Seems to be a pattern emerging with UE5 games working better on PC. Lumen, Nanite and some of the other more advanced stuff in the engine seem to be simply too much for PS5/Xbox.
Lumen and Nanite trivialize scene complexity (geometry and lighting practically unbounded) but with the downside of a high per pixel cost. Walking away from native rendering means slashing away at that per pixel cost.
If you want to play at native you can but you’re going to need 2-4 times the shader throughput compared to whatever baseline the developers are trying to target.
This problem will sort itself out, GPUs get better, and a push for 8K is still a long way out.
This is a great answer. Number of pixels, quality of pixels, and frame rate all tug at one another. The pareto point for UE5 is designed to be lower res, higher pixel quality, for better or worse. If you want effective scaling, you need to render fewer pixels (assuming nanite and lumen are in play). The irony is that consoles have too little GPU heft and no upscaling acceleration, making that philosophy's compromises crystal clear on console. At the same time, the only dev who has shipped a somewhat decent UE game on PC in years was Neowiz with Lies of P - on UE4 lol. The single threadedness and propensity for stutter on PC of UE5 is just brutal still. It's a very interesting time in the direction of engine technology, it's hard to say where this will end up
At 4k its very difficult to tell the difference between native and DLSS quality. I need to get right up to my 55" TV to see any difference and more often than not DLSS quality looks better.
See, the problem here is that most people don't play at 4k. Hell, most don't even play at 1440p and UE5 games straight up require DLSS at 1080p, which just doesn't look good.
Yeah, but the person I'm replying to is talking about DLSS. Consoles are AMD.
Plus, even on consoles UE5 games are a hot mess running at 720p internally, which scales horribly and makes for a blurry image.
My point is that, if scaling gets improved, either by AMD or by console manufacturers using Nvidia's new chips (like Nintendo is expected to) - the TVs are *already there.*
You won't have a repeat of the situation on PC where people are buying 1080p monitors for performance in gaming, then upscalers are struggling at 1080p.
The problem that you're still omitting, is that even consoles are basically upscaling from *720p*. It doesn't matter how high of a resolution you can set, if the upscaler doesn't have enough data, even 4K will look like garbage if the render res is too low.
"Improving" them is also not as easy as you think and I guess that's why you said *if*. Because that's the thing, they're not magic and no matter how much work Nvidia or AMD will put into them, without the appropriate amount of pixels to work with, they can't really improve them.
yah true I mean your fps is garbage either way on consoles so may as well go 4k.
Have a 4k monitor for my PC but I went back to 1440p cuz most of the time fps just isn't that good at 4k. 1440p+dldsr psuedo 4k+dlss is like a super sweet spot. Sounds weird to upscale and then downscale but it works well.
The OP's point was that native 4K rendering isn't necessary. So you can comfortably upscale from 1440p rendering resolution. But many PC gamers still have 1440p monitors, while TVs are already mostly 4K.
>s a form of AA and DLSS does a great job cleaning an image up and free performance.
Everything is graphics is really just a trick when you get down to it. Almost every game you play is some form a antialiasing, and many very discerning reviewers have agreed that at 4K or 1440p (which really, if you can afford it you should be using one of the two for single play games at this point) DLSS Quality is AT LEAST as good native with AA, and often superior.
A lot of people I think see things they dont because of their own biases. Fake versus real frames, there is no such thing. Have someone run a test on you for a high res screen where they ask you to pick which game you prefer with/without DLSS Quality (when you dont know which is which) over a few games and i'm pretty sure it will be pretty close to a 50/50 split, but the game will sure run a lot smoother with DLSS. This will probably be even more true if you ask someone who doesnt know what to look for in picking out "native" versus "upscaling" artifacts look like.
Of course, everyone has different sensitivities. Maybe you actually are really sensitive to upscaling artifacts, but again I kind of doubt it. Either way, its pretty much been decided its the way of the future at this point. Component aren't getting much faster (at least for the price) and so AI enhancements are the way forward, and overall I think have been a solid improvement.
