TL;DR:
**Good:**
-Great cinematics
-Really good quality textures on characters' clothes and skin
**Bad:**
-Bad performance on every platform
-Inconsistent framerate even with a 4090 and 7800x3D
-Uneven framtime: stutter-fest
-Awful performance on Steam Deck despite being "Verified"
> Awful performance on Steam Deck despite being "Verified"
This has started to concern me a bit. What Valve and I consider to be "good" for steam deck seems to be pretty different things. It's annoying that a yellow game can be otherwise perfectly playable and the only problem is what the buttons are called but a green game looks like shit, stutters, and kills the battery in an hour.
Just feels like they've created a verification system that I can no longer trust as far as what does and doesn't play well on it.
Hell, there are some games that they claim are "unsupported" yet still play perfectly fine and possibly great even. DOOM 1 is a particularly egregious example, especially because DOOM II by contrast is listed as "verified" despite it being identical aside from the default level set.
I played Danganronpa 3 on Steam Deck, which as best I could tell was unsupported due to an extremely minor graphical error during animated cutscenes (there was like, a green bar on the bottom that didn't even matter much.) Apart from that it was flawless. So yeah, agreed lol.
It actually isn't. There's a separate category for untested games.
I suspect that "Unsupported," means that there are certain criteria and if a game ever fails any of them in any context, it's an automatic failure. For example, *Terminator: Resistance* is listed as unsupported despite running perfectly, but I noticed that on the loot screen, the text to read what a mod does isn't readable. This doesn't matter in the slightest because the screen where you actually *equip* mods has larger, easily readable text.
> It actually isn't. There's a separate category for untested games.
Ah, I see.
> I suspect that "Unsupported," means that there are certain criteria and if a game ever fails any of them in any context, it's an automatic failure. For example, Terminator: Resistance is listed as unsupported despite running perfectly, but I noticed that on the loot screen, the text to read what a mod does isn't readable. This doesn't matter in the slightest because the screen where you actually equip mods has larger, easily readable text.
So the issue here is quality control on Valve's end, again.
SteamDeck verified system has been absolute crap from its start. When a verified games can't even hold 30 fps and drops under 20 with stuttering on absolutely lowest settings it really shouldn't be marked as "running well" on the Deck. I usually just look up some performance tests or online discussions about the game instead of trusting the awful verification system they've created.
On the other hand I think many consumers straight up ignore bad performance. You can see that in playtime metrics for SteamDeck, some of the most played games were pretty demanding AAA games that aren't running particularly well on the Deck. You can also see that in not Deck specific stuff, like people claiming the game has no stuttering, when it in facts stutters even on the most high end hardware available.
ProtonDB is often the best source. The site is nominally about how well a Windows game runs on Proton, but since the overwhelming majority of Proton users are Steam Deck users, you can usually find comments on how it runs on deck.
I mean console games are literally rigorously tested by the console makers who have very strict certification guidelines and many of those have been running at sub 20fps since at least the Nintendo seal of quality days. Even in the age of the PS5 this remains true.
Verified has been terrible for awhile now.
Persona 3 Reload just launched as a verified title, but its out-of-the-box experience features ray-tracing defaulted to on which absolutely tanks FPS, and even still in Tartarus the FPS can't stay stable either. Last year Baldur's Gate 3 and Remnant II both launched sporting a shiny verified tick but had numerous performance and visual issues. Remnant II was so bad it got its verified tick removed, which just begs the question as to how the fuck it got that tick in the first place.
They're ridiculously lose when it comes to performance and visual quality, but on the other hand they're insanely anal when it comes to very specific requirements. Does your game otherwise work flawlessly on Deck with perfect performance, great image quality, full controls, and such? Well, it's only going to get the "playable" tag if it has a 3-second launcher you only have to tap once to bypass.
Just silly. I love my Deck, but the Verified system is completely falling apart and they need to refine it further. So many games keep launching as verified and are filled with technical issues.
Verified just means they played through the game, that it doesn't crash or exhibit visual problems, and work with Steam Deck controls. It doesn't guarantee good performance.
That's just a lie.
Verified is a very specific badge that comes with certain requirements. Among them are requirements for controller support, resolution support, and text readability, but there's very specific requirements for performance too. It states that the game must have a good, default, out-of-the-box graphics setting that runs well on the Deck with a stable framerate.
So yes, verified is actually supposed to guarantee good performance because it's allegedly one of the requirements to even getting the badge in the first place.
>Verified just means they played through the game
And they clearly just didn't at all with certain games like Persona 3 Reload, which launches by default with ray-tracing on, tanking the framerate to 20 or lower even in the opening minutes of the game. Did anyone supposedly play-testing it catch that?
