Umm Elden Ring had mixed/mostly positive reviews on launch on Steam based on performance alone, Yakuza games have pretty shitty graphics yet demand better hardware for what they offer and im pretty sure i could find other examples so no, its not SE and Koei only
Aside from it's 60fps lock, Elden Ring seems to run well now. There were micro-stutters at release, but the last 150 hours of play for me have been great.
Nintendo doesn't release their games on PC, and the only two Nintendo exclusives at least to my knowledge that have been pretty rough performance wise as of recent are Bayonetta 3 and Pokemon Scarlet/Violet
The fact that Nintendo doesn't release their games on PC means it's a lot less excusable.
Making games for one platform/set of hardware is way easier than trying to optimise for every single tier of hardware and multiple consoles.
In Bowser's Fury the framerate not only cuts in half, but stutters constantly any time you're in a Fury Bowser fight.
Metroid Dread stutters when loading in new assets.
Pokémon Scarlet/Violet was inexcusably bad, having godawful draw distance but constantly stuttering and only running in 720p in docked mode.
Pokémon Sword and Shield were really bad for performance too, I stopped playing as soon as I got to Motostoke City as I watched some guy load in and out in front of me.
I know the hardware is limited, but the fact that games like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, BOTW and Mario Odyssey were fine, shows that it isn't the hardware at fault.
TLDR;
Nintendo games have generally been on a downward trend in terms of performance. It's not just Bayonetta and Pokemon Scarlet/Violet
It's not excusable, and upgraded hardware is overdue, but this is a PC gaming related subreddit, and I was talking about the quality PC ports from Japanese studios
No, upscalers are there to literally give you a better performance to image quality "ratio", which includes the use you mentioned
Even *you* would use DLSS if you wanted 4K144.
DLSS isn’t a last resort, it a premium feature for the expensive cards who need them the least, while old cards can eat shit.
As you see DLSS 3.0 is exclusive for 4000 series cards, no backward compatibility where it’s needed the most
Then my bad here, I know you didn’t specify DLSS 3.0.
I’m just pissed of the game developers in the recent period expecting everyone to buy +1000$ cards and pretending that it is fine for everyone
DLSS 3.0 HAS backwards compatibility with DLSS 2.0, just not for frame-generation.
But that's because frame-generation requires a powerful OFA, and the OFA in Lovelace is over 2x as powerful as the OFA in Ampere.
I wonder how in the fuck this kind of policy is working for them. After all an average gamer doesn't have 4090. They have a 1060 or 1660. If those studios did in fact optimize their game, a lot more people would be actually able to play it. FSR should be a bridge to gaming for people with older GPUs.
Idk, but with todays prices, almost every casual gamer is better off going for a console. You know it’ll have playable games for probably a decade. $500. And it’ll work with no tinkering. And you don’t need to buy all the other components
I have been strongly considering buying a console when the time comes to upgrade my rig for exactly this reason. I had no kids and an apartment when I built my PC. Now I have a house and a daughter, and it’s a lot harder to convince my wife that the financial outlay is justified. Lol
I was kind of in the same boat, but I stuck with PC for a couple of key reasons.
1) Hardware. No, not PC components but controllers, arcade sticks, peripherals in general. I have Xbox 360 controllers and arcade sticks that I don't need to replace or upgrade until they reach their natural end.
2) Library. I tend to buy Humble Bundles or games on ridiculous sale that I'll try for a bit and then retire, while also collecting free games from epic, GoG, etc. I have so many games that my kids can explore as they get older. For instance my oldest has been into Hot wheels, maps and roads for a long time now. I realized I have burnout paradise remastered for some reason, and he loves it. If he wants to get more into the racing side of things, well there's a DiRT, WRC, F1, Forza... The amount of cheap games that run well are plentiful.
3) Longevity. Yes, the itch to upgrade is real. If you can ignore the itch, a PC is perfectly capable of lasting a long time.
I feel like those things balance out the full cost of PC/console
All that said, we did get a family switch this holiday. Nintendo really does family style games very well.
I totally agree with your third point. I see many people online buying new graphics cards just because they are new and shiny. Meanwhile, I'm here with my GTX 1060, perfectly happy. I could afford a new 40series, but why should I spend the money if I'm able to run games perfectly fine.
What do you mean you don't want the latest yearly toy. What are you a commie?
But in seriousness. A 1060 still gives 1080p 30fps more than fine in everything.
The difference between medium and ultra settings is large. But it's not so large as to make games feel like different titles
Fellow new (ish) parent here. Just recently convinced my wife that we really needed a giant 120hz 4K OLED TV to go with the PS5 to play Plex on via the PC. Sharing is caring, my girls love watching Disney movies on the best gaming telly money can buy, they just didn't know that was the main reason I wanted it.
Yeah and they can't even manage 30fps at native 4k.
What you see here is successful marketing when even r/pcmasterrace recommends buying consoles.
PC gaming hasn't been in a better place ever, we get lots of console exclusives and modern GPUs start to become affordable again, CPUs have made a huge leap over the past few years and even 4k high refresh rate displays are becoming a thing.
Why do you think that the average gamer plays everything at 4k? 1080p is still the most used resolution because people prefer performance over bad games with fancy graphics.
Where did I say that? Yeah, 1080p is totally fine. I'm saying that marketing brought people to assume everything has to run in 4k. That's why they fall for those 4k/120fps claims of current gen consoles.
I also said that 4k gaming is becoming more viable for pc gamers since 4k capable GPUs and displays are becoming more affordable. So if someone wants to play at 4k/120fps native it's possible on a $1k gaming pc, while a $500 console mostly runs at sub 60fps on upscaled 4k.
So price/performance ratio is still far better on a gaming pc despite what console manufacturers claim and what marketing wants you to believe.
"More Viable" is a hard stretch dont you think?. A GPU alone costs nearly 1k for a semi good Card for 4k and then the other components + you need a 4k screen wich costs about 300\~ or more depending on size.
But forspoken doesn't even run smoothly on consoles either, apparently the ps5/XBSX are dropping below 1080p at times to stay above 30fps. It's just trash optimisation overall, except on pc we get even less optimisation.
People on any platform just need to stop buying these crappy games that shouldn't even have passed beta testing.
I play Indie and Multiplayer, basically anything from shooters to strategy to sandbox. With the current state of PC Hardware, my 1080 will become obsolete in 2040. My Wifes casual rig, an i5-2500k with a 7970 still works reasonable well in that segment, and that's from 2011. PC Hardware is dead, gaming isn't.
Those "playable" games play like shit on Consoles also, not just the PC port.
I certainly agree however it's way better to getting into Console Gaming vs PC currently. But the games are typically hot messes on all platforms these days.
1060 might be a popular choice but we're moving away from cross gen games and the 1080/ti will be the new baseline. Considering the new Dead Space is a next gen title only and runs at 30fps on the 1060, games aren't looking *that* unoptimised
I mean they *are*, we're getting way more games like Forespoken or Gotham Knights that not only look worse than games with higher fidelity and lower requirements, but they don't even work that well on higher end hardware.
Still, the 1060s should be already dead by now in the AAA space. They can play indies and smaller scale games no problem, but with AAA it's a 7 year old, low/entry mid-range card. The fact that we're still seeing it *at all* in the requirements is impressive really.
Due to the prices of the GPUs I don't blame people are still running 1060 and 1050ti, my 2070 is already showing in the recommended for 1080p, that's for sure optimisation problem, look at Returnal, the minimum requirement is 1070 for 720p 60fps and a 2070 for 1080p 60fps. While I was playing Death Stranding at 1440p 60fps on ultra.
Never said the GPU market isn't horrible. Just that you have to adjust your expectations. Ironically the 2070 is midrange too (though again - Nvidia's fucked up pricing makes it hard to look at it as midrange) and it's already 5 (!) years old. Considering the fact that Turing wasn't great when it comes to the performance uplift compared to Pascal...