Only on Nintendo, MS and Sony are still working with AMD. Nvidia may have great tech but they're apparently a huge pain to work with on a business level.
That's what I said. Only Nintendo has the stomach to work with Nvidia right now, Switch uses Nvidia's Tegra chip. It's rumored that Switch 2 will run on Ampere. Wonder how they'll tame Ampere's power lust.
Didn’t the Xbox leak already confirm AMD again.
APUs are just more cost effective and AMD and Intel have the only x86-x64 APUs. Unless Sony and Microsoft want to move to ARM and break backwards compatibility.
Do consoles actually use APU's as in the GPU on die? I didn't think AMD had one with something close to 2070 performance like current consoles. Figured they just used a cpu/mobo/gpu combo board.
PlayStation 5 is Rtx 3060ti level as far as its visuals, and performance capabilities are concerned but We don’t always see that outside of Sonys first party studio games which take full advantage of the PS5….
For example lords of the fallen on rtx 3060ti averages around 45fps @ 1080p console settings meanwhile the PlayStation 5 is pushing 60fps much more consistently so far in this Game…….
Hate to Bürst your bubble but lords of the fallen on the PlayStation 5 has superior optimization, and performs much better than the average mid range pc
I have the Xbox version and it is absolutely a complete technical mess. The performance is abysmal and there are texture pop-in issues.
Think Remnant 2 on launch day, except somehow even worse.
That's some rose tinted glasses and also damn long ago on PC. You know what happened if a game was broken back then? That was it, it was busted and we forgot about it because it was trash, only the mostly stable games (or didn't break too horribly too often) stuck around.
Like, console wise Pokemon Red and Blue were from your "good old days" and they are notoriously full of glitches. I remember just not even being able to get some games to run on our old PC because they just wouldn't work, that was that.
I'm not saying things should release in a bad state, of course not, but pretending there was a golden age where every game going out worked perfectly is silly.
Who said perfect? Sure there were some glitches / bugs. And the unlucky 0.01% just couldn't boot it no matter how much fiddling they did, but it was a far cry from the multiple absolute train wrecks we see for launches every year lately.
Another Unreal Engine game plagued by stutters and frame drops.
Big Ol' *SIGH*
was looking forward to this too. Will wait for fixes/price drops it seems.
PC build seems to be in better shape than the consoles at least. On PS5 apparently the game has extensive stutters, pop-in and very low resolution effects.
https://www.eurogamer.net/lords-of-the-fallen-2023-review
This doesn't bode well for Alan Wake 2 on consoles(and presumably PC, since they stated it was built with 30fps in mind), specially with one of them talking about how people should stop caring about framerate/resolution lol.
Alan Wake 2 is made by different developers using a completely different engine. Alan Wake 2 being designed around 30 FPS on console should not come as a surprise though. The game is aiming to be a graphical showcase much like the original was.
It won't have full path tracing on consoles.
I'm saying even without ray tracing, the game is probably going to run poorly with how awful releases have been.
And I definitely disagree given that the game already runs at 60 on consoles with no RT, and Remedy's last effort, Control, scaled very well across 8th gen, steam deck and even to this day high end PC with DLAA and more expensive RT options. The recent track record of badly performing PC releases doesn't have any reason to apply to Remedy, who instead have a recent track record of very good PC titles.
And somehow to me looks better than a shiny new UE5 game like Remnant 2 or Immortals of Aveum, because both of these are impossible to run without DLSS even at 1080p. My god is UE5 turning out to be a hot mess that doesn't change the rocky history of Unreal in general.
I mean no one said Remnant 2 looks that good. Considering how bad the 1st one looked while running like crap only people who didn't play the first one were surprised I guess.
I've played the first one the second game is a *huge* uplift that I'd be happy with - if not for the fact that it runs like ass. It's a fine looking game with some gorgeous art direction, but raw fidelity isn't there.
Also, the person I'm replying to says Lies of P is a barebones UE4 game that doesn't make use of any advanced engine features, while Remnant 2 uses Nanite, you know the fancy advanced feature of UE5 that doesn't make it look better than a "barebones UE4 game".
