which is a HD 7870 2GB or GTX 660 2GB, paired with an Core i3-2100, we aim to give you an average of 30 fps, at 1280*720 resolution, but this is at the low quality preset.
"At recommended spec, which is a RX 480 4GB or GTX 970 4GB, paired with an i7-3770K, our target is to offer you 60fps average at 1080p, but at the High quality preset."
It's not exactly worth buying a SSD just for games. You can either search for tests or benchmark this on your own. Of course a SSD would never be slower than a HDD, but most of the time, for games, it wouldn't be noticeable faster.
Quoting: melkemindLike many of you, I wonder why Vulkan wasn't on the table.
My guess is that Feral bases their ports on a "compatibility" layer they developed wrapping the D3D calls to OpenGL calls. That's why they have a reasonable time to market with their ports, making it worth the effort.
And this layer for DX12 -> Vulkan probably does not exist yet, or not in reasonable quality (drivers/their implementation).
Even engines which are natively supporting it (Croteam/Serious Engine) we see that Vulkan isn't yet that much of a performance boost (considering that The Talos Principle still runs worse on Vulkan than OpenGL for me).
Quoting: cRaZy-bisCuiTYou guys talking about space left on your SSDs are aware of the fact that loading times if games on HDDs and SSDs won't differ that much most of the time? Unless the game streams a massive amount of data while you're in game there's almost no difference at all.
It's not exactly worth buying a SSD just for games. You can either search for tests or benchmark this on your own. Of course a SSD would never be slower than a HDD, but most of the time, for games, it wouldn't be noticeable faster.
SSD's are just faster, period. Whether it makes a difference in one situation and not in another is not really something I am interested in. Most performance gains come from initial start times. Once applications get loaded into memory there isn't much benefit, but when a lot of data needs to be read into memory quickly it makes a large difference. My OS is on an SSD also. Reliability is a big issue for me and SSD's are much more reliable. Sometimes there are firmware issues which require an update, but the drive itself hasn't failed. Of course they will eventually, but I haven't had a single SSD fail even though I've had several hard drives fail that I bought at the same time or after I bought the SSD's.
Last edited by m2mg2 on 24 October 2016 at 12:35 pm UTC
As for the SSD topic; remember games don't run in isolation, depending on how much memory you have, there is always disk caching going on, other services / TSRs are swapping data they don't need to reduce memory load, etc. Never mind the fact that SSD are between 4 to 10 times faster - and thats in a perfect world so it excludes seek time - where the HDD is perfectly un-fragmented.
See more from me