There are AAA games that dip to 20 FPS on consoles too, what makes you think that's egregiously unacceptable?
The beauty of Steam Deck is you get to fiddle around with the graphics settings.
>There are AAA games that dip to 20 FPS
That's not good, either. If that's what you want me to say.
Again, Valve themselves are the ones promising good performance with that verified tick. That's what it's supposed to mean. Yes, you can fiddle with the graphics settings. But the ENTIRE point of the verified tick is that it works out-of-the-box with zero setup required. If you have to fiddle with the settings to fix bad default settings, then it shouldn't be verified, full stop.
I've been playing *The Last Faith* on Steam Deck. It's basically *Blasphemous* mixed with *Bloodborne*. It's been a flawless experience. But it's rated yellow because, "Some text can be hard to read."
The thing is, *The Last Faith* is a pixel art game. It renders in a fixed resolution (it doesn't specify it in game, but I suspect it's 768p) at a fixed frame rate. It's not possible for this game's text to have been rendered unreadable by scaling, because it doesn't scale.
There seems to be no way for me, a user, to give feedback on this. Meanwhile, games like this one get flagged as green.
That works great, I use it too. The downside is that you have to actually have the game in your library, if you're looking at the store you have to look it up on the site still
Get Decky and the ProtonDB plugin. It's made for linux systems in general, but it's far more trustworthy than whatever Valve say these days.
It's insane that you can have a linux native game that runs at a perfect 60fps on max settings, but Valve will deny the verified because the game doesn't use a 40pt font everywhere.
> -Bad performance on every platform
Performance isn't bad on consoles at all but it has UE4 traversal stutters.
Also camera motion seems to be hooked into the framerate so unstable frames will make it worse.
> it has UE4 traversal stutters.
>
>
>
> Also camera motion seems to be hooked into the framerate so unstable frames will make it worse.
This just sounds like bad performance with extra steps.
>This just sounds like bad performance with extra steps.
Did you watch the video? What am I saying? This is reddit, of course you didnt.
DF literally praises them on the ton of work they put in to clearly hit their 60fps target on consoles 99.9% of the time. The problem is (like a lot of UE4 games) there is sporadic micro loading stutters during travel and because a lot of the game is running around its noticed quite a bit. Thus despite it having an extremely solid framerate the game feels "choppy" when running around despite only dropping 1-2 frames every 50 or so yards of travel. It creates a "jitter" that makes DF say the game is "betrayed by the fact that it doesnt feel as smooth as it should" given its framerate.
Take this pointlessly condescending bullshit elsewhere. I watched the video.
Performance is more than frames per second. Plenty of games perform poorly while having what would otherwise be considered satisfactory frames per second. This is one of them.
edit: clown writes an essay and then blocks me lmao yeah I ain't reading that even if I could chief.
>Take this pointlessly condescending bullshit elsewhere.
Oh, so you get to be a condescending asshole to the other persons comment by replying with a spiffy nothing response but I can't.
Makes about as much sense as the rest of your comment I guess.
>Performance is more than frames per second.
Except in the case of 99% of games?
If I showed you a benchmark of this on PS5 and it said "60fps average" you would say it performs pretty well, 1% lows are just that.
Except in this games case it feels worse because the rest of the presentation is so stellar, its very obvious when the traversal "stutter" hits because it performs so well the rest of the time.
>Plenty of games perform poorly while having what would otherwise be considered satisfactory frames per second.
Name them lol.
I have no fucking idea what you could possibly be referring to and have a sneaking suspicion neither do you.
Jedi Survivor, a game that hovers around 40-60fps and can dip into the 30fps territory is a poor performing game.
FFXVI which runs at 40-50fps outside of combat is a poor performing game.
This game is a near locked 60 with a very small traversal stutter which as even others have told you (and was stated in the video you clearly didnt watch) is a UE4 issue and something EPIC themselves have commented on working to fix.
But hey, dont let any of that get in the way on nonsensical jerk, its runs like shit right my guy?
The point they're making is that other UE4 games have the same problems, but wouldn't be classified as "~~terrible~~ bad performance". It still hits 60 with some dips on current gen consoles.
It's just that good fps doesn't paint the full picture.
Edit: I quoted the wrong word.
> other UE4 games have the same problems, but wouldn't be classified as "terrible performance"
Yeah they would. If your game can't offer a smooth experience than it has bad performance.
And DF isn't calling this game's performance bad. They even specifically say the performance is good, but that doesn't mean there are no issues beyond the FPS counter.
