Alan Wake 2

Let's be honest the real reason the system requirements are so high is because Remedy knew if they set the requirements to run max settings that high then everyone who can run it will have an OLED, because this game has to be played on an OLED and anyone who doesn't have an OLED should be banned from playing it, but since you can't ban people, making the game require an rtx4090 works too :p
 
I kinda get the burn-in worry truly, but at the same time, just enjoy the bloody screen to it's fullest, don't babysit it or you'll just never enjoy it.

For gaming it's not really a big concern unless you literally sit on your **** all day and play games and who does that, really. Or maybe if you plan to play something competitive for thousands of hours into the future, and very little else.

Just vary your content a bit, don't leave it on nedlessly and don't unplug it so that the screen can do its refresh cycles. It has to be left on standby. That's all.

My C2 has been used almost 100% in HDR for a year or so, played some lengthy games on it with HUD elements and even fighting games with huge healthbars, still zero signs of burn in. 4-5h sessions with a friend on a single game sometimes as well. Not that often but still.

Also, when it starts to show, it won't really be noticeable during normal use, only on testing backgrounds unless the wear is super heavy so no point in obessing over it indeed.

These panel don't need babysitting, especially the newer ones from LG, just a tiny bit of common sense.

For PC use, since I have to do other stuff on it, I currently use a VA but will switch sometime in the future when QD-OLED gets better.
 
What do you mean your brightness is low? You don't use HDR with it? If you do, brightness/OLED light is automatically at 100 because that's what it takes to let the panel display bright highlights where needed and utilise the amazing contrast to its fullest.

OLED light at 100 in HDR works differently than OLED light at 100 in SDR which would be actually insane:p The latter would not only wear down the panel quicker but your eyes along with it:p

If you always stay in SDR then fair play, shouldn't be set anywhere near max in that case.
Yup, SDR for desktop as hdr ain't great. Turn it on for games.

Yeah personally, I don't like limiting myself gaming time wise nor running it at lower brightness - defeats the point of buying something that'll burn my retinas and look glorious doing it haha, so I just settled for a 32" 1440p 165hz g sync compatible monitor in the end haha. I don't mind if I hurt that with HUDs etc vs my tv :)
Tbf i never limit my game time, 200hrs Diablo and 100hrs cyberpunk in last couple of months, and my low brightness is SDR on desktop but some people enjoy running their monitors at peak nits, I prefer ~100 nits. Always use HDR in games when available. I'm not concerned and have never had burn in. Was making a suggestion as you expressed worry around having a health bar or crosshair burnt in. If you already have a large big screen OLED and are scared, maybe use it to play any games that you won't play for 1000hrs, unless you only play one or two.
 
I kinda get the burn-in worry truly, but at the same time, just enjoy the bloody screen to it's fullest, don't babysit it or you'll just never enjoy it.
Yeah I choose to rag the death out of monitors for that and then leave my posh tv purely for movies/seasons of tv, that way I can rinse hours of content without worrying, I purposely wont watch anything watermarked either, as 1 it annoys me and 2 burn in if I end up watching like 4-6 hours of a season in one hit which often ends up sneaking up on me!:cry:

So TLDR the monitor is the one that loves the punishment/my bit on the side/mistress and the tv is the wife haha!
 
Yup, SDR for desktop as hdr ain't great. Turn it on for games.


Tbf i never limit my game time, 200hrs Diablo and 100hrs cyberpunk in last couple of months, and my low brightness is SDR on desktop but some people enjoy running their monitors at peak nits, I prefer ~100 nits. Always use HDR in games when available. I'm not concerned and have never had burn in. Was making a suggestion as you expressed worry around having a health bar or crosshair burnt in. If you already have a large big screen OLED and are scared, maybe use it to play any games that you won't play for 1000hrs, unless you only play one or two.
Oh yeah mate I totally understand and appreciate your suggestion, there was no disrespect intended if I came across rude by accident?
I personally like full nits though myself and don't tend to use my HDR. I do like that burn your retinas out bright whites/vibrant colours when gaming :)

Yeah I've never had it once bar when I bought a stop gap 2nd hand 12 year old SHARP Aquos as a temp tv between getting this 65" beast, and it was very hard to see on the sharp unless it was say very bright or dark scene wise...

Monitor wise I've been pretty lucky, my current new monitor came with a bloody stuck pixel though that appeared the 2nd day, but luckily I only use it for gaming and based on where it is you never see it - normally something like that would REALLY annoy me but it doesn't as I can't see it :)
 
I just think this gen of consoles was majorly overhyped and not worthy of the next gen bs marketing.