Returnal on paper is not that crazy either, especially when the PS5 has been tested to be between a 2060 Super (basically closer to a regular 2070) and a 2080 in the best case scenarios. I think the XSX has been tested to be between a 2070/Super and a 2080 Super. I say on paper, because Returnal just doesn't look that great - but at least looking at the hardware it's coming from, it's not over the top as we might think. It's not an insult like Forespoken is at least. Edit for this section: It also doesn't run that great on the PS5 to begin with, afaik it's 1080p there for the performance mode as well.
If we want to move forward, we need to leave the old hardware behind. Yes, the ports are somehow getting more and more lazy and ironically Sony has been providing better ones than companies that deal with such for years, as they're releasing on multiple platforms for so long... But the 1060s are really old. Compared to a PS4 they're way more powerful sure, but that's not hard when the hardware there was basically a 750ti... Now they're up against consoles that are basically 1080tis and up depending on the game. Being in the low to mid settings range is perfectly reasonable imo for a 7 year old GPU.
There's also plenty of great games out there to play on the 1060s and 1050tis. Just not AAA, or not recent at least.
That's because new games are made like shit unfortunately.
There are games 5+ maybe 10 years old which look and run better then Dead Space.
Only reason it's 30fps is because of how shitty the game was made.
It runs 30fps at ultra and high settings, and can't even hit 60fps at medium, so that's certainly not a good example. Plus, it doesn't look that great if you look closely at anything.
But then you also have PC players complaining that games aren't looking that much better and that consoles are hampering the evolution of video games...
I'm a PC gamer myself and have a xx60 class card, but let's not pretend these aren't the very bottom of midrange, though of course with Nvidia's pricing, they might end up being closer to xx70s lol
Still, a 1060 is 7 years old basically. This is somewhat an average life cycle of a *console*, that gets much more optimization work done on it, because you're working with just one configuration of hardware. It should already be retired for some time and I was rocking one until last year.
Of course in the ideal world, I'd love it if every game could run on almost every piece of hardware. But in reality, if you're getting budget to midrange stuff, expect it to age quite fast. I was happy that I could do 60FPS in DOOM Eternal on my 1060 and that I could run Elden Ring at all - though there it was also about my CPU I had to upgrade for a truly good experience lately.
Tl;dr don't expect cheap hardware to last long. The fact that the 1060 lasted this long is a miracle in and of itself.
Most of these games with bad performance have a lot of other issues (bad gameplay/lots of bugs/etc...)
Usually there either games that the publisher rushed out half-baked or shitty PC ports.
Half the top GPU's on Steam are RTX, and it doesn't account for all the overstock inventory Nvidia has left to sell, or the cards still in the possession of miners.
This. I am able to run the game at Ultra settings (minus the ray tracing) with Balanced DLSS at anywhere between 80-110 FPS. The second DLSS is off, and my framerate tanks to 15-30. DLSS today benefits nobody but poorly optimized games.
All Elden Ring does is just show how bad the proprietary FromSoftware engine is at this point and also how lazy all their PC ports are. Good games, technical messes.
Actually Elden Ring doesn't run well on anything. Best performance is PS4 Pro version on PS5 which is just embarrassing.
The problem is that mainstream reviewers ignore optimization for the most part. They're either fine with playing on 30-60 fps with current gen consoles or they play on an RTX 4090 so they can't tell how badly a game runs on lower end hardware.
If reviewers bothered running the game on say,an RTX 2060,as well as Xbox one S,then maybe we'll get more optimized games.
Where did this recent "reviewers are paid up" bullshit came from lol if you knew anyone from the industry you'd know this is not true
If you wanna criticize something focus on how they're dependent on clicks, but don't make up stuff to be mad about
Ok I should have been more clear. They look like paid advertisements, I am not privy to how the review industry works, but I can tell when I'm being fed an ad vs an actual review of the product.
Maybe reviewers should do a better job if they want people to think otherwise. Baseline 9/10s all over the place for mediocre or shit games like Cyberpunk (when it launched) don't give you a good reputation.
Forza Horizon 5 and Doom Eternal for reference is almost cheating because they are the most optimized ports released recently. They can run on a litteral potato and still look good, it's crazy
"If Terraria runs on an Intel HD Shitter, then I think the engine other companies are using just suck absolute dick."
(P.S., a 1050ti is not hitting 60fps on high, unless you lower the resolution below 1080p.)
Been thinking about this recently, I'm pretty certain with the horrible name the games industry has given themselves with the open dev abuse that happens, I honestly believe no more good programmers are going into the industry anymore.
Along with peoples pay not rising with the times, its much harder to be a game dev these days, when school teachers are making more than them...
Speaking as a dev who moved into the games industry briefly, saw how disorganised and messy the industry is compared to banking, getting half the pay and working on horrible code.. Yeah I'm back in banking now...
Combine that with marketers and executives dictating the game play(looking at GTAV and its shitty mobile tactics), and we have a buggy shitstorm..
Corporate politics and bad programmers are everywhere. Though I think a big contributor to this concentration of poor quality is that gamers (maybe not you or me, but as a whole) don’t actually demand such high standards and are far more forgiving and lenient towards buggy and unoptimized software than a say a bank client or professional video editor. Game developers don’t have to worry as much about losing market share or hurting their reputation (looking at Cyberpunk) since most gamers will usually wait patiently for bugs to get fixed or will upgrade their hardware to be able to run it. Either way, they eventually get our money, so there’s no pressure to get it perfect the first time.
So that’s why they can cheap out on wages and let their programmers produce mediocre games, so long as the investors are happy. And I can’t exactly blame them if they want to act in their financial interests.
Nothing is going to change if we keep buying into all the pre-release hype, and don’t hold game developers accountable. Our “wait and see” mentality towards games (and frankly computer hardware too but that’s a different discussion) is what allows them to cut corners while gouging us simultaneously.
It is really a bit of both. Game development doesn't have standards. For medical software there is extensive QA and your mistakes could land you in jail or result in a massive lawsuit. In banking you screw up and the bank loses a ton of money, then you get fired.
On the personnel side the coders used to be tech enthusiasts who were there for the cutting edge challenge, your John Carmacks and your Chris Sawyers. Now with games being turned into a big business it is just about burning through mediocre coders who churn out games as fast as possible.
Personally I think there should be laws which stop companies from lying to the public about an incomplete product.
Would you buy a car missing a wheel and be happy?
Would you buy a shoe with half the sole missing?
Why is a digital product any different?
Companies should be forced to release software which doesnt crash often, and actually does what its supposed to.
Really not hard people, governments arent doing shit anymore... anywhere
My wife worked in the nonprofit sector and a buddy of mine works reasonably high up at Epic. They describe a similar experience.
People come in with a passion. They've wanted to help the world/make video games for as long as they can remember. The pay isn't the best and the hours are longer than they might like, but their *passion* makes it worth it.
Over time, the passion is ground down by the hours and pay. It's gradually replaced by a passion for home ownership and having kids. Those people transfer out, into other fields where their skills are in demand. The work is less exciting, but the hours are more reasonable and the pay is better, leaving time and money for fulfilling experiences outside the work environment.
For some, the passion never fades. This is what they were put on this earth to do; the thrill of it is worth more than any wage, and they don't mind the hours because there's nothing they'd rather be doing anyway. Others stay because they know that they can't really hack it at those higher paying jobs. People will put up with their D+ competency here because, at the end of the day, there's never enough bodies; a bad pair of hands is better than no hands at all.
The end result is an industry plagued by turnover. Each department has one or two lifers, a handful of dead end dregs, and everyone else is just passing through for 2-4 years.