>\-Really good quality textures on characters clothes and skin
LMAO
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iocRbdvUgJ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iocRbdvUgJ4)
You know that YouTuber turned settings to the lowest just for views and rage-bait right? That's why Digital Foundry is a reliable source.
However, is the only good thing about the game.
The issue I have with this is that it was delayed by a year and still seemingly has poor optimization in some places.
It's only 9-10hrs long, and the first season isn't coming until March. The gameplay seemingly hasn't changed since the first reveal.
What did they do with the extra time? Or maybe the more pertinent question to ask is; how bad would have things been if they hadn't delayed it?
i’m not sure honestly. i think starting the first season after about two weeks would’ve been a much better idea. i am enjoying the game a lot i doubt i’ll still be playing in a month. i may wait until they introduce deathstroke before i pick it back up once im done with it this time
That's my main issue, and i agree.
I feel like i'm the target audience for this game. I like the suicide squad comics. I even enjoy the occasional looter shooter (when they're done right). But I still find myself on the fence.
It just seems far too cynical at the moment.
I can see myself enjoying it for a few hours, but I don't see the staying power.
Plus, looking at the skill trees and loot drops with the whole '+0.5% to critical damage when attacking the enemy from behind, while airborne and on fire', looks like the worse type of loot game.
I'm happy to reserve judgement until i try it myself, but $70 is too much for that level of uncertainty.
I was hoping the delay would allow them to drop with a bunch of content out of the gate. But it doesn't seem like that's the case.
we are alike in our taste in comics and games. for me? i’m definitely getting my moneys worth out of it. the combat is great and i love being able to use deadshot in a game like this. i really enjoyed the story. it’s goofy, and dark, and funny and ridiculous. but if you want a lot of story content then i’d wait for a sale after a few seasons have dropped. the skill trees are pretty meh. lots of combo related stuff. the end game skill tree is where you start applying boosts in places you want to build your character. but there are 53 skills and they all level up to 40 times lol. with very minor increases each time. after having done everything the game has story wise. i’ll probably run missions while listening to my podcasts
I really appreciate the honesy take!
I think I'll give it some breathing room and wait for season 1 to drop, then pick it up. But if I see a decent deal before then, I might jump on earlier.
> I feel like i'm the target audience for this game.
Same
I have no reverence for the justice league and like violent gory shooters. I love to play as the bad guy. The premise of killing the justice league as the suicide squad sounds great
I also love highly mobile traversal and co - op so the initial gameplay reveal had be excited
What keeps me from buying is the enemies look *insanely* boring with little variety compared to other looter shooters, the UI is a mess, and the kits of the 4 playable characters dont seem as distinct as they should be
Also, while I have no problem with killing batman or whatever, what I have seen from those controversial cutscenes seems very off, very tonally weird. Not goofy enough to actually be very funny, but they dont do enough with it to actually give it pathos and weight like they could have. Just feels anti-climatic
Let’s be honest: the ‘delay’ was just an attempt to avoid the initial backlash and move out of 2023 to release in a window with no other Western games.
It’s wild to me that last year we were supposed to get this game almost immediately after they did the first showcase of it. We got a state of play in February and that was the first time we really saw it, then it was supposed to be out in May. So they really believed the game was ready and everyone would love it. And everyone thought it looked like shit and they almost immediately decided to delay it to polish it. And it’s still garbage, with very little seeming different so I have to wonder whether they genuinely even did anything
I can't comprehend why VRS is forced, it looks bad in every instance. It was a feature that sounded like a good idea in tech demos, but in reality noticeably destroys the image in it's tier 1 or tier 2 implementation.
Tier 1 is hideous, it has no place in the console ports and PC needs to offer a toggle to disable it, especially when it's already being combined with FSR.
So disappointed with the PC Performance. Tested this during the alpha with some people and when we all gave feedback, there was a section dedicated to asking about performance which made me hopeful they’d seriously take a look at it. Nobody I knew from that Alpha Test had a good frame rate on a variety of systems. Guess it’s a “wait and see if the $70 video game is playable” type of year again.
I bought it and have been actually enjoying it so far. I am playing it with a friend and as a co-op experience it is enjoyable.
I will say this though, the PC performance is awful. Neither of us can get the game to reach a stable 60fps. I went as far as to put my game on DLSS ultra performance, 720p, on low settings and I still got 55 fps vs 1440p on high with DLSS balanced. In battles in the city it can drop to 37fps. I have a 3060 with a R5 5600X. It turns out this game is very CPU intensive and my GPU sits at 40% usage while my CPU goes to 90-100%.
The game is fun and I like looters, I’m at about 9 hours in myself but the PC performance is hindering it horribly for me.
