Game where you shoot from heap and practically always hit the target is 100% arcade game, imo.

I love the game, but not at first, it took me some time before I got used to it. I tried this mod yesterday and gotta say, it does nothing special it sharpens the image slightly and adds LOTS of saturation, nothing else, I honestly like the vanilla better. I don't get where is all the hype about it coming from. My 10 bit monitor has already super vivid colors.

Game studios need to get their **** together and bail from the Gamewrecks bandwagon. All it is just an excuse for horrible optimization, playing in favor of consoles and misleading people into buying more expensive PC hardware that they don't actually need.

Give me a break. I'll agree with you that Frostbite is a good engine, but how is it it any different than Gameworks? Witcher 3 runs fine maxed out on my 980 @ QHD. It's playable. Yes there is an FPS drop on AMD hardware -- but how is that any different then there being an FPS drop in Battlefront 3? The 980Ti performs like 10-15% worse than a Fury X in BF3 compared to any other title. How come when AMD cards get a performance hit it's due to "unoptimization" but when Nvidia cards do it's "the way it's supposed to be". The bottom line is that most Gameworks features implement geometry based effects and most AMD sponsored games implement shader heavy workloads. Nvidia has worse shader performance, AMD has worse geometry performance. It has nothing to do with unoptimization and more to do with the companies playing to their own strengths.

The forest environments look excellent! I don't know how it compares to the vanilla game, so can't comment on that. I don't have this game yet, probably won't get it - Titanfall is my multiplayer game I play, and I'll just intersperse that with a few single player titles.

Give me a break. I'll agree with you that Frostbite is a good engine, but how is it it any different than Gameworks? Witcher 3 runs fine maxed out on my 980 @ QHD. It's playable. Yes there is an FPS drop on AMD hardware -- but how is that any different then there being an FPS drop in Battlefront 3? The 980Ti performs like 10-15% worse than a Fury X in BF3 compared to any other title. How come when AMD cards get a performance hit it's due to "unoptimization" but when Nvidia cards do it's "the way it's supposed to be". The bottom line is that most Gameworks features implement geometry based effects and most AMD sponsored games implement shader heavy workloads. Nvidia has worse shader performance, AMD has worse geometry performance. It has nothing to do with unoptimization and more to do with the companies playing to their own strengths.

Playable? As in you can psychically play the game? That's about all. Frame Rate is subjective man. I wouldn't touch your setup to game on as it cant maintain 60 at all times @ QHD resolution. Then there are 144Hz Gsync Gamers (I am one) who now feel even 60fps is not enough. Sub 60fps hasn't ever been acceptable to me and many gamers. Especially the ones from the 3Dfx era.

ah... 3dfx... how I loved my obsidian X-24... anyways, does this game include single player mode? I don't play online, bad internet connection for FPS or almost anything for that matter...

This looks great. There is no aliasing at all due to downsampling from 4k to 1080p and quite good lighting. Only thing I miss in video description is HW it is running on.

Bought game, ran this mod at 4k/60fps, agree looks unreal, uninstalled and got refund. Thanks. Terrible game but looks good.

it sharpens the image slightly and adds LOTS of saturation, nothing else

sweetfx in a nutshell :P game already looks great! sharpening adds a nice, albeit slight, enhancement of the perception of depth imo nice necropost btw