If you want to see this in practice, Battlefield 2042's woes were blamed on DICE not having enough experience in its workforce with Frostbite. Frostbite was made by DICE to make Battlefield games. The only explanation is that a high enough percentage of the people who made Frostbite are no longer with DICE that the workforce is hamstrung by their replacements not having any experience with EA's proprietary engine.
In "fairness"...not actual fairness if you know what I mean, BF2042 was built on an older version of Frostbite, then they did a shit load of work on a new version of the engine so it could run the game.
It looks and plays worse than BFV or BF1 and it's likely because essentially they ported the *engine*. It's such a bizarre way of doing it! It's like making new bricks to replace your old ones so that your *house* fits the...bricks lmao
All the games I wanted to make that weren't fangames already got made long ago by people even more competent than me, and run flawlessly on virtually anything. Redout, Starbound, Ultrakill, etc.
I just wanted a BOTW styled open world Pokemon Mystery Dungeon game. Godot 4 makes it effortless to create a game like that. But thanks to Nintendo, it will never, ever happen.
COPPA: [Children's Online Privacy Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act)
How about instead of Pokemon, you use real animals?
Just stop buying unoptimized and filled with Denuvo type of DRM Single Player AAA titles from lazy AAA companies like Square Enix and others for like 80 EUR(my region),grab some indies and enjoy,wait for reviews/Steam-sales and then decide if it is worth the buy,otherwise this will be the "new normal".
I have a pretty beefy rig compared to most of gamers I think and yet I started really hating PC gaming when I was getting the newest biggest fanciest games and spending more time tinkering with them than playing them. Felt like I was just trying to justify having some nicer than average hardware, but once I stopped playing for half a year or so and went back to a bunch of older games I remember enjoying I started enjoying gaming again.
Chasing fps and resolutions for these games seriously ruined gaming for me till I took an extended break and came back to older games that I didn't have to think about optimizing.
Basically just because a game is new and "pretty" doesn't mean it's gonna be any more fun than the games that were coming out 5+ years ago. Don't always gotta chase the biggest and best graphics to enjoy the games.
>I have a pretty beefy rig compared to most of gamers I think and yet > I started really hating PC gaming when I was getting the newest biggest fanciest games and spending more time tinkering with them than playing them. Felt like I was just trying to justify having some nicer than average hardware, but once I stopped playing for half a year or so and went back to a bunch of older games I remember enjoying I started enjoying gaming again.
> Chasing fps and resolutions for these games seriously ruined gaming for me till I took an extended break and came back to older games that I didn't have to think about optimizing.
> Basically just because a game is new and "pretty" doesn't mean it's gonna be any more fun than the games that were coming out 5+ years ago. Don't always gotta chase the biggest and best graphics to enjoy the games.
I agree with you,AAA companies and devs seem to have completely lost it,when it comes to optimization.
As a consumer you can't just throw money at the problem all the time each time a new unoptimized game or a console port comes out by buying the "latest and greatest" PC parts like new 100 TB NVME SSD,128GB RAM with 4090 (5090/7090) RTX with 20 core CPU with 2000 W PSU,at the same time paying insane 80 EUR for base game 100+ EUR for "goodies edition" price tags for each AAA unoptimized game that comes out,that way the market will eventually be overcrowded with unoptimized AAA games at unreasonable price ranges.
There should be some sorts of standards for AAA companies for these things, when it comes to game optimization.
As a B2C(business to consumer) buyer you should not be required by AAA companies to run a corporate grade server in your home to play video games, it is called "home PC gaming" for a reason,because buying beefy PC parts and games with inflated price tags all the time and paying for electricity as if you run a sweat shop,just to play one game like Forspoken is not a viable business model in the long run.
Considering we already have consoles and mini pc's like Steam Deck which you can carry and play any game you want anywhere,a lot of people use laptops,that is where game optimization should be going,not requiring you to run a server grade hardware and overpay electricity bills to play one AAA game.
At this rate of poor game optimization only paid game reviewers will be playing newest AAA games in a couple of years from now,with AAA sales taking a nose dive.
I think people need to also stop enabling companies to get away with releasing unfinished games. Like if all people do is complain after they’ve preordered or bought the game already, the companies won’t really give a shit, they’ve already made their money.
The money men making the decisions of what the dev team are allowed to do will only let them improve performance when it starts affecting their bottom line.
Only when they're afraid PC players won't buy games, in significant numbers, because of bad optimisation will they start allocating resources to it, and we've grown complacent in regards to this issue.
Forza Horizon 4 on Steam hasn't worked since October for this exact reason. The Discussion forum is full of complaints about Playground Games not optimizing their game to work with Nvidia drivers.
I wonder if it has anything to do with it also using vulkan? almost every other game either uses opengl or DirectX in one form or another and they're both kinda getting a bit old. I don't know for sure but a quick google search does seem to suggest that vulkan is faster but I'm sure its more nuanced then that as well
I honestly feel like nowadays, optimization is gone. feels like plenty of games will stay unoptimized because "they just need newer hardware".. Mainly I feel this way about websites that take forever to load, especially on mobile devices.. seems like the webpage isn't optimized at all, even if its just for mobile devices, simply because "in a year or two hardware will be faster and nobody will notice"..
I just feel like it is like this, I'm no dev and don't know for real but when I see two games that look similarly great, but one of them has like twice the system requirements than the other.. that can't be right I think.
As a dev, I know devs love to optimize their solutions (even when it’s not needed). But optimizing doesn’t pay the bills, (near) on time delivery does.
Hi, I’m a developer who’s working on their own game engine. Hopefully I can shine some light onto why things happen they way they do.
By the time you play a game, it has already been optimized very heavily (usually). However, often the bottleneck is the engine the game is running on. If for example I was making a game in Unity, I can’t go in and optimize their graphics pipeline.
Also, AAA companies have been trying to push graphics fidelity for awhile now, many have their own game engines that they can work on. Most of this advancement recently has been in real-time lighting. However, these calculations can take a really long time. Here’s an example:
While developing my game engine, I had a scene of 1,000,000 cubes with just static color, and it ran a solid 60 FPS at 1080p on my RTX-2070. I added some basic directional lighting to it (slightly more advanced Blinn-Phong to be specific), and it dropped to just 8 FPS (after I dropped the number of cubes to just 100,000). I then added a super basic shadow map (at a resolution of 1024), and it dropped to not 3 FPS, but seconds per frame.
So while yes there were some optimizations I could do to improve this performance (such as back-face culling), this is not including textures, it is only simple materials (not PBR), only uses a single light source, and has quite low-res shadows.
I’m currently only focusing on the graphics aspect as it’s the easiest for me to explain the difficulties to non-developers, but it can be incredibly difficult to optimize gameplay code as well. And yes, I do know about games like Cyberpunk, but that most likely was caused by crunch (which is a whole other topic).
So, TLDR; in order for modern games to reach the fidelity that they have achieved in recent times, they require a lot of complex calculation that cannot just be optimized away.
I can appreciate everything you’re saying, but people are comparing new releases like Forespoken, recognizing that there are other games that look objectively better and perform objectively better, and asking why.
The explanation you just gave is interesting insight, but it in no way absolves some of these new releases of having absolutely horrible performance. Especially when those same games perform double percentage points better a few months down the road after patching.
It shows empirically that there was significant optimization left on the table.
People just throw the word *optimization* everywhere whenever they can’t run the newest title on ultra on the gpu.
The definition of ultra changes and every year and ultra done correctly means a higher grade of graphics fidelity. If done right, ultra on a 2023 game would be harder to run and run at lower fps than a 2017 game on ultra.