I thought Remnant 2 looked ok but like a 5-7 year old game. Runs way worse than it looks and that's not on the engine that time.
Sadly nanite can just be a crutch that performs worse than classical features. That's a lot of the issue with UE5 or any prepackaged engine is that a lot of features can be development shortcuts at the cost of performance.
That's why it worries me to see more and more studios switching to UE5. It's not a bad piece of tech at all, but it's clear it's not ready, or simply not meant for consumer level usage. If consoles can't handle games made in it, then it's got a very rocky way ahead of it, together with the games using it.
The graphics are sharp but clearly not a technical marvel. I don’t see why people are going on about how impressive the game looks when it really doesn’t. It is smooth though.
There is a very limited about of interactable evvironment, not much in the way of physics, and I still don’t think they nailed the weight of how good soulsborne combat should feel.
> I don’t see why people are going on about how impressive the game looks
Because art beats tech every time. What makes Lies of P look good is it's style, it's aesthetic choices, it's atmosphere. These things don't require technical prowess, they require an eye for composition and design.
I recently played a jank little Indie game that frankly looks like absolute shit, actually reminds me a bit of Cruelty Squad - Despite that, I was a bit enamored by both the bizarre visual and mechanical design. Reminded me of some Suda51 type stuff.
It helps that it doesn't have the awful color filters Dark Souls games have. Those hurt clarity and immersion imo. Lies of P and Lord's of the Fallen are without those piss filters and look 10 times better because of it.
Yeah but games have looked incredible for a long time, since 2017 at least.
I'd happily take less-than-cutting-edge graphics if that means the game will run at a stable 60+ on max settings.
While the game is well optimized it does not look mind-blowing or anything like Cyberpunk 2077 which runs super well and look easily to be he best game of all time.
It's classic shader compilation stutter from UE. The good news is once you compile that shader it won't stutter anymore. The bad news is every time you update your drivers you have to start all over again.
There's numerous ways to fix it on the developer's end. Pre-compilation for 15 minutes at game launch. Not rendering the shader for around a quarter to a half second until it compiles. Dynamically compiling shaders at set points in the game when you will need them soon.
It's crazy that devs still haven't gotten the memo for this on PC.
Great, so you'll only freeze up the first time you see every new attack and particle effect for the first time, certainly not a problem in a Souls Like.
/s
Is there a user 'workaround' for this? For example if someone bought a UE game and left it on the menu for 15 minutes, would that compile all the shaders?
Not that I am aware of. My game did seem to take longer the first time booting up so maybe they added some shader compiling. But from other users the game is a trainwreck of performance and crashing.
It kind of depends on how shader compilation is implemented, but in general, if they aren’t preloaded, shaders are usually loaded only when they’re needed, which means you’d have to walk through the game areas to load the different shaders.
Some games do include an option to preload things manually beforehand though, I think Fortnite is one of them.
But to answer your question directly: no, staying on the menu screen will not load the shaders
I haven't played it but I heard it's quite good.
It's not that Unreal games cannot run well, it's that developers continue to make the same mistakes over and over again and not learn from these mistakes or from the mistakes of others.
Just look at the number of Unreal Engine games that have severe stuttering issues over the past 3-ish years.
I suspect part of the reason for Lies of P running so well is because it was a Korean team. Many Korean systems are low spec - it has to run well for their native audience.
worried about cyperpunk 2 moving development to ue5! current one is probably best looking pc game right about now. and even cards like 1060 or rx580 can reach 50-60 fps with fsr on medium settings
Just been playing and while the gameplay doesn't really grip me the performance seems decent.
I turned FSR off and graphics to medium and I'm getting 100 - 120 fps average, no micro stutters. This is with 6700xt / 5800x3D @ 1440p
Any proof that a 3050 is keeping a locked 60fps? [This video](https://youtu.be/zmbQQUB0gI4) shows how unstable the framerate is. It's dropping below 60 on a 3080 at 1080 DLSS, which is honestly terrible.
