crispy4000

I'm going to give a crack at that, just to see. Honestly curious: 1. Zelda OoT 2. Zelda MM 3. Mario 64 4. Starfox 64 5. Paper Mario 6. Super Smash Bros 64 7. Ogre Battle 64 8. Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon 9. Mario Tennis 64 10. Mischief Makers 11. Mario Party 2 12. Bomberman 64 13. Sin & Punishment 14. Wave Race 64 15. Bomberman 64: The Second Attack 16. Mario Party 3 17. F-Zero X 18. Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards 19. Rayman 2: The Great Escape 20. Goemon's Great Adventure 21. Diddy Kong Racing (might not happen) 22. Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (not likely) 23. Banjo Kazooie (not likely) 24. Banjo-Tooie (not likely) 25. Perfect Dark (not likely) 26. Conker's Bad Fur Day (lol) 27. Goldeneye 007 (hell freezes over) 28-31. Any AKI wrestler (hell freezes over) Those first 20 could be a fantastic line-up IMO. Some of the others on that list are essential too, but would sadly be a bonus if we got them. I don't think DK64, Yoshi's Story, Mario Kart 64 and others would be very essential today, but could easily be given a spot. A few by 3rd parties could also steal spots (a Crusin', a Turok, a Rush, etc)

For the last time, it's not the same degree of setting reductions or resolution dips. With that card, you wouldn't be sacrificing as much to reach the target. You refuse to weigh that, so whatever. I'm done.

Did you hook it up to a CRT? Wouldn't fix everything, but it definitely looks worse hooked up to modern TVs.

There are a few 3rd party gems on there though. Everyone should play Mischef Makers and Ogre Battle 64. Bomberman 64 and The Second Attack are also very clever, enjoyable games. The two Goemon games are crack ups, in the best way possible. The first one was essentially OoT before OoT, and still is one of the better Zelda-likes. I'd consider those the essentials. But there's some other fun stuff too, like the AKI wrestlers, Gretskys, Rogue Squadron, etc. So much of that is licensed though.

In its day, that's definitely true. But I think a lot of 3d N64 games have aged quite gracefully for the gen they were in. Not only that, but often hold up in emulation better, since there wasn't as much reliance on pre-rendered backdrops.

Like the Playstation classic, it'd depend on the games for me. If Rare games aren't on the thing...

Overall, still not as good as Games Pass. And likely won't be without the promise of newer PS4 games. But it is $20 less annually and does support the PC with stream-play. It's funny how both Microsoft and Sony are being total dickheads about their prior subscriptions. Microsoft says you can pay for Games Pass, but still can't access online multiplayer without Gold. Sony says you don't need PS Plus for online play with Now, but must be a Plus subscriber to have parity with your downloaded/streamed game saves. And by parity, I mean a convoluted mess where little is automated:

I'm probably jumping the gun here, but since that video said that lower resolutions work too ... what about DLSS in a Switch successor? I can dream.

This is absolutely huge. I've been wanting checkerboarding options in more PC games for a long time. Seems like I'm getting more than what I asked for.

The framerate you'll encounter most often in the game. That isn't arbitrary. And I never said anything about lowered settings/resolution being unacceptable on the X1X. On the contrary, it's a good thing to make compromises where needed. I've got no problem calling the X1X a 4k30 console, thank you. Many games do hit that on average, even some AAA ones. Several more come close enough to it to make it splitting hairs, or use reconstruction techniques like checkerboarding to reach it. That's all good enough for me. This card is better equipped to hit 4k60 in games today than the X1X to its target, but you still have a hang up for some reason. I would have no beef with that if you could admit the X1X isn't 4k30 by the criteria you're choosing to evaluate the 2080ti.

Like I've already said, not to the same levels as the X1X resorts to. Most of the games that don't average to 60fps at max settings on the 2080ti are only a few frames off the mark. (ex: MH World @ 59fps, Shadow of the Tomb Raider @ 56fps : source) They'll still look much better than X1X quality if you have to drop a setting or two, marginally, to reach 4k60. The X1X just isn't running those same games at a native 4k on average (at 30fps), even with settings dialed back from PC ultra. MHW, for example, sits at 1728p and reduces shadow detail, ambient occlusion quality, etc. If you're going to call that a 4k30 machine, as you did, this damn well should be considered a 4k60 card. All I'm asking is for you to be consistent. Ghost Recon: Wildlands comes closest to being an exception, afaik. At 4k ultra, it only manages 47fps on average on the 2080ti. You'd have to dial back settings to very high, which reaches 65fps. That's not insubstantial. But neither is playing it at 1800p30 on the X1X with similar, if not more extensive cut backs. It's probably just a case of Ubisoft making PC ultra settings more intensive than most.

Also, big update on the orchestral track thing: I'm so happy the PC port exists.

Free form feels slower, even if it isn't, because it looks less dynamic. I switched to classic after the first few battles and never looked back.

lol, the only person who put piece of kit in quotations is you, in this reply. Do a page search. I also never said you explicitly thought the 2080 Ti was a bad card. Just that you've contradicted yourself. To X1X levels for intensive games, no. Not likely to be the same sacrifices. I was mentioned in the response too, and wanted to clarify there was more to our disagreement than a semantics debate. Besides, this is a message board. People jump in and out of other's conversations and take sides all the time.

So you're resorting to ad homenims now. Great. And no, the sacrifices 2080ti owners may make to get consistent 40k60 in some titles will, typically, not be the same as those X1X owners often see to hit 30fps at 4k-ish.

Hit the nail on the head. I'll reiterate one thing this doesn't touch on. He said "if 4k 30fps is acceptable, might as well save money and get an Xbone X." Technically, it's still hit or miss for reaching 4k on average (particularly in 3rd party titles). No biggie in itself, and typically something I'd brush past by since its still ballpark to 4k most often. But then he insisted that the RTX 2080ti isn't a 4k60 piece of kit unless it can do both 4k and 60fps consistently at PC's ultra settings. That double standard is another big reason why his 'firm' stance makes little sense. He hasn't applied it consistently. Not for new rendering effects. And not to last year's new console either.

I'd say it's a 4k60 card. Just not one that will always run that way under maxed out settings. And honestly, if you think it needs qualification, then what about the X1X being a 4K30 machine? Many AAA games on it don't even hit a 4K resolution on average, or resort to reconstruction.

Don't know for that one yet, but for most games, that's not true. Check Digital Foundry's latest Shadow of the Tomb Raider comparison between X and PC.

At 1080p. Newfagled rendering techniques and higher resolutions come at a cost.

How do you think the Xbox One X runs games (close to) 4k30fps? It's not PC ultra settings, that's for sure. I'll still call that a 4k30 console, the same as I'll call this a 4k60 card.

Welcome to PC gaming. I mean, fuck, what you do think raytracing is.

Yes, it is, if the moments scaling kicks in aren't frequent. Or could be easily avoided by reducing other settings marginally. Which is what looks to be the case.

Of course I'm reading, lol. Every game that's been tested is least ballpark 60fps at high/very high/ultra settings, or could be easily be brought there with some minor tweaks and dynamic resolution scaling for heavy sections. That's good enough to call it a 4k60 card, IMO.

Was Inafune responsible for giving them Dead Rising? Just curious.