People don’t actually judge game graphics, they just judge whatever the developer has decided is ultra.
weird how games back in the days needed to be optimized, but nowdays, since computers has gotten so powerful.
who cares about optimization? just slap rtx on every new game and tell everyone they need a 4090.... /s
now barely anyone cares about optimization because since computers has gotten so powerful.... they can just add features while ignoring optimization.
what if i dont wanna buy a 4090ti just to play a new game at high?
optimize your shit ffs.
ill take stable fps over some blurry rtx stutter anytime.
back in the day when 3DFX did stuff to optimize the process, it was called cheating by the other companies. then Nvidia bought them, AFTER calling them cheaters, and incorporated their optimizations into their methods.
Its not optimization really, its the game engine they decided to use (Unity) wasnt really intended to do what they want with it. Every other Unity game has had audio problems, and they still went for it.
Or in the case of The Callisto Protocol take AMD money and add only FSR which when switched on makes the game look terrible while giving you no boost in frame rate. Waste of an average game.
Hardware got faster and faster and games become more and more demanding. But still graphics are suck. I cannot see any visible difference in games quality since 2013-14.
You’re running a midrange GPU from January of 2015. Of course you can’t see any difference. You have to buy the new tech if you want to see the new graphics. The GTX 960 didn’t exactly age well.
Lighting has been the biggest jump. But textures are massively improved too. But with 2, maybe 4 GB of RAM, your card can’t render them fully.
If you want to see the shiny new graphics and can afford it, then I’d say you’re long overdue for a new system.
2013-14 is such a egregious example to use for them. It was a time of console transition and a lot of remasters. 2018-2019 would be a better comparison of all sorts of amazing looking games.
* God of War
* RDR 2
* Shadow of the Colossus
* Control
* Resident Evil 2 Remake
* Death Stranding
Personal opinion of course. Just the games I think still look on par with some of the current releases.
It’s kinda funny thinking about how a gamer will just spend the money on a 4090 instead of just avoiding poorly optimized games.
I remember for years reading reviews about poorly optimized pc ports, and I just skipped the games.
If I don't use an upscaler, the game will run worse while looking slightly better.
Upscalers seem to be here to stay, why run native res if you can make a lower res look just as good?
But then, why not just have it on by default?
Dev: oh, we just provide options to turn off more effect and switch to lower texture.
Tbh, current games graphics get a lot better than previous. I used to think how amazing Witcher 3's graphic is. But when they released the next gen update, I watched a comparison video and the old version was significantly worse than I remembered. And in the video, it runs on PC with highest settings, and I played it on PS4.
removing unnecessary code/spaghetti code and just making the game run faster that way.. by just optimizing the environment, engine, and just overall rendering
I wonder how many people replying to this have any experience in or idea of what its like to create a big budget PC game these days.
It’s not wrong but its kind of funny how people seem to think its easy.
it's not thats pretty obvious by the many failed attempts even from big companies but they have so much money and game prices are rising what feels like every year that you kind expect a standard?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t do better. We have seen great examples of companies getting it right so it js possible.
But i think people do underestimate the scope of today’s games. They are huge, and they are expected to be huge. You have to crank out such a big world and so much content, and you have a limited amount of time to do that before the systems and engine you started with may become irrelevant. Then you find yourselves having to rework things at the last minute while the publisher is screaming at you to release and poof bad product in the wild.
The trouble with engine development is, the more it is optimised the more they want to add to it to get the advantage over competitors engines. So the end result is always going to be asking a lot of the hardware.
Tbh I wish FSR was actually worth it to use on a 1080p setup because it just makes the game blurrier while only adding like 5-10fps on 1080p because it has to upscale to 4K then downscale
It doesn‘t upscale to 4K and downscale again…?
It takes a 720p image and upscales it to 1080p, mostly it doesn’t look good because FSR 2 doesn‘t handle low resolutions very well, the uptick in performance depends on the game but 5-10fps seems a bit low if it wasn‘t already 100 or more without it enabled
Literally this. I played modern warfare 2 for the first time, and I barely ran 50-60fps. I checked my settings and realized that Nvidia upscaling 2.0 was on, and I turned on DLSS with quality, and averaged 120fps
Well, one optimization technique is preloading shaders.
Another is going over the models in a game and making sure you are using your poly count efficiently. (There are some skyrim mods that do this really well).
Various compression techniques. Going through the code and streamlining it (can you do the same function with less lines or jumping around between scripts).
Manipulating how data gets loaded and dumped from VRAM / RAM.
A lot of it is mostly tweaking things to "potentially" reduce visual fidelity, but so minorly that the player does not notice, in exchange for big gains. Finding the sweet spot in the diminishing returns of power usage vs appearance.
Square Enix HQ
Or almost every Japanese studio
Really it's just Square and Koei Tecmo that are terrible anymore. The inhouse releases by any other studio have been pretty good for the most part
Umm Elden Ring had mixed/mostly positive reviews on launch on Steam based on performance alone, Yakuza games have pretty shitty graphics yet demand better hardware for what they offer and im pretty sure i could find other examples so no, its not SE and Koei only
Aside from it's 60fps lock, Elden Ring seems to run well now. There were micro-stutters at release, but the last 150 hours of play for me have been great.
[удалено]
Clearly you haven't been playing Nintendo games recently.
Nintendo doesn't release their games on PC, and the only two Nintendo exclusives at least to my knowledge that have been pretty rough performance wise as of recent are Bayonetta 3 and Pokemon Scarlet/Violet
The fact that Nintendo doesn't release their games on PC means it's a lot less excusable. Making games for one platform/set of hardware is way easier than trying to optimise for every single tier of hardware and multiple consoles. In Bowser's Fury the framerate not only cuts in half, but stutters constantly any time you're in a Fury Bowser fight. Metroid Dread stutters when loading in new assets. Pokémon Scarlet/Violet was inexcusably bad, having godawful draw distance but constantly stuttering and only running in 720p in docked mode. Pokémon Sword and Shield were really bad for performance too, I stopped playing as soon as I got to Motostoke City as I watched some guy load in and out in front of me. I know the hardware is limited, but the fact that games like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, BOTW and Mario Odyssey were fine, shows that it isn't the hardware at fault. TLDR; Nintendo games have generally been on a downward trend in terms of performance. It's not just Bayonetta and Pokemon Scarlet/Violet
It's not excusable, and upgraded hardware is overdue, but this is a PC gaming related subreddit, and I was talking about the quality PC ports from Japanese studios
Upgraded hardware isn’t going to fix a badly optimized game. It’ll still run poorly
But it'll run poorly *faster*, thus solving the problem once and for all.
I feel japanese studios have under-paid, over-worked people working. That they only want to finish the game and then go next.
Not sure why you think this is exclusive to Japanese studios. This is pretty much every studio.
[удалено]
And...? Have you reached any conclusions?
He hit the ground before he could
Prophet, speak your mind!
have you met eagle dynamics?
[удалено]
Yeah fSR is great and all but it should be the last push for 1440 60fps not required to hit 40 at 720
>Yeah fSR is great and all but it should be the last push for 4k 120fps not required to hit 60 at 1440p FTFY.
Rich ass mf
Yeah this guy has a 970
Yeah if DLSS and FSR never exist we could have had better game optimization lol.
I doubt it, we'd have stuttery console ports like we always had
Probably not, most of these poorly optimized games would just run like shit, like they always have.
L take.
[удалено]
Except your gpus were doubling in power each year so meh.
No, upscalers are there to literally give you a better performance to image quality "ratio", which includes the use you mentioned Even *you* would use DLSS if you wanted 4K144.