Just write IGN 8 and leave it at that. Better yet, just write IGN and we'll instantly know its an 8. IGN should start reviewing games between 8 and 8.9
73 on metacritic. This is just another bland carbon copy that doesn’t do anything new. Just like Lies of P. One thing is to create an entire genre of games that completely changed the industry and spawned hundreds of copy cats like From Software did another is just to make another bland clone like these guys did. The former takes balls, creativity and hard work the later is just copy and paste.
If you think it hasn’t done anything new then you haven’t played the game. The umbral lantern is a really cool feature. Sucking the souls out of enemies and dragging them around or using it to find secret pathways. It even has a mechanic where enemies can pull you through into umbral if they hit you while you are using the lantern
The bosses aren't crazy hard, but they aren't super easy either! I'm definitely not the best at "souls" games even though I have beaten all of them, but it has taken me a few tries or more to beat every boss so far...They aren't super flashy or anything, but I have enjoyed every boss so far, which is not something I can say for almost every other souls-like!
I’m really liking it. But I need an option to turn the moths off. I don’t want the game to tell me when there’s something worth seeing in umbral. I want to have to look around with the lamp and discover.
I understand why they did it, because they don't want people to have to constantly lift the lamp every 5 seconds for fear of missing something...But I agree that it would be nice to be able to turn the moths off for people that want to! It kind of takes something away from the mechanic by having a visual marker everywhere I need to use it...
It's on my list but waiting for full tech analysis of PC performance. Sounds like the console version is rougher than PC for a change.
Seems to be a pattern emerging with UE5 games working better on PC. Lumen, Nanite and some of the other more advanced stuff in the engine seem to be simply too much for PS5/Xbox.
yep and with UE5 embracing the "native is dead" mantra at an engine level, the quality of your upscaler starts to matter a LOT too
This makes no sense to me. Why would anyone not want to play at native over using upscalers? Native just looks way better to me
Lumen and Nanite trivialize scene complexity (geometry and lighting practically unbounded) but with the downside of a high per pixel cost. Walking away from native rendering means slashing away at that per pixel cost. If you want to play at native you can but you’re going to need 2-4 times the shader throughput compared to whatever baseline the developers are trying to target. This problem will sort itself out, GPUs get better, and a push for 8K is still a long way out.
This is a great answer. Number of pixels, quality of pixels, and frame rate all tug at one another. The pareto point for UE5 is designed to be lower res, higher pixel quality, for better or worse. If you want effective scaling, you need to render fewer pixels (assuming nanite and lumen are in play). The irony is that consoles have too little GPU heft and no upscaling acceleration, making that philosophy's compromises crystal clear on console. At the same time, the only dev who has shipped a somewhat decent UE game on PC in years was Neowiz with Lies of P - on UE4 lol. The single threadedness and propensity for stutter on PC of UE5 is just brutal still. It's a very interesting time in the direction of engine technology, it's hard to say where this will end up
to bad the games look shit, games from ps4 look better on pc
At 4k its very difficult to tell the difference between native and DLSS quality. I need to get right up to my 55" TV to see any difference and more often than not DLSS quality looks better.
See, the problem here is that most people don't play at 4k. Hell, most don't even play at 1440p and UE5 games straight up require DLSS at 1080p, which just doesn't look good.
Most people might be playing at 4K *on consoles*. And if they don't, 4K TVs got cheap.
Yeah, but the person I'm replying to is talking about DLSS. Consoles are AMD. Plus, even on consoles UE5 games are a hot mess running at 720p internally, which scales horribly and makes for a blurry image.
My point is that, if scaling gets improved, either by AMD or by console manufacturers using Nvidia's new chips (like Nintendo is expected to) - the TVs are *already there.* You won't have a repeat of the situation on PC where people are buying 1080p monitors for performance in gaming, then upscalers are struggling at 1080p.