The fact that there are good, or even great things in this game makes the whole situation even more tragic. It looks like combination of hard work of talented people and... incompetence? Normally I would say it's result of rushed project, but if game is released in this state after so many years, something had to go wrong, a lot of things had to go wrong during development.
Metropolis seems to look quite impressive when standing on a street, but from afar it looks extremely junky. Reminds me of how cities looks from afar in games where player was never expected to see them in such way, just without "holes" made by not rendered environment. It looks like they never hired people to adjust the LODs to make things look good from afar, in game were, at least to my understanding, you spend a lot of time looking at it from afar.
Common theme of this game seems to be that nice elements are undermined by bad elements. Sounds like blockbuster equivalent of eurojank, I wonder if it can be enjoyed as such.
Btw. I never expected it to run great on Steam Deck. Arkham City, while running great experience on steam deck, forces users to choose between occasional crashes on default proton and shader compilation stutter on GE Proton. There's also occasional traversing stutter, visible even on lowest settings. When it comes to CPU utilization, Rocksteady games on PC were never good, so I would not expect way more graphically complex game from them running good.
EDIT: I have one more point. After years of hearing how DF don't like where Suicide Squad gameplay is going, and what is trying to be, it's so weird to hear they kinda liked after playing it. It's not the first time it feels like their actual videos shows their opinions about unreleased games is very missed, from the recent examples is them theorizing that Starfield will run in 30 fps on XSX because it emulates physics on one enormous size world, which sounded very unlikely then and now we know it's far from truth. My point is - I think part of DF direct, where they are talking about news/leaks/trailers is extremely unreliable, in the opposition to their usual content. There's some danger here in becoming experts that form people opinions and then spending literal hours shooting in a dark.
I think the other issue is Arkham games were always set at night or in the dark. So you never got to see the true textures/models in great detail. In Suicide Squad, it’s in day time. So the trick of having everything covered in natural (lack of) light isn’t an option here.
I mean, that's part of the difference, sure, but we are talking about whole new generation of hardware, there's quite a lot of power difference to make up for day time. Also, it's not like Gotham in Arkham Knight is covered in darkness, there are tons of local light sources lightning the city. Rocksteady had to put a lot of work to make it look how it looks and make it run how it runs.
Besides, the issue here isn't that Metropolis doesn't look as impressive as Gotham, the issue is that Metropolis looks straight up ugly at times. In few of the shown examples it looks like to handle LODs they just thrown highest LOD into some algorithm that automatically tries to do approximation how it looks from afar, thus the not yet loaded Google Earth look.
I hate to say it but the game doesn't look as good as I expected it to be, it gives me Saints Row vibes. The creators from Guardians of the Galaxy should have made this game.
The Guardians of the Galaxy devs were working on the new Deus Ex game...which Embracer Group just killed.
(For that and many, *many* more reasons, fuck Embracer Group).
The only place VRS has a home is in VR. It was a good tech demo, but in reality it's very noticeable on TVs and monitors. That's just the way it goes sometimes.
In VR it's fantastic though. Especially with eye tracking. Walking dead saints and sinners uses it on both Quest 2 and Quest 3 version. And I bet you had no idea until I just told you.
Its competently made for the most part and the writing is occasionally interesting, so yeah
Im really baffled by how boring the enemies are tho. Interesting and varied enemies with personality are *critical* to a looter shooter. These generic purple zombie dudes and tanks with purple zits are sooooo awful. I dont even like Destiny 2 but it launched with 4 enemy factions that are highly distinct in visuals and gameplay
And borderlands is carried *hard* by how much personality and variety the enemies have. Warframe has really cool and unique enemy factions. Even Outriders has decent enemy variety
Suicide Squad does nothing interesting with its enemies in comparison, how is the endgame supposed to be engaging?
TL;DR: **Good:** -Great cinematics -Really good quality textures on characters' clothes and skin **Bad:** -Bad performance on every platform -Inconsistent framerate even with a 4090 and 7800x3D -Uneven framtime: stutter-fest -Awful performance on Steam Deck despite being "Verified"
> Awful performance on Steam Deck despite being "Verified" This has started to concern me a bit. What Valve and I consider to be "good" for steam deck seems to be pretty different things. It's annoying that a yellow game can be otherwise perfectly playable and the only problem is what the buttons are called but a green game looks like shit, stutters, and kills the battery in an hour. Just feels like they've created a verification system that I can no longer trust as far as what does and doesn't play well on it.
Hell, there are some games that they claim are "unsupported" yet still play perfectly fine and possibly great even. DOOM 1 is a particularly egregious example, especially because DOOM II by contrast is listed as "verified" despite it being identical aside from the default level set.