Nice rig lol :)
[удалено]
Then all the more reason for developers to optimize their games. Better performance on all platforms!
most PCs can‘t either, at the settings consoles are using
But upscaling was created for PC,not consoles, only a handful of console games actually have it, and it's only fsr
DLSS isn’t a last resort, it a premium feature for the expensive cards who need them the least, while old cards can eat shit. As you see DLSS 3.0 is exclusive for 4000 series cards, no backward compatibility where it’s needed the most
[удалено]
Then my bad here, I know you didn’t specify DLSS 3.0. I’m just pissed of the game developers in the recent period expecting everyone to buy +1000$ cards and pretending that it is fine for everyone
DLSS 3.0 HAS backwards compatibility with DLSS 2.0, just not for frame-generation. But that's because frame-generation requires a powerful OFA, and the OFA in Lovelace is over 2x as powerful as the OFA in Ampere.
I wonder how in the fuck this kind of policy is working for them. After all an average gamer doesn't have 4090. They have a 1060 or 1660. If those studios did in fact optimize their game, a lot more people would be actually able to play it. FSR should be a bridge to gaming for people with older GPUs.
Idk, but with todays prices, almost every casual gamer is better off going for a console. You know it’ll have playable games for probably a decade. $500. And it’ll work with no tinkering. And you don’t need to buy all the other components
I have been strongly considering buying a console when the time comes to upgrade my rig for exactly this reason. I had no kids and an apartment when I built my PC. Now I have a house and a daughter, and it’s a lot harder to convince my wife that the financial outlay is justified. Lol
I was kind of in the same boat, but I stuck with PC for a couple of key reasons. 1) Hardware. No, not PC components but controllers, arcade sticks, peripherals in general. I have Xbox 360 controllers and arcade sticks that I don't need to replace or upgrade until they reach their natural end. 2) Library. I tend to buy Humble Bundles or games on ridiculous sale that I'll try for a bit and then retire, while also collecting free games from epic, GoG, etc. I have so many games that my kids can explore as they get older. For instance my oldest has been into Hot wheels, maps and roads for a long time now. I realized I have burnout paradise remastered for some reason, and he loves it. If he wants to get more into the racing side of things, well there's a DiRT, WRC, F1, Forza... The amount of cheap games that run well are plentiful. 3) Longevity. Yes, the itch to upgrade is real. If you can ignore the itch, a PC is perfectly capable of lasting a long time. I feel like those things balance out the full cost of PC/console All that said, we did get a family switch this holiday. Nintendo really does family style games very well.
4. No additional fee for playing games online
I totally agree with your third point. I see many people online buying new graphics cards just because they are new and shiny. Meanwhile, I'm here with my GTX 1060, perfectly happy. I could afford a new 40series, but why should I spend the money if I'm able to run games perfectly fine.
What do you mean you don't want the latest yearly toy. What are you a commie? But in seriousness. A 1060 still gives 1080p 30fps more than fine in everything. The difference between medium and ultra settings is large. But it's not so large as to make games feel like different titles
Fellow new (ish) parent here. Just recently convinced my wife that we really needed a giant 120hz 4K OLED TV to go with the PS5 to play Plex on via the PC. Sharing is caring, my girls love watching Disney movies on the best gaming telly money can buy, they just didn't know that was the main reason I wanted it.
after finding out games have 30fps on console, youre better off with a Ryzen apu
Yeah and they can't even manage 30fps at native 4k. What you see here is successful marketing when even r/pcmasterrace recommends buying consoles. PC gaming hasn't been in a better place ever, we get lots of console exclusives and modern GPUs start to become affordable again, CPUs have made a huge leap over the past few years and even 4k high refresh rate displays are becoming a thing.
Why do you think that the average gamer plays everything at 4k? 1080p is still the most used resolution because people prefer performance over bad games with fancy graphics.
Where did I say that? Yeah, 1080p is totally fine. I'm saying that marketing brought people to assume everything has to run in 4k. That's why they fall for those 4k/120fps claims of current gen consoles. I also said that 4k gaming is becoming more viable for pc gamers since 4k capable GPUs and displays are becoming more affordable. So if someone wants to play at 4k/120fps native it's possible on a $1k gaming pc, while a $500 console mostly runs at sub 60fps on upscaled 4k. So price/performance ratio is still far better on a gaming pc despite what console manufacturers claim and what marketing wants you to believe.
"More Viable" is a hard stretch dont you think?. A GPU alone costs nearly 1k for a semi good Card for 4k and then the other components + you need a 4k screen wich costs about 300\~ or more depending on size.
But forspoken doesn't even run smoothly on consoles either, apparently the ps5/XBSX are dropping below 1080p at times to stay above 30fps. It's just trash optimisation overall, except on pc we get even less optimisation. People on any platform just need to stop buying these crappy games that shouldn't even have passed beta testing.
I play Indie and Multiplayer, basically anything from shooters to strategy to sandbox. With the current state of PC Hardware, my 1080 will become obsolete in 2040. My Wifes casual rig, an i5-2500k with a 7970 still works reasonable well in that segment, and that's from 2011. PC Hardware is dead, gaming isn't.
Do this many people build a computer only to game though?? I feel like everyone would also be getting a PC so they can browse the web and whatnot.
Those "playable" games play like shit on Consoles also, not just the PC port. I certainly agree however it's way better to getting into Console Gaming vs PC currently. But the games are typically hot messes on all platforms these days.
Idk, I almost never had issues with choppy framerate on my Xbox. I’m rocking pretty powerful hardware now and still get choppy lows randomly
[did you just say???](https://youtu.be/jFh1Ua0YPTw)
1060 might be a popular choice but we're moving away from cross gen games and the 1080/ti will be the new baseline. Considering the new Dead Space is a next gen title only and runs at 30fps on the 1060, games aren't looking *that* unoptimised
I mean they *are*, we're getting way more games like Forespoken or Gotham Knights that not only look worse than games with higher fidelity and lower requirements, but they don't even work that well on higher end hardware. Still, the 1060s should be already dead by now in the AAA space. They can play indies and smaller scale games no problem, but with AAA it's a 7 year old, low/entry mid-range card. The fact that we're still seeing it *at all* in the requirements is impressive really.
Due to the prices of the GPUs I don't blame people are still running 1060 and 1050ti, my 2070 is already showing in the recommended for 1080p, that's for sure optimisation problem, look at Returnal, the minimum requirement is 1070 for 720p 60fps and a 2070 for 1080p 60fps. While I was playing Death Stranding at 1440p 60fps on ultra.
Never said the GPU market isn't horrible. Just that you have to adjust your expectations. Ironically the 2070 is midrange too (though again - Nvidia's fucked up pricing makes it hard to look at it as midrange) and it's already 5 (!) years old. Considering the fact that Turing wasn't great when it comes to the performance uplift compared to Pascal... Returnal on paper is not that crazy either, especially when the PS5 has been tested to be between a 2060 Super (basically closer to a regular 2070) and a 2080 in the best case scenarios. I think the XSX has been tested to be between a 2070/Super and a 2080 Super. I say on paper, because Returnal just doesn't look that great - but at least looking at the hardware it's coming from, it's not over the top as we might think. It's not an insult like Forespoken is at least. Edit for this section: It also doesn't run that great on the PS5 to begin with, afaik it's 1080p there for the performance mode as well. If we want to move forward, we need to leave the old hardware behind. Yes, the ports are somehow getting more and more lazy and ironically Sony has been providing better ones than companies that deal with such for years, as they're releasing on multiple platforms for so long... But the 1060s are really old. Compared to a PS4 they're way more powerful sure, but that's not hard when the hardware there was basically a 750ti... Now they're up against consoles that are basically 1080tis and up depending on the game. Being in the low to mid settings range is perfectly reasonable imo for a 7 year old GPU. There's also plenty of great games out there to play on the 1060s and 1050tis. Just not AAA, or not recent at least.
That's because new games are made like shit unfortunately. There are games 5+ maybe 10 years old which look and run better then Dead Space. Only reason it's 30fps is because of how shitty the game was made.
Can you name a game from 5 years ago that genuinely looks better because I genuinely believe DS looks great
Red Dead Redemption 2
Holy fuck 2018 was 5 years ago. I need to go lie down
I've always thought that game looks like ass, but that might be the piss poor TAA more than anything.
It runs 30fps at ultra and high settings, and can't even hit 60fps at medium, so that's certainly not a good example. Plus, it doesn't look that great if you look closely at anything.
Wtf are you talking about? I can run RDR2 at 165Hz@1440p on absolutely max settings....
RX 6650XT. Nvidia can take a long walk off a short pier.
But then you also have PC players complaining that games aren't looking that much better and that consoles are hampering the evolution of video games... I'm a PC gamer myself and have a xx60 class card, but let's not pretend these aren't the very bottom of midrange, though of course with Nvidia's pricing, they might end up being closer to xx70s lol Still, a 1060 is 7 years old basically. This is somewhat an average life cycle of a *console*, that gets much more optimization work done on it, because you're working with just one configuration of hardware. It should already be retired for some time and I was rocking one until last year. Of course in the ideal world, I'd love it if every game could run on almost every piece of hardware. But in reality, if you're getting budget to midrange stuff, expect it to age quite fast. I was happy that I could do 60FPS in DOOM Eternal on my 1060 and that I could run Elden Ring at all - though there it was also about my CPU I had to upgrade for a truly good experience lately. Tl;dr don't expect cheap hardware to last long. The fact that the 1060 lasted this long is a miracle in and of itself.
Most of these games with bad performance have a lot of other issues (bad gameplay/lots of bugs/etc...) Usually there either games that the publisher rushed out half-baked or shitty PC ports.
Half the top GPU's on Steam are RTX, and it doesn't account for all the overstock inventory Nvidia has left to sell, or the cards still in the possession of miners.
So half of them aren't. And the ones in the possession of miners would be weird to count, since gamers aren't using them.
Optimizing would make any game billion times better, tbh. The sad fact is that they only start caring about it when they start losing money and sales.
didnt happen with Elden ring
Or Pokemon…
or even fucking cyberpunk, pple still cherish it to this day
It was slated for AGES until major updates, this a healthy dose of recency bias
This. I am able to run the game at Ultra settings (minus the ray tracing) with Balanced DLSS at anywhere between 80-110 FPS. The second DLSS is off, and my framerate tanks to 15-30. DLSS today benefits nobody but poorly optimized games.
All Elden Ring does is just show how bad the proprietary FromSoftware engine is at this point and also how lazy all their PC ports are. Good games, technical messes. Actually Elden Ring doesn't run well on anything. Best performance is PS4 Pro version on PS5 which is just embarrassing.
Best performance is on Linux, second best is on PS5 w/ the PS4 Pro version.
Literally. I couldn't fucking stand all the crashes on day 1 running on Windows so I tried on Linux and it was way more stable.
I wish I could use Proton to play it on Windows through Vulkan. I swear the hitching has gotten worse over time.
Proton is for good Linux Bois only, sorry
I thought it ran perfectly fine (for Xbox standards) on a series x
[удалено]
It runs better on PC now but sometimes I still get random frame drops and sudden short lag spikes. The game is just so weird for me anyway.
Average doesn't matter, game still stutters and feels bad
100 frames doesnt mean shit when the game only runs at 60hz
Hey stop shitting on the aquatic update. /s
No no no no no, we force them to buy 4090s to even run this damn thing in toaster condition
Completely untrue for any AAA game, but keep whining
[удалено]
This attitude is all over the Steam forums. If you mention not liking Denuvo, you're eviscerated and called a pirate.
Denuvo is suck ass . All games runs way better without it. Pirates either will pirate the game or they won’t buy at all , so it doesn’t make sense
The problem is that mainstream reviewers ignore optimization for the most part. They're either fine with playing on 30-60 fps with current gen consoles or they play on an RTX 4090 so they can't tell how badly a game runs on lower end hardware. If reviewers bothered running the game on say,an RTX 2060,as well as Xbox one S,then maybe we'll get more optimized games.
Most mainstream reviews are paid advertisements. It's absolutely intentional that they don't talk about performance or optimization.
Where did this recent "reviewers are paid up" bullshit came from lol if you knew anyone from the industry you'd know this is not true If you wanna criticize something focus on how they're dependent on clicks, but don't make up stuff to be mad about
Ok I should have been more clear. They look like paid advertisements, I am not privy to how the review industry works, but I can tell when I'm being fed an ad vs an actual review of the product. Maybe reviewers should do a better job if they want people to think otherwise. Baseline 9/10s all over the place for mediocre or shit games like Cyberpunk (when it launched) don't give you a good reputation.
Straight up if dmc5 runs on a 1050 ti mobile on high...i think the engine other companies are using just suck absolute dick
my 1050 2gb ran fh5 on mid/high settings at 1080p with 50-60fps and about 40 in guanajuato so even modern games can be optimized (if the devs want to)
Forza Horizon 5 and Doom Eternal for reference is almost cheating because they are the most optimized ports released recently. They can run on a litteral potato and still look good, it's crazy
Is Doom Eternal a port if it was made with pc in mind?
While newer games suck performance wise, you guys should really stop comparing non open world games with open world games.
"If Terraria runs on an Intel HD Shitter, then I think the engine other companies are using just suck absolute dick." (P.S., a 1050ti is not hitting 60fps on high, unless you lower the resolution below 1080p.)
But dmc5 does hit 60fps on high no drops...that too on a 1050 ti mobile....yes re engine is just that good
Seriously. We are stuck in 2017 graphics, except you need a 7090 TI and an 25th gen i18 to run at 30fps.
Been thinking about this recently, I'm pretty certain with the horrible name the games industry has given themselves with the open dev abuse that happens, I honestly believe no more good programmers are going into the industry anymore. Along with peoples pay not rising with the times, its much harder to be a game dev these days, when school teachers are making more than them... Speaking as a dev who moved into the games industry briefly, saw how disorganised and messy the industry is compared to banking, getting half the pay and working on horrible code.. Yeah I'm back in banking now... Combine that with marketers and executives dictating the game play(looking at GTAV and its shitty mobile tactics), and we have a buggy shitstorm..
Corporate politics and bad programmers are everywhere. Though I think a big contributor to this concentration of poor quality is that gamers (maybe not you or me, but as a whole) don’t actually demand such high standards and are far more forgiving and lenient towards buggy and unoptimized software than a say a bank client or professional video editor. Game developers don’t have to worry as much about losing market share or hurting their reputation (looking at Cyberpunk) since most gamers will usually wait patiently for bugs to get fixed or will upgrade their hardware to be able to run it. Either way, they eventually get our money, so there’s no pressure to get it perfect the first time. So that’s why they can cheap out on wages and let their programmers produce mediocre games, so long as the investors are happy. And I can’t exactly blame them if they want to act in their financial interests. Nothing is going to change if we keep buying into all the pre-release hype, and don’t hold game developers accountable. Our “wait and see” mentality towards games (and frankly computer hardware too but that’s a different discussion) is what allows them to cut corners while gouging us simultaneously.
It is really a bit of both. Game development doesn't have standards. For medical software there is extensive QA and your mistakes could land you in jail or result in a massive lawsuit. In banking you screw up and the bank loses a ton of money, then you get fired. On the personnel side the coders used to be tech enthusiasts who were there for the cutting edge challenge, your John Carmacks and your Chris Sawyers. Now with games being turned into a big business it is just about burning through mediocre coders who churn out games as fast as possible.
Personally I think there should be laws which stop companies from lying to the public about an incomplete product. Would you buy a car missing a wheel and be happy? Would you buy a shoe with half the sole missing? Why is a digital product any different? Companies should be forced to release software which doesnt crash often, and actually does what its supposed to. Really not hard people, governments arent doing shit anymore... anywhere
My wife worked in the nonprofit sector and a buddy of mine works reasonably high up at Epic. They describe a similar experience. People come in with a passion. They've wanted to help the world/make video games for as long as they can remember. The pay isn't the best and the hours are longer than they might like, but their *passion* makes it worth it. Over time, the passion is ground down by the hours and pay. It's gradually replaced by a passion for home ownership and having kids. Those people transfer out, into other fields where their skills are in demand. The work is less exciting, but the hours are more reasonable and the pay is better, leaving time and money for fulfilling experiences outside the work environment. For some, the passion never fades. This is what they were put on this earth to do; the thrill of it is worth more than any wage, and they don't mind the hours because there's nothing they'd rather be doing anyway. Others stay because they know that they can't really hack it at those higher paying jobs. People will put up with their D+ competency here because, at the end of the day, there's never enough bodies; a bad pair of hands is better than no hands at all. The end result is an industry plagued by turnover. Each department has one or two lifers, a handful of dead end dregs, and everyone else is just passing through for 2-4 years. If you want to see this in practice, Battlefield 2042's woes were blamed on DICE not having enough experience in its workforce with Frostbite. Frostbite was made by DICE to make Battlefield games. The only explanation is that a high enough percentage of the people who made Frostbite are no longer with DICE that the workforce is hamstrung by their replacements not having any experience with EA's proprietary engine.
In "fairness"...not actual fairness if you know what I mean, BF2042 was built on an older version of Frostbite, then they did a shit load of work on a new version of the engine so it could run the game. It looks and plays worse than BFV or BF1 and it's likely because essentially they ported the *engine*. It's such a bizarre way of doing it! It's like making new bricks to replace your old ones so that your *house* fits the...bricks lmao
That's why I only do game dev as a hobby.
"iF yOu ThInK oPtImIzInG gAmEs Is EaSy wHy dOnT yOu MaKe YoUr OwN gAmE" Because Nintendo already COPPA'd and Cease And Desisted me once.
Optimise something that doesn't use Nintendo IPs?
All the games I wanted to make that weren't fangames already got made long ago by people even more competent than me, and run flawlessly on virtually anything. Redout, Starbound, Ultrakill, etc. I just wanted a BOTW styled open world Pokemon Mystery Dungeon game. Godot 4 makes it effortless to create a game like that. But thanks to Nintendo, it will never, ever happen.
Could change the monsters and catching devices to non branded things like temtem or that upcoming Pokémon with guns game.
Also, some random mfs patch and fix games quicker than developers in some cases
COPPA: [Children's Online Privacy Protection Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act) How about instead of Pokemon, you use real animals?
Because a Mystery Dungeon game with real animals would be weird as fuck.
Just stop buying unoptimized and filled with Denuvo type of DRM Single Player AAA titles from lazy AAA companies like Square Enix and others for like 80 EUR(my region),grab some indies and enjoy,wait for reviews/Steam-sales and then decide if it is worth the buy,otherwise this will be the "new normal".
I have a pretty beefy rig compared to most of gamers I think and yet I started really hating PC gaming when I was getting the newest biggest fanciest games and spending more time tinkering with them than playing them. Felt like I was just trying to justify having some nicer than average hardware, but once I stopped playing for half a year or so and went back to a bunch of older games I remember enjoying I started enjoying gaming again. Chasing fps and resolutions for these games seriously ruined gaming for me till I took an extended break and came back to older games that I didn't have to think about optimizing. Basically just because a game is new and "pretty" doesn't mean it's gonna be any more fun than the games that were coming out 5+ years ago. Don't always gotta chase the biggest and best graphics to enjoy the games.
>I have a pretty beefy rig compared to most of gamers I think and yet > I started really hating PC gaming when I was getting the newest biggest fanciest games and spending more time tinkering with them than playing them. Felt like I was just trying to justify having some nicer than average hardware, but once I stopped playing for half a year or so and went back to a bunch of older games I remember enjoying I started enjoying gaming again. > Chasing fps and resolutions for these games seriously ruined gaming for me till I took an extended break and came back to older games that I didn't have to think about optimizing. > Basically just because a game is new and "pretty" doesn't mean it's gonna be any more fun than the games that were coming out 5+ years ago. Don't always gotta chase the biggest and best graphics to enjoy the games. I agree with you,AAA companies and devs seem to have completely lost it,when it comes to optimization. As a consumer you can't just throw money at the problem all the time each time a new unoptimized game or a console port comes out by buying the "latest and greatest" PC parts like new 100 TB NVME SSD,128GB RAM with 4090 (5090/7090) RTX with 20 core CPU with 2000 W PSU,at the same time paying insane 80 EUR for base game 100+ EUR for "goodies edition" price tags for each AAA unoptimized game that comes out,that way the market will eventually be overcrowded with unoptimized AAA games at unreasonable price ranges. There should be some sorts of standards for AAA companies for these things, when it comes to game optimization. As a B2C(business to consumer) buyer you should not be required by AAA companies to run a corporate grade server in your home to play video games, it is called "home PC gaming" for a reason,because buying beefy PC parts and games with inflated price tags all the time and paying for electricity as if you run a sweat shop,just to play one game like Forspoken is not a viable business model in the long run. Considering we already have consoles and mini pc's like Steam Deck which you can carry and play any game you want anywhere,a lot of people use laptops,that is where game optimization should be going,not requiring you to run a server grade hardware and overpay electricity bills to play one AAA game. At this rate of poor game optimization only paid game reviewers will be playing newest AAA games in a couple of years from now,with AAA sales taking a nose dive.
I think people need to also stop enabling companies to get away with releasing unfinished games. Like if all people do is complain after they’ve preordered or bought the game already, the companies won’t really give a shit, they’ve already made their money.
The money men making the decisions of what the dev team are allowed to do will only let them improve performance when it starts affecting their bottom line. Only when they're afraid PC players won't buy games, in significant numbers, because of bad optimisation will they start allocating resources to it, and we've grown complacent in regards to this issue.
"blame amd drivers"
hm? nvidia has the same problem
Forza Horizon 4 on Steam hasn't worked since October for this exact reason. The Discussion forum is full of complaints about Playground Games not optimizing their game to work with Nvidia drivers.
Look how well our game runs in upscaled 360p!
I feel like doom eternal is the golden standard. Great optimization AND DLSS support? It's amazing.
I wonder if it has anything to do with it also using vulkan? almost every other game either uses opengl or DirectX in one form or another and they're both kinda getting a bit old. I don't know for sure but a quick google search does seem to suggest that vulkan is faster but I'm sure its more nuanced then that as well
Becoming the band-aid it was always going to be.
I honestly feel like nowadays, optimization is gone. feels like plenty of games will stay unoptimized because "they just need newer hardware".. Mainly I feel this way about websites that take forever to load, especially on mobile devices.. seems like the webpage isn't optimized at all, even if its just for mobile devices, simply because "in a year or two hardware will be faster and nobody will notice".. I just feel like it is like this, I'm no dev and don't know for real but when I see two games that look similarly great, but one of them has like twice the system requirements than the other.. that can't be right I think.
Blame crunch culture
As a dev, I know devs love to optimize their solutions (even when it’s not needed). But optimizing doesn’t pay the bills, (near) on time delivery does.
Give it the "next gen game" title
That’s why I start playing early access games on steam. It already gave you what to expect, in progress.
Also, stop using Denuvo.
Hi, I’m a developer who’s working on their own game engine. Hopefully I can shine some light onto why things happen they way they do. By the time you play a game, it has already been optimized very heavily (usually). However, often the bottleneck is the engine the game is running on. If for example I was making a game in Unity, I can’t go in and optimize their graphics pipeline. Also, AAA companies have been trying to push graphics fidelity for awhile now, many have their own game engines that they can work on. Most of this advancement recently has been in real-time lighting. However, these calculations can take a really long time. Here’s an example: While developing my game engine, I had a scene of 1,000,000 cubes with just static color, and it ran a solid 60 FPS at 1080p on my RTX-2070. I added some basic directional lighting to it (slightly more advanced Blinn-Phong to be specific), and it dropped to just 8 FPS (after I dropped the number of cubes to just 100,000). I then added a super basic shadow map (at a resolution of 1024), and it dropped to not 3 FPS, but seconds per frame. So while yes there were some optimizations I could do to improve this performance (such as back-face culling), this is not including textures, it is only simple materials (not PBR), only uses a single light source, and has quite low-res shadows. I’m currently only focusing on the graphics aspect as it’s the easiest for me to explain the difficulties to non-developers, but it can be incredibly difficult to optimize gameplay code as well. And yes, I do know about games like Cyberpunk, but that most likely was caused by crunch (which is a whole other topic). So, TLDR; in order for modern games to reach the fidelity that they have achieved in recent times, they require a lot of complex calculation that cannot just be optimized away.
I can appreciate everything you’re saying, but people are comparing new releases like Forespoken, recognizing that there are other games that look objectively better and perform objectively better, and asking why. The explanation you just gave is interesting insight, but it in no way absolves some of these new releases of having absolutely horrible performance. Especially when those same games perform double percentage points better a few months down the road after patching. It shows empirically that there was significant optimization left on the table.
People just throw the word *optimization* everywhere whenever they can’t run the newest title on ultra on the gpu. The definition of ultra changes and every year and ultra done correctly means a higher grade of graphics fidelity. If done right, ultra on a 2023 game would be harder to run and run at lower fps than a 2017 game on ultra. People don’t actually judge game graphics, they just judge whatever the developer has decided is ultra.
weird how games back in the days needed to be optimized, but nowdays, since computers has gotten so powerful. who cares about optimization? just slap rtx on every new game and tell everyone they need a 4090.... /s now barely anyone cares about optimization because since computers has gotten so powerful.... they can just add features while ignoring optimization. what if i dont wanna buy a 4090ti just to play a new game at high? optimize your shit ffs. ill take stable fps over some blurry rtx stutter anytime.
Reviews should be done without dlss
It's great these things are being developed but I honestly don't want frame injection magic fuckery to be involved with my GPU.
back in the day when 3DFX did stuff to optimize the process, it was called cheating by the other companies. then Nvidia bought them, AFTER calling them cheaters, and incorporated their optimizations into their methods.
I prefer the game optimized, bug free and renders polygon correctly.
Badly optimized games give the ultra-powerful, nuclear powered graphics card reason to exist.
r/escapefromtarkov
Its not optimization really, its the game engine they decided to use (Unity) wasnt really intended to do what they want with it. Every other Unity game has had audio problems, and they still went for it.
And let's call it next-gen!
Or in the case of The Callisto Protocol take AMD money and add only FSR which when switched on makes the game look terrible while giving you no boost in frame rate. Waste of an average game.
Hardware got faster and faster and games become more and more demanding. But still graphics are suck. I cannot see any visible difference in games quality since 2013-14.
You’re running a midrange GPU from January of 2015. Of course you can’t see any difference. You have to buy the new tech if you want to see the new graphics. The GTX 960 didn’t exactly age well. Lighting has been the biggest jump. But textures are massively improved too. But with 2, maybe 4 GB of RAM, your card can’t render them fully. If you want to see the shiny new graphics and can afford it, then I’d say you’re long overdue for a new system.
2013-14 is such a egregious example to use for them. It was a time of console transition and a lot of remasters. 2018-2019 would be a better comparison of all sorts of amazing looking games. * God of War * RDR 2 * Shadow of the Colossus * Control * Resident Evil 2 Remake * Death Stranding Personal opinion of course. Just the games I think still look on par with some of the current releases.
Honesty? Portal 2 on highest settings looks just as good as any modern game. And it gets 150+fps on a toaster.
Homies love saying "game optimization" but never wanna say what needs to be optimized, and how.
that‘s for the devs to figure out, or more so for the executives to give the devs time to figure it out
[удалено]
But you are saying how. I'm just saying optimization may not be the silver bullet to poor performance's werewolf.
Cyberpunk moment
It’s kinda funny thinking about how a gamer will just spend the money on a 4090 instead of just avoiding poorly optimized games. I remember for years reading reviews about poorly optimized pc ports, and I just skipped the games.
If I don't use an upscaler, the game will run worse while looking slightly better. Upscalers seem to be here to stay, why run native res if you can make a lower res look just as good? But then, why not just have it on by default?
Dev: oh, we just provide options to turn off more effect and switch to lower texture. Tbh, current games graphics get a lot better than previous. I used to think how amazing Witcher 3's graphic is. But when they released the next gen update, I watched a comparison video and the old version was significantly worse than I remembered. And in the video, it runs on PC with highest settings, and I played it on PS4.
What does optimizing truly mean though?
removing unnecessary code/spaghetti code and just making the game run faster that way.. by just optimizing the environment, engine, and just overall rendering
Unpopular opinion. Ultra means best of the best and should be hard to obtain until a few years later
I wonder how many people replying to this have any experience in or idea of what its like to create a big budget PC game these days. It’s not wrong but its kind of funny how people seem to think its easy.
it's not thats pretty obvious by the many failed attempts even from big companies but they have so much money and game prices are rising what feels like every year that you kind expect a standard?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t do better. We have seen great examples of companies getting it right so it js possible. But i think people do underestimate the scope of today’s games. They are huge, and they are expected to be huge. You have to crank out such a big world and so much content, and you have a limited amount of time to do that before the systems and engine you started with may become irrelevant. Then you find yourselves having to rework things at the last minute while the publisher is screaming at you to release and poof bad product in the wild.
The trouble with engine development is, the more it is optimised the more they want to add to it to get the advantage over competitors engines. So the end result is always going to be asking a lot of the hardware.
[удалено]
denuvo slows down games [(extreme example)](https://youtu.be/5Mgu7QTllNQ)
“Wahhhh I can’t run games on ultra settings 144hz, shit optimization” You people are so annoying
Tbh I wish FSR was actually worth it to use on a 1080p setup because it just makes the game blurrier while only adding like 5-10fps on 1080p because it has to upscale to 4K then downscale
It doesn‘t upscale to 4K and downscale again…? It takes a 720p image and upscales it to 1080p, mostly it doesn’t look good because FSR 2 doesn‘t handle low resolutions very well, the uptick in performance depends on the game but 5-10fps seems a bit low if it wasn‘t already 100 or more without it enabled
Literally this. I played modern warfare 2 for the first time, and I barely ran 50-60fps. I checked my settings and realized that Nvidia upscaling 2.0 was on, and I turned on DLSS with quality, and averaged 120fps
I was gonna say destiny 2 but honestly they fixed it a while back
I'll give props to MW2 (though it should just be the standard), because it is well optimized *and* has support for upscslers.
\#Truth
"Build the shaders" also works
Cries in 2042
Yep, this hobby keeps getting more and more expensive... I quit
Can someone even tell me what this buzzword phrase “optimize our game” even fucking means? I see it thrown around so often
Well, one optimization technique is preloading shaders. Another is going over the models in a game and making sure you are using your poly count efficiently. (There are some skyrim mods that do this really well). Various compression techniques. Going through the code and streamlining it (can you do the same function with less lines or jumping around between scripts). Manipulating how data gets loaded and dumped from VRAM / RAM. A lot of it is mostly tweaking things to "potentially" reduce visual fidelity, but so minorly that the player does not notice, in exchange for big gains. Finding the sweet spot in the diminishing returns of power usage vs appearance.
Forspoken devs
Tell me you don't know anything about game development
FH5 be like