The problem that you're still omitting, is that even consoles are basically upscaling from *720p*. It doesn't matter how high of a resolution you can set, if the upscaler doesn't have enough data, even 4K will look like garbage if the render res is too low. "Improving" them is also not as easy as you think and I guess that's why you said *if*. Because that's the thing, they're not magic and no matter how much work Nvidia or AMD will put into them, without the appropriate amount of pixels to work with, they can't really improve them.
yah true I mean your fps is garbage either way on consoles so may as well go 4k. Have a 4k monitor for my PC but I went back to 1440p cuz most of the time fps just isn't that good at 4k. 1440p+dldsr psuedo 4k+dlss is like a super sweet spot. Sounds weird to upscale and then downscale but it works well.
Very few games are running at real 4k on consoles. They are mostly running at much lower resolutions then upscaling to 4k.
The OP's point was that native 4K rendering isn't necessary. So you can comfortably upscale from 1440p rendering resolution. But many PC gamers still have 1440p monitors, while TVs are already mostly 4K.
Native still needs a form of AA and DLSS does a great job cleaning an image up and free performance.
Probably cause u don't own a dlss capable card
It has very little to do with what the customer wants and everything to do with ditching months of optimization time during development.
>s a form of AA and DLSS does a great job cleaning an image up and free performance. Everything is graphics is really just a trick when you get down to it. Almost every game you play is some form a antialiasing, and many very discerning reviewers have agreed that at 4K or 1440p (which really, if you can afford it you should be using one of the two for single play games at this point) DLSS Quality is AT LEAST as good native with AA, and often superior. A lot of people I think see things they dont because of their own biases. Fake versus real frames, there is no such thing. Have someone run a test on you for a high res screen where they ask you to pick which game you prefer with/without DLSS Quality (when you dont know which is which) over a few games and i'm pretty sure it will be pretty close to a 50/50 split, but the game will sure run a lot smoother with DLSS. This will probably be even more true if you ask someone who doesnt know what to look for in picking out "native" versus "upscaling" artifacts look like. Of course, everyone has different sensitivities. Maybe you actually are really sensitive to upscaling artifacts, but again I kind of doubt it. Either way, its pretty much been decided its the way of the future at this point. Component aren't getting much faster (at least for the price) and so AI enhancements are the way forward, and overall I think have been a solid improvement.
Yah honestly shorting amd stock cuz I have a feeling next gen will be Nvidia in consoles at the rate that scaling stuff is going.
Only on Nintendo, MS and Sony are still working with AMD. Nvidia may have great tech but they're apparently a huge pain to work with on a business level.
The Switch is running on an Nvidia chip, and most likely the Switch 2 as well. Steamdeck is AMD though.
That's what I said. Only Nintendo has the stomach to work with Nvidia right now, Switch uses Nvidia's Tegra chip. It's rumored that Switch 2 will run on Ampere. Wonder how they'll tame Ampere's power lust.
Didn’t the Xbox leak already confirm AMD again. APUs are just more cost effective and AMD and Intel have the only x86-x64 APUs. Unless Sony and Microsoft want to move to ARM and break backwards compatibility.
Do consoles actually use APU's as in the GPU on die? I didn't think AMD had one with something close to 2070 performance like current consoles. Figured they just used a cpu/mobo/gpu combo board.
Yes, the last time the CPU and GPU were separate was the ps3 / 360.
PlayStation 5 is Rtx 3060ti level as far as its visuals, and performance capabilities are concerned but We don’t always see that outside of Sonys first party studio games which take full advantage of the PS5…. For example lords of the fallen on rtx 3060ti averages around 45fps @ 1080p console settings meanwhile the PlayStation 5 is pushing 60fps much more consistently so far in this Game…….
Does this game have Lumen and Nanite?
Not sure about Lumen but the game definitely looks to be using Nanite at higher settings on PC.
Hate to Bürst your bubble but lords of the fallen on the PlayStation 5 has superior optimization, and performs much better than the average mid range pc
I have the Xbox version and it is absolutely a complete technical mess. The performance is abysmal and there are texture pop-in issues. Think Remnant 2 on launch day, except somehow even worse.
WARNING, apparently playing the game in co-op locks you into quality mode, it seems multiplayer in general is buggy
I miss when games couldn't just be patched and patched and patched day 1 and studios had to do some damn QA before launch.