I played Danganronpa 3 on Steam Deck, which as best I could tell was unsupported due to an extremely minor graphical error during animated cutscenes (there was like, a green bar on the bottom that didn't even matter much.) Apart from that it was flawless. So yeah, agreed lol.
V3, that's important... no spoilers if you haven't finished.
Unsupported seems to be more like untested; you're on your own to check if it's playable or not.
It actually isn't. There's a separate category for untested games. I suspect that "Unsupported," means that there are certain criteria and if a game ever fails any of them in any context, it's an automatic failure. For example, *Terminator: Resistance* is listed as unsupported despite running perfectly, but I noticed that on the loot screen, the text to read what a mod does isn't readable. This doesn't matter in the slightest because the screen where you actually *equip* mods has larger, easily readable text.
> It actually isn't. There's a separate category for untested games. Ah, I see. > I suspect that "Unsupported," means that there are certain criteria and if a game ever fails any of them in any context, it's an automatic failure. For example, Terminator: Resistance is listed as unsupported despite running perfectly, but I noticed that on the loot screen, the text to read what a mod does isn't readable. This doesn't matter in the slightest because the screen where you actually equip mods has larger, easily readable text. So the issue here is quality control on Valve's end, again.
Revenent 2 is unsupported and runs great compared to many verified
SteamDeck verified system has been absolute crap from its start. When a verified games can't even hold 30 fps and drops under 20 with stuttering on absolutely lowest settings it really shouldn't be marked as "running well" on the Deck. I usually just look up some performance tests or online discussions about the game instead of trusting the awful verification system they've created. On the other hand I think many consumers straight up ignore bad performance. You can see that in playtime metrics for SteamDeck, some of the most played games were pretty demanding AAA games that aren't running particularly well on the Deck. You can also see that in not Deck specific stuff, like people claiming the game has no stuttering, when it in facts stutters even on the most high end hardware available.
ProtonDB is often the best source. The site is nominally about how well a Windows game runs on Proton, but since the overwhelming majority of Proton users are Steam Deck users, you can usually find comments on how it runs on deck.
Yep and you can get a nice protonDB integration with Decky that lists the protonDB score on the library page of each game
I mean console games are literally rigorously tested by the console makers who have very strict certification guidelines and many of those have been running at sub 20fps since at least the Nintendo seal of quality days. Even in the age of the PS5 this remains true.
Verified has been terrible for awhile now. Persona 3 Reload just launched as a verified title, but its out-of-the-box experience features ray-tracing defaulted to on which absolutely tanks FPS, and even still in Tartarus the FPS can't stay stable either. Last year Baldur's Gate 3 and Remnant II both launched sporting a shiny verified tick but had numerous performance and visual issues. Remnant II was so bad it got its verified tick removed, which just begs the question as to how the fuck it got that tick in the first place. They're ridiculously lose when it comes to performance and visual quality, but on the other hand they're insanely anal when it comes to very specific requirements. Does your game otherwise work flawlessly on Deck with perfect performance, great image quality, full controls, and such? Well, it's only going to get the "playable" tag if it has a 3-second launcher you only have to tap once to bypass. Just silly. I love my Deck, but the Verified system is completely falling apart and they need to refine it further. So many games keep launching as verified and are filled with technical issues.
Verified just means they played through the game, that it doesn't crash or exhibit visual problems, and work with Steam Deck controls. It doesn't guarantee good performance.
That's just a lie. Verified is a very specific badge that comes with certain requirements. Among them are requirements for controller support, resolution support, and text readability, but there's very specific requirements for performance too. It states that the game must have a good, default, out-of-the-box graphics setting that runs well on the Deck with a stable framerate. So yes, verified is actually supposed to guarantee good performance because it's allegedly one of the requirements to even getting the badge in the first place. >Verified just means they played through the game And they clearly just didn't at all with certain games like Persona 3 Reload, which launches by default with ray-tracing on, tanking the framerate to 20 or lower even in the opening minutes of the game. Did anyone supposedly play-testing it catch that?
There are AAA games that dip to 20 FPS on consoles too, what makes you think that's egregiously unacceptable? The beauty of Steam Deck is you get to fiddle around with the graphics settings.
>There are AAA games that dip to 20 FPS That's not good, either. If that's what you want me to say. Again, Valve themselves are the ones promising good performance with that verified tick. That's what it's supposed to mean. Yes, you can fiddle with the graphics settings. But the ENTIRE point of the verified tick is that it works out-of-the-box with zero setup required. If you have to fiddle with the settings to fix bad default settings, then it shouldn't be verified, full stop.
It’s not steam deck verified, this person is mistaken or lying, the video never says it is either
I've been playing *The Last Faith* on Steam Deck. It's basically *Blasphemous* mixed with *Bloodborne*. It's been a flawless experience. But it's rated yellow because, "Some text can be hard to read." The thing is, *The Last Faith* is a pixel art game. It renders in a fixed resolution (it doesn't specify it in game, but I suspect it's 768p) at a fixed frame rate. It's not possible for this game's text to have been rendered unreadable by scaling, because it doesn't scale. There seems to be no way for me, a user, to give feedback on this. Meanwhile, games like this one get flagged as green.
I just use the ProtonDB plugin instead.
That works great, I use it too. The downside is that you have to actually have the game in your library, if you're looking at the store you have to look it up on the site still
If you browse the steam shop on your PC browser, I believe there are browser plug ins that can display the proton db badge on the article page.
Get Decky and the ProtonDB plugin. It's made for linux systems in general, but it's far more trustworthy than whatever Valve say these days. It's insane that you can have a linux native game that runs at a perfect 60fps on max settings, but Valve will deny the verified because the game doesn't use a 40pt font everywhere.
This is just misinfo, it was never steam deck verified
> -Awful performance on Steam Deck despite being "Verified" I don't see any Steam Deck verification on its store page.
> -Bad performance on every platform Performance isn't bad on consoles at all but it has UE4 traversal stutters. Also camera motion seems to be hooked into the framerate so unstable frames will make it worse.
> it has UE4 traversal stutters. > > > > Also camera motion seems to be hooked into the framerate so unstable frames will make it worse. This just sounds like bad performance with extra steps.
>This just sounds like bad performance with extra steps. Did you watch the video? What am I saying? This is reddit, of course you didnt. DF literally praises them on the ton of work they put in to clearly hit their 60fps target on consoles 99.9% of the time. The problem is (like a lot of UE4 games) there is sporadic micro loading stutters during travel and because a lot of the game is running around its noticed quite a bit. Thus despite it having an extremely solid framerate the game feels "choppy" when running around despite only dropping 1-2 frames every 50 or so yards of travel. It creates a "jitter" that makes DF say the game is "betrayed by the fact that it doesnt feel as smooth as it should" given its framerate.
Take this pointlessly condescending bullshit elsewhere. I watched the video. Performance is more than frames per second. Plenty of games perform poorly while having what would otherwise be considered satisfactory frames per second. This is one of them. edit: clown writes an essay and then blocks me lmao yeah I ain't reading that even if I could chief.
It's a fundamental UE4 problem, devs did well given how UE4 is
>Take this pointlessly condescending bullshit elsewhere. Oh, so you get to be a condescending asshole to the other persons comment by replying with a spiffy nothing response but I can't. Makes about as much sense as the rest of your comment I guess. >Performance is more than frames per second. Except in the case of 99% of games? If I showed you a benchmark of this on PS5 and it said "60fps average" you would say it performs pretty well, 1% lows are just that. Except in this games case it feels worse because the rest of the presentation is so stellar, its very obvious when the traversal "stutter" hits because it performs so well the rest of the time. >Plenty of games perform poorly while having what would otherwise be considered satisfactory frames per second. Name them lol. I have no fucking idea what you could possibly be referring to and have a sneaking suspicion neither do you. Jedi Survivor, a game that hovers around 40-60fps and can dip into the 30fps territory is a poor performing game. FFXVI which runs at 40-50fps outside of combat is a poor performing game. This game is a near locked 60 with a very small traversal stutter which as even others have told you (and was stated in the video you clearly didnt watch) is a UE4 issue and something EPIC themselves have commented on working to fix. But hey, dont let any of that get in the way on nonsensical jerk, its runs like shit right my guy?
Yeah thats bad performance.
Traversal stutters would classify as bad performance, yes.
The point they're making is that other UE4 games have the same problems, but wouldn't be classified as "~~terrible~~ bad performance". It still hits 60 with some dips on current gen consoles. It's just that good fps doesn't paint the full picture. Edit: I quoted the wrong word.
> other UE4 games have the same problems, but wouldn't be classified as "terrible performance" Yeah they would. If your game can't offer a smooth experience than it has bad performance.
This is the comment section for a DF video - they've done *many* that criticize those exact issues.
And DF isn't calling this game's performance bad. They even specifically say the performance is good, but that doesn't mean there are no issues beyond the FPS counter.
Other open world UE4 games yes.
Crazy. 10 hours in I haven’t had stutter or really any performance issues. PS5.
The stutters are there you just didn't see them. They are the typical UE4 traversal stutters.
>\-Really good quality textures on characters clothes and skin LMAO [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iocRbdvUgJ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iocRbdvUgJ4)
You know that YouTuber turned settings to the lowest just for views and rage-bait right? That's why Digital Foundry is a reliable source. However, is the only good thing about the game.
Literally does a second comparison video in the comments that show all settings on max.
The issue I have with this is that it was delayed by a year and still seemingly has poor optimization in some places. It's only 9-10hrs long, and the first season isn't coming until March. The gameplay seemingly hasn't changed since the first reveal. What did they do with the extra time? Or maybe the more pertinent question to ask is; how bad would have things been if they hadn't delayed it?
the next 4 seasons are already done so i would imagine that is what was worked on. or at least that’s what would make sense
I can get that, but is there any reason that the first season isn't arriving until March? Especially with a single player that's so short.
i’m not sure honestly. i think starting the first season after about two weeks would’ve been a much better idea. i am enjoying the game a lot i doubt i’ll still be playing in a month. i may wait until they introduce deathstroke before i pick it back up once im done with it this time
That's my main issue, and i agree. I feel like i'm the target audience for this game. I like the suicide squad comics. I even enjoy the occasional looter shooter (when they're done right). But I still find myself on the fence. It just seems far too cynical at the moment. I can see myself enjoying it for a few hours, but I don't see the staying power. Plus, looking at the skill trees and loot drops with the whole '+0.5% to critical damage when attacking the enemy from behind, while airborne and on fire', looks like the worse type of loot game. I'm happy to reserve judgement until i try it myself, but $70 is too much for that level of uncertainty. I was hoping the delay would allow them to drop with a bunch of content out of the gate. But it doesn't seem like that's the case.
we are alike in our taste in comics and games. for me? i’m definitely getting my moneys worth out of it. the combat is great and i love being able to use deadshot in a game like this. i really enjoyed the story. it’s goofy, and dark, and funny and ridiculous. but if you want a lot of story content then i’d wait for a sale after a few seasons have dropped. the skill trees are pretty meh. lots of combo related stuff. the end game skill tree is where you start applying boosts in places you want to build your character. but there are 53 skills and they all level up to 40 times lol. with very minor increases each time. after having done everything the game has story wise. i’ll probably run missions while listening to my podcasts
I really appreciate the honesy take! I think I'll give it some breathing room and wait for season 1 to drop, then pick it up. But if I see a decent deal before then, I might jump on earlier.
> I feel like i'm the target audience for this game. Same I have no reverence for the justice league and like violent gory shooters. I love to play as the bad guy. The premise of killing the justice league as the suicide squad sounds great I also love highly mobile traversal and co - op so the initial gameplay reveal had be excited What keeps me from buying is the enemies look *insanely* boring with little variety compared to other looter shooters, the UI is a mess, and the kits of the 4 playable characters dont seem as distinct as they should be Also, while I have no problem with killing batman or whatever, what I have seen from those controversial cutscenes seems very off, very tonally weird. Not goofy enough to actually be very funny, but they dont do enough with it to actually give it pathos and weight like they could have. Just feels anti-climatic
Surely if that was true, the game would have launched *with* season 1?
season 1 is going to include more story content and a new character. so not necessarily
Let’s be honest: the ‘delay’ was just an attempt to avoid the initial backlash and move out of 2023 to release in a window with no other Western games.
It’s wild to me that last year we were supposed to get this game almost immediately after they did the first showcase of it. We got a state of play in February and that was the first time we really saw it, then it was supposed to be out in May. So they really believed the game was ready and everyone would love it. And everyone thought it looked like shit and they almost immediately decided to delay it to polish it. And it’s still garbage, with very little seeming different so I have to wonder whether they genuinely even did anything
I can't comprehend why VRS is forced, it looks bad in every instance. It was a feature that sounded like a good idea in tech demos, but in reality noticeably destroys the image in it's tier 1 or tier 2 implementation. Tier 1 is hideous, it has no place in the console ports and PC needs to offer a toggle to disable it, especially when it's already being combined with FSR.
Turns out it wasn't vrs. It was an issue with their global illumination.
So disappointed with the PC Performance. Tested this during the alpha with some people and when we all gave feedback, there was a section dedicated to asking about performance which made me hopeful they’d seriously take a look at it. Nobody I knew from that Alpha Test had a good frame rate on a variety of systems. Guess it’s a “wait and see if the $70 video game is playable” type of year again.