Considering the price too at the time and lack of games even to this day that aren't on the previous gen and not even being able to play say a ps4 vershon game at a stable 60 fps 1080p throughout all sections using a PS5- Ghost Of Tushima for example, is pretty embarrassing, as is having to choose between RT and not a stable 30fps or between 30-60fps when you're lucky with it off neither of which are native 4k yet having the cheek to brand it as 8k and 120hz compatible marketing wise.

This is nonsense, the majority of games are entirely capable of providing a stable 60fps on PS5/Series X on performance mode. Both the PS4 and PS5 versions of Ghost of Tsushima run at a stable 60fps on the PS5.
 
This is nonsense, the majority of games are entirely capable of providing a stable 60fps on PS5/Series X on performance mode. Both the PS4 and PS5 versions of Ghost of Tsushima run at a stable 60fps on the PS5.

I agree.

I’m not going to get into arguments about specific FPS numbers as I don’t have the data to hand. However, I really don’t agree that the PS5/Series X are over hyped. The hardware is mightily impressive for the cost. I had no problems at all with the performance of games including GoT, Returnal, GT7, CoD, miles morales and ratchet and clank. All ran fine on my 4K 55” OLED. Yes of course there’s all kinds of things going on behind the scenes but the end result is that games perform well.

PS5 digital RRP is currently £389.99. You couldn’t build much of a new PC with that budget. I’d guess they make a loss on the hardware knowing they have people locked into the PS Store eco-system.

I’ve moved to gaming pretty much exclusively on PC now but I’m well aware the value for money is terrible compared to consoles.
 
Last edited:
This is nonsense, the majority of games are entirely capable of providing a stable 60fps on PS5/Series X on performance mode. Both the PS4 and PS5 versions of Ghost of Tsushima run at a stable 60fps on the PS5.
Nope!

There was literally an entire video breakdown when the special edition for PS5 came out, showing how GOS cant run stable at 60fps throughout the entire game even with the ps4 version!
It can in places but isn't rock solid nor throughout... and that was the ps4 version at 1080p! Go into a heavy battle and you're looking at around 46-low 50's... At 1080p on a ps4 version on a ps5! That is not 'next gen' nor impressive!

Let alone the native ps5 better graphics etc version! It even dipped before 30fps in battles with X amount of enemies!

So 4k 30-60fps even with the ps4 version = never happening!

Definitely rather through £650 RRP of a disc edition PS5 on release, at a GPU instead and play 1440p thanks!
 
Last edited:
I agree.

I’m not going to get into arguments about specific FPS numbers as I don’t have the data to hand. However, I really don’t agree that the PS5/Series X are over hyped. The hardware is mightily impressive for the cost. I had no problems at all with the performance of games including GoT, Returnal, GT7, CoD, miles morales and ratchet and clank. All ran fine on my 4K 55” OLED. Yes of course there’s all kinds of things going on behind the scenes but the end result is that games perform well.

PS5 digital RRP is currently £389.99. You couldn’t build much of a new PC with that budget. I’d guess they make a loss on the hardware knowing they have people locked into the PS Store eco-system.

I’ve moved to gaming pretty much exclusively on PC now but I’m well aware the value for money is terrible compared to consoles.

How is it impressive exactly when you have to choose between nice graphics/RT or be stuck with 30fps which can tank in a lot of games like Elden Ring... A console that doesn't actually do 4k native and just uses variable resolution and most of the time 1440p or less, yet claims 4/8k on the box and uses bs marketing slogans like 120fps!

When this gen was advertised it was extremely over hyped! It definitely did not live upto the 'next gen' factor.

There is barely any games for either console that haven't come from the last generation, and certainly not enough to justify the £60-70 a game rip off cost! Let alone to buy them digitally and use the pathetic on board storage that quickly runs out of space and doesn't allow you to use the full 931gb or whatever it is once formatted, yes you could expand it but then that's money again?

Most people with consoles like to have the game boxed/on disc, it's part of the aesthetic and collection factor, alongside not having to keep faffing about deleting things cause your games take up too much space for your pathetic restrictions of built in storage, as a console gamer you just want to put a disc in install it and go, not sit there for years downloading 90-160gb! Let alone have to be online... Every console gamer dreads it when the update screen pops up, I've never seen a single gamer say "yay, I did want to play my game but sure I'll wait an hour now instead of enjoying my game hence turning it on"... And the servers are always hit and miss with the speeds for the downloads.

They weren't cheap when they came out, £650 and £550 for disc/non disc editions.

As someone that always has consoles alongside pc's, this generation was extremely disappointing. All the games worth playing I'd done on my ps4, fact. There's probably 5 maybe 7 new games I could have got for it, most of which were again offered on ps4, so completely pointless, there has been zero focus on creating new games, all they did this generation was rerelease last gen games for a quick cash grab! Pointless!