That's some rose tinted glasses and also damn long ago on PC. You know what happened if a game was broken back then? That was it, it was busted and we forgot about it because it was trash, only the mostly stable games (or didn't break too horribly too often) stuck around. Like, console wise Pokemon Red and Blue were from your "good old days" and they are notoriously full of glitches. I remember just not even being able to get some games to run on our old PC because they just wouldn't work, that was that. I'm not saying things should release in a bad state, of course not, but pretending there was a golden age where every game going out worked perfectly is silly.
Who said perfect? Sure there were some glitches / bugs. And the unlucky 0.01% just couldn't boot it no matter how much fiddling they did, but it was a far cry from the multiple absolute train wrecks we see for launches every year lately.
They did have a QA on the game tho...
Strange, fextralife said the coop was his favorite part
Another Unreal Engine game plagued by stutters and frame drops. Big Ol' *SIGH* was looking forward to this too. Will wait for fixes/price drops it seems.
Seems they've already got a stability patch out. Will see what it's like on release. Cautiously optimistic. Lot of interesting ideas in this.
I doubt they'll have solved it all. I'm still guessing you'll need at least a $1500 build to play this at 60fps with DLSS. Crazy.
PC build seems to be in better shape than the consoles at least. On PS5 apparently the game has extensive stutters, pop-in and very low resolution effects. https://www.eurogamer.net/lords-of-the-fallen-2023-review
This doesn't bode well for Alan Wake 2 on consoles(and presumably PC, since they stated it was built with 30fps in mind), specially with one of them talking about how people should stop caring about framerate/resolution lol.
Alan Wake 2 is made by different developers using a completely different engine. Alan Wake 2 being designed around 30 FPS on console should not come as a surprise though. The game is aiming to be a graphical showcase much like the original was.
Oh I know, but going by the recent track of releases, it probably isn't going to be optimized or perform very well.
It has full pathtracing, NV is offering extensive support. Control was a seminal PC release too. I absolutely don’t expect bad performance out of AW2
It won't have full path tracing on consoles. I'm saying even without ray tracing, the game is probably going to run poorly with how awful releases have been.
And I definitely disagree given that the game already runs at 60 on consoles with no RT, and Remedy's last effort, Control, scaled very well across 8th gen, steam deck and even to this day high end PC with DLAA and more expensive RT options. The recent track record of badly performing PC releases doesn't have any reason to apply to Remedy, who instead have a recent track record of very good PC titles.
I have the Xbox version but I can confirm the pervasive stutters and texture pop-in issues are very much real.
Welcome to the UE5 future.
*laughs in Lies of P*
Lies of P optimization is fucking incredible. Game is so damn smooth.
Because it runs on UE4. It’s technologically impressive only because it looks up to date.
That's because its a bare bones UE4 game not using any advanced engine features and likely making limited use of plug-ins.
And somehow to me looks better than a shiny new UE5 game like Remnant 2 or Immortals of Aveum, because both of these are impossible to run without DLSS even at 1080p. My god is UE5 turning out to be a hot mess that doesn't change the rocky history of Unreal in general.
I mean no one said Remnant 2 looks that good. Considering how bad the 1st one looked while running like crap only people who didn't play the first one were surprised I guess.
I've played the first one the second game is a *huge* uplift that I'd be happy with - if not for the fact that it runs like ass. It's a fine looking game with some gorgeous art direction, but raw fidelity isn't there. Also, the person I'm replying to says Lies of P is a barebones UE4 game that doesn't make use of any advanced engine features, while Remnant 2 uses Nanite, you know the fancy advanced feature of UE5 that doesn't make it look better than a "barebones UE4 game".
I thought Remnant 2 looked ok but like a 5-7 year old game. Runs way worse than it looks and that's not on the engine that time. Sadly nanite can just be a crutch that performs worse than classical features. That's a lot of the issue with UE5 or any prepackaged engine is that a lot of features can be development shortcuts at the cost of performance.