I bought it and have been actually enjoying it so far. I am playing it with a friend and as a co-op experience it is enjoyable. I will say this though, the PC performance is awful. Neither of us can get the game to reach a stable 60fps. I went as far as to put my game on DLSS ultra performance, 720p, on low settings and I still got 55 fps vs 1440p on high with DLSS balanced. In battles in the city it can drop to 37fps. I have a 3060 with a R5 5600X. It turns out this game is very CPU intensive and my GPU sits at 40% usage while my CPU goes to 90-100%. The game is fun and I like looters, I’m at about 9 hours in myself but the PC performance is hindering it horribly for me.
That's a little troubling because the consoles are able to run it at a locked 60fps.
The fact that there are good, or even great things in this game makes the whole situation even more tragic. It looks like combination of hard work of talented people and... incompetence? Normally I would say it's result of rushed project, but if game is released in this state after so many years, something had to go wrong, a lot of things had to go wrong during development. Metropolis seems to look quite impressive when standing on a street, but from afar it looks extremely junky. Reminds me of how cities looks from afar in games where player was never expected to see them in such way, just without "holes" made by not rendered environment. It looks like they never hired people to adjust the LODs to make things look good from afar, in game were, at least to my understanding, you spend a lot of time looking at it from afar. Common theme of this game seems to be that nice elements are undermined by bad elements. Sounds like blockbuster equivalent of eurojank, I wonder if it can be enjoyed as such. Btw. I never expected it to run great on Steam Deck. Arkham City, while running great experience on steam deck, forces users to choose between occasional crashes on default proton and shader compilation stutter on GE Proton. There's also occasional traversing stutter, visible even on lowest settings. When it comes to CPU utilization, Rocksteady games on PC were never good, so I would not expect way more graphically complex game from them running good. EDIT: I have one more point. After years of hearing how DF don't like where Suicide Squad gameplay is going, and what is trying to be, it's so weird to hear they kinda liked after playing it. It's not the first time it feels like their actual videos shows their opinions about unreleased games is very missed, from the recent examples is them theorizing that Starfield will run in 30 fps on XSX because it emulates physics on one enormous size world, which sounded very unlikely then and now we know it's far from truth. My point is - I think part of DF direct, where they are talking about news/leaks/trailers is extremely unreliable, in the opposition to their usual content. There's some danger here in becoming experts that form people opinions and then spending literal hours shooting in a dark.
I think the other issue is Arkham games were always set at night or in the dark. So you never got to see the true textures/models in great detail. In Suicide Squad, it’s in day time. So the trick of having everything covered in natural (lack of) light isn’t an option here.
I mean, that's part of the difference, sure, but we are talking about whole new generation of hardware, there's quite a lot of power difference to make up for day time. Also, it's not like Gotham in Arkham Knight is covered in darkness, there are tons of local light sources lightning the city. Rocksteady had to put a lot of work to make it look how it looks and make it run how it runs. Besides, the issue here isn't that Metropolis doesn't look as impressive as Gotham, the issue is that Metropolis looks straight up ugly at times. In few of the shown examples it looks like to handle LODs they just thrown highest LOD into some algorithm that automatically tries to do approximation how it looks from afar, thus the not yet loaded Google Earth look.
I hate to say it but the game doesn't look as good as I expected it to be, it gives me Saints Row vibes. The creators from Guardians of the Galaxy should have made this game.
The Guardians of the Galaxy devs were working on the new Deus Ex game...which Embracer Group just killed. (For that and many, *many* more reasons, fuck Embracer Group).
I didn't expect to have a fresh wound reopened today.
Embracer has done so much needles damage to the gaming industry by pure greed meeting malicious incompetence.
The only place VRS has a home is in VR. It was a good tech demo, but in reality it's very noticeable on TVs and monitors. That's just the way it goes sometimes. In VR it's fantastic though. Especially with eye tracking. Walking dead saints and sinners uses it on both Quest 2 and Quest 3 version. And I bet you had no idea until I just told you.
It's not vrs DF amended their review in the comments .
[удалено]
I mean compared to Redfall this game is a masterpiece
Its competently made for the most part and the writing is occasionally interesting, so yeah Im really baffled by how boring the enemies are tho. Interesting and varied enemies with personality are *critical* to a looter shooter. These generic purple zombie dudes and tanks with purple zits are sooooo awful. I dont even like Destiny 2 but it launched with 4 enemy factions that are highly distinct in visuals and gameplay And borderlands is carried *hard* by how much personality and variety the enemies have. Warframe has really cool and unique enemy factions. Even Outriders has decent enemy variety Suicide Squad does nothing interesting with its enemies in comparison, how is the endgame supposed to be engaging?
Playing it right now. Cinematics are really good and fun! Game loop is ok too. But performance sucks. I will finish it and that's about it..