No one would buy a PC for that budget so that's irrelevant! The same as you had to buy your 55" OLED to play your ps5... Those together are easily pc price! However factoring a new/used GPU for the cost of a new console is a relevant comparison...
 
Last edited:
How is it impressive exactly when you have to choose between nice graphics/RT or be stuck with 30fps which can tank in a lot of games like Elden Ring... A console that doesn't actually do 4k native and just uses variable resolution and most of the time 1440p or less, yet claims 4/8k on the box and uses bs marketing slogans like 120fps!

When this gen was advertised it was extremely over hyped! It definitely did not live upto the 'next gen' factor.

There is barely any games for either console that haven't come from the last generation, and certainly not enough to justify the £60-70 a game rip off cost! Let alone to buy them digitally and use the pathetic on board storage that quickly runs out of space and doesn't allow you to use the full 931gb or whatever it is once formatted, yes you could expand it but then that's money again?

They weren't cheap when they came out, £650 and £550 for disc/non disc editions.

As someone that always has consoles alongside pc's, this generation was extremely disappointing. All the games worth playing I'd done on my ps4, fact. There's probably 5 maybe 7 new games I could have got for it, most of which were again offered on ps4, so completely pointless, there has been zero focus on creating new games, all they did this generation was rerelease last gen games for a quick cash grab! Pointless!

No one would buy a PC for that budget so that's irrelevant! The same as you had to buy your 55" OLED to play your ps5... Those together are easily pc price! However factoring a new/used GPU for the cost of a new console is a relevant comparison...

It’s my living room TV, I didn’t need to buy it because of the PS5??? You’re adding the cost of a TV to the PS5 and comparing it against a PC? And how is comparing a whole console against just a GPU relevant? You can game on a console but not a GPU…

I genuinely tried to search on YouTube to back up your claims about FPS and can only find videos that counter your claims. First result of many: https://youtu.be/JAO5kq-rbHQ?feature=shared

The latest gen consoles are a big step up over the last gen. It’s a fact. If you’re expecting them to compete with a high end 4090 system then you’ve missed the point. Consoles are for the masses and the price point has to be low enough to support that.

Anyway this is off topic. I hardly use my PS5 now but my PC cost significantly more. I agree games are stupidly expensive and that’s how they make their money, not on the hardware. That’s nothing to do with your claim that the hardware is trash…
 
Last edited:
Nope!

There was literally an entire video breakdown when the special edition for PS5 came out, showing how GOS cant run stable at 60fps throughout the entire game even with the ps4 version!
It can in places but isn't rock solid nor throughout... and that was the ps4 version at 1080p! Go into a heavy battle and you're looking at around 46-low 50's... At 1080p on a ps4 version on a ps5! That is not 'next gen' nor impressive!

Let alone the native ps5 better graphics etc version! It even dipped before 30fps in battles with X amount of enemies!

So 4k 30-60fps even with the ps4 version = never happening!

Definitely rather through £650 RRP of a disc edition PS5 on release, at a GPU instead and play 1440p thanks!

While I'm not entirely impressed with this gen, I have no idea what you're talking about and neither have you, I suppose.

I have quite a few negative things to say about GoT but the performance is EXTREMELY solid.
Drops below 30fps? Lol... The native PS5 version on quality hardly ever drops below 60fps, if even.
It's one of the best running games on the console, I'm very sensitive to framerate dips and have a hard time remembering ever feeling a significant dip even in big battles in my 30-something hours of playtime, let alone anything even remotely close to 30fps...

The FPS counter on my TV doesn't lie either and multiple sources confirm the performance of the PS5 version is pretty much rock-solid.
Both the framerate and resolution modes run at 60fps confirmed, no need to even choose.
 
More charts to go with that. Looks like Mr Raymond Tracing will be fairly tweakable with granular settings.

Pretty neat:

For best performance, ensure that DLSS Ray Reconstruction is enabled. If DLSS Ray Reconstruction is disabled or not available, two denoisers will instead be enabled, with the quality and performance cost scaling across the three presets:

At 4K, with every setting maxed and full ray tracing enabled, activating Frame Generation, Ray Reconstruction and Super Resolution sees frame rates multiply astronomically. On the GeForce RTX 4090, performance multiplies by 4.1X, enabling owners to play Alan Wake 2 at its very best at over 120 FPS at 4K. And the GeForce RTX 4080 and GeForce RTX 4070 Ti see their performance multiplied by 4.7X, for max setting 4K gameplay at 100 FPS and 80 FPS, respectively.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom