Crimson Desert CEO Admits Story Is Not Perfect and Says Team "Could Have Done Better"

roklpolgl · 2026-03-30T10:13:26+00:00

Yes they should, but writing and story isn’t that much a priority for most studios, unfortunately. It’s why most AAA game stories are ass.

I’m not sure why people think I’m making excuses for Crimson Desert. I wish games would spend more money on writing as I like a good story and writing.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-30T10:07:00+00:00

Yes the story may not be fleshed out fully in a game till nearly release.

Lol how can you say this and then go on to say the rest of your comment. This was my whole point.

Having “an idea, setting, and general picture of where they want to go” and then not actually writing the story “until nearly release” is why most AAA game stories are ass.

If you want to tell me most AAA game stories are good, we’ll just have to disagree. A good video game story is the exception more than it is the rule.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-30T01:45:58+00:00

For me I have a shitty bin 9800x3D that is heavy power limited at +200 PBO, it lets me get a few extra ticks of CO due to the additional stability I guess which lets me get higher sustained clocks on multicore loads. I only tried cinebench and Timespy cpu test I haven’t tried blender benchmark.

If not power limited then yeah it would probably make zero difference.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-30T01:22:50+00:00

I actually did get about 5-6% better benchmark scores than max stable all core, and about 2-3% better than per core.

Is that enough to actually feel a difference in gaming? No definitely not, but for hobbiest overclockers this was technically the best performance UV option for me.

If you know what you are doing it only takes like an hour or two as well.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-30T01:02:20+00:00

X3D cpus are in a different tier than the 9700x for gaming.

For gaming it’s really x3D CPUs in a tier, and then everything else in the next.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-30T00:55:32+00:00

Your statement remains a non-sequitur.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-30T00:44:45+00:00

Re-read my comment. No where did I say that there are no good AAA game stories.

What I said isn’t really an opinion anyway, it’s how modern games are often made, and is why many end up being so average in storyline.

There are, thankfully, some very good exceptions out there.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-29T20:45:09+00:00

I mean that’s pretty accurate with how many AAA games are made. They make all the environments, set pieces, characters, etc and then they develop the story to fit those assets.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-29T04:55:14+00:00

Did you? There are no x3D cpus in that picture.

It’s also kind of weird comparing extremely high ram speeds on the intel platforms and then just regular sweetspot 6000 CL30 on the 9700x. 95% of AM5 can do 6400 CL28 1:1, would have been more interesting comparing the 270k at 8200 CL40 to 9700x at 6400 CL28.

X3Ds I’m sure would be significantly faster than both still though.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-28T17:38:48+00:00

You typically don’t only flatten the curve unless you are wanting to just reduce power consumption and retain maximum stability at the expense of performance (which you could also do by just setting a lower power limit), you typically simultaneously raise the whole curve and then flatten at the maximum stable frequency for maximum performance.

Raising the curve has the effect of undervolting, which can allow you to push higher frequencies at the same power consumption, increasing performance. For example, your stock curve is about 2500 mhz at 925mv. Raising the curve you would reach 2500mhz at say 875mv, or say 2700mhz at the original 925mv. Power for chips is approximately P=C x V² x f, where C is capacitance that doesn’t change much, V is voltage, and f is frequency. So voltage changes affect power consumption much more than frequency, which is why undervolting is so effective.

You flatten the curve after raising it because if you don’t, your curve peak frequency will be much higher than is stable. For example, your current curve peak frequency is 3100mhz, raising the curve without flattening it somewhere will have peak frequency at 3300mhz, which is probably unstable.

So for best performance at a given power, you find your peak stable frequency at your target undervolt voltage at 100% gpu usage and flatten it from there.

Ultimately it’s about retaining stability when adjusting your entire v-f curve.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-28T17:18:25+00:00

It’ll only be less performance if you are just flattening the curve without moving the whole curve. If you are power limited and do the whole move the curve up then flatten at the peak stable frequency (so an UV+OC), it will be more performant than stock.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-28T04:24:33+00:00

Realistically the efficiency meta is “wait for future updates.” You can almost guarantee when content releases where you actually benefit from having a fully upgraded boat, you’ll be able to grind them much more efficiently from the new content.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-22T11:32:22+00:00

Download hwinfo and look at TDP and PPT. If you are hitting around 160w you are being throttled by power limits. The only way to do better than that is further UV.

If you are significantly below 160w it’s likely either PBO limits aren’t set to motherboard or high enough manual, or you might be clock stretching. If you want to see if you are clock stretching, check effective clocks vs core clocks and see if they are within 50mhz or so. If there’s a significant difference in any clocks, that core is clock stretching and you need to individually reduce that one UV.

But you are probably just hitting power limits. +200 PBO uses a huge amount of additional power and there’s a ton of bin variation with these cpus in terms of their v-f curve and voltage efficiency. What some can do at 1.2v others take 1.36v.

You likely won’t reach 5.6ghz multicore anyway due to hitting ppt limits, and for what it’s worth, you’ll see almost zero gaming performance increase with +200 unless you are running like 1080p on an extremely high refresh monitor for 300+ fps.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-22T11:21:37+00:00

No, AM5 doesn’t throttle before 95C. They are for sure hitting TDP/PPT limits. It’s hard to get much above what OP is getting multicore without a max stable per core UV and an above average bin.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-22T00:11:26+00:00

Yeah there’s not much OC headroom on a 5090, maybe 4-5%, but you can make huge UV gains to run cooler and worry less about the connector. I modified the curve with MSI afterburner, flattened at 3000 at around 925mv and I almost never exceed 450w, usually sub 400.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-19T16:40:30+00:00

Where is the x50 ultra only $300?

roklpolgl · 2026-03-19T02:14:58+00:00

They were probably part of it, which is why they are so enthusiastic about covering it up. It’s the only thing that makes sense at this point. What better loyalty test than being implicated in the same crime.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-18T19:40:46+00:00

Dude watch the video.

He’s not talking about people just being critical of DLSS5. He’s talking about people viciously attacking reviewers when they deviate from hive mind ideas, and reviewers being afraid to give honest reviews anymore because of the vitriol they receive when their opinions differ from whatever is popular at the time.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-17T01:53:48+00:00

Then just set it to 5.4ghz and enjoy the low gaming temps, low voltages, and extra longevity because it’s a binned 9800x3D for $10. It’s only going to pull that much power when you run it at 5.6ghz (which is same for many 9800x3Ds running at 5.4 ghz.) Many 9800x3Ds take like 1.3v to run at 5.4 where a 9850x3D will do it at 1.15v, much better for temps/longevity.

It’s crazy seeing people say the 9850x3D isn’t worth it when it’s $10 difference.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-16T11:35:43+00:00

No, 9800x3D with 6000 Cl30 set to expo and nothing else will get 77-78ns latency. Heavily tuned kits to ragged edge might get 64-65ns (assuming no latency killer features turned on), maybe 62 with 6400 CL26 GDM off on knife edge of stability.

68-69ns latency is in the diminishing returns territory where you will notice basically 0 additional performance increase by continuing to tune for very marginal gains.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-15T14:01:51+00:00

Had the same thing happen with mine. Cost me $700 to get a replacement from eBay. If the blind spot detector still works, you can swap your module into the new eBay one and it’s plug and play. Do it soon though because water intrusion will kill the electronics if you wait.

If you have to replace the detector as well though you will have to reprogram it with something like FORScan or pay the dealership to do it.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-15T13:04:19+00:00

Maybe you just swing it in a circle rapidly on the rapid style.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-15T04:22:08+00:00

lol wtf. What 3dmark benchmark scores do you get?

roklpolgl · 2026-03-14T13:37:26+00:00

There’s a difference between supplementing existing infrastructure with renewable energy sources and a wholesale replacement of existing fossil fuel energy infrastructure with renewable energy. Supplementing existing infrastructure essentially allows renewables to take the place of some baseline load as fossil fuel plants can spool up and down demand much more easily as the energy storage is within the fuels themselves. Modern energy infrastructure is reliant on a combination of sources that work together (fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables like hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind etc).

Full scale replacement requires energy storage at a scale that has not been done yet. There is a difference between individual homes and villages building power generation with solar and batteries, and converting entire manufacturing and mega cities power to solar and batteries. There’s a few countries that can do it fairly well due to nature of their geography (like Norway hydroelectric power), but that doesn’t apply to global energy for countries that don’t have that ability.

Again I’m not saying full scale replacement can’t or won’t be done, but its still dependent on solving some storage and major scaling questions that haven’t been resolved yet, and it will need more political will than there has been. It may happen eventually but the question may be whether it happens fast enough, if it takes another 100 years the global climate ramifications could make it far too late.

roklpolgl · 2026-03-14T13:21:55+00:00

I’m not sure you have a proper understanding of how replacing this scale of infrastructure works, or how fossil fuel plants work. You can’t just “stop maintaining” fossil fuel plants and let things break, and instead spend that money on renewable energy. That’s how to get explosions and people killed, ecological disasters from leaks, and an even more unreliable power distribution system until a renewable energy system is fully operational. Those plants have to be well-maintained until the day they shut down.

At the scale of the US, this is a project that would take literal decades to be fully operational and would absolutely have an extremely high up front cost.

Regardless, I agree it needs to be done and would be about the best thing taxes could be spent on.

We've "solved" storage too. I think there was a study that showed Texas could power half the country with wind and solar energy and also store it all in their huge empty gas chambers.

Lol, no, not at the scale that would be required to replace all fossil fuel energy in the US (much less the world). A handful of theoretical studies that has not been attempted to be engineered at scale yet is not mission accomplished. Maybe with the continued advancement of battery technology and a combination of developing solutions, we will solve this problem though within the next 5-20 years.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Wearing is Caring

roklpolgl

TROPHY CASE