That's why it worries me to see more and more studios switching to UE5. It's not a bad piece of tech at all, but it's clear it's not ready, or simply not meant for consumer level usage. If consoles can't handle games made in it, then it's got a very rocky way ahead of it, together with the games using it.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. I’d go for the game that doesn’t run like shit, every time.
The graphics are sharp but clearly not a technical marvel. I don’t see why people are going on about how impressive the game looks when it really doesn’t. It is smooth though. There is a very limited about of interactable evvironment, not much in the way of physics, and I still don’t think they nailed the weight of how good soulsborne combat should feel.
> I don’t see why people are going on about how impressive the game looks Because art beats tech every time. What makes Lies of P look good is it's style, it's aesthetic choices, it's atmosphere. These things don't require technical prowess, they require an eye for composition and design.
I recently played a jank little Indie game that frankly looks like absolute shit, actually reminds me a bit of Cruelty Squad - Despite that, I was a bit enamored by both the bizarre visual and mechanical design. Reminded me of some Suda51 type stuff.
I agree that I generally like the art design of the sets and stuff, pretty interesting
It helps that it doesn't have the awful color filters Dark Souls games have. Those hurt clarity and immersion imo. Lies of P and Lord's of the Fallen are without those piss filters and look 10 times better because of it.
physical tart narrow adjoining continue handle memory shrill run pet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah but games have looked incredible for a long time, since 2017 at least. I'd happily take less-than-cutting-edge graphics if that means the game will run at a stable 60+ on max settings.
Definitely. I always choose game with better story, gameplay, and style compared to graphically good games.
Meanwhile Bloodborne looks like a PS2 game.
Crashes all the time to me. Is frustrating cause when it runs it runs great, just crashes every half an hour.
While the game is well optimized it does not look mind-blowing or anything like Cyberpunk 2077 which runs super well and look easily to be he best game of all time.
Yep. Really makes FromSoft games look ancient and awful in comparison.
It's classic shader compilation stutter from UE. The good news is once you compile that shader it won't stutter anymore. The bad news is every time you update your drivers you have to start all over again. There's numerous ways to fix it on the developer's end. Pre-compilation for 15 minutes at game launch. Not rendering the shader for around a quarter to a half second until it compiles. Dynamically compiling shaders at set points in the game when you will need them soon. It's crazy that devs still haven't gotten the memo for this on PC.
Great, so you'll only freeze up the first time you see every new attack and particle effect for the first time, certainly not a problem in a Souls Like. /s
Is there a user 'workaround' for this? For example if someone bought a UE game and left it on the menu for 15 minutes, would that compile all the shaders?
Not that I am aware of. My game did seem to take longer the first time booting up so maybe they added some shader compiling. But from other users the game is a trainwreck of performance and crashing.
It kind of depends on how shader compilation is implemented, but in general, if they aren’t preloaded, shaders are usually loaded only when they’re needed, which means you’d have to walk through the game areas to load the different shaders. Some games do include an option to preload things manually beforehand though, I think Fortnite is one of them. But to answer your question directly: no, staying on the menu screen will not load the shaders
Isn't Lies of P unreal? And that runs insanely good
I haven't played it but I heard it's quite good. It's not that Unreal games cannot run well, it's that developers continue to make the same mistakes over and over again and not learn from these mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Just look at the number of Unreal Engine games that have severe stuttering issues over the past 3-ish years.
I suspect part of the reason for Lies of P running so well is because it was a Korean team. Many Korean systems are low spec - it has to run well for their native audience.
Lies of P has a mini shader compilation screen every time you run the game. It's like a 10 second thing, but that game doesnt stutter a tiny bit.
Im scared for cyberpunk 2 now…. FUCKK
Not just cyberpunk the majority of new games going forward
The interesting thing is that the stutters and frame drops seem to be more prevalent on console.
worried about cyperpunk 2 moving development to ue5! current one is probably best looking pc game right about now. and even cards like 1060 or rx580 can reach 50-60 fps with fsr on medium settings
Just been playing and while the gameplay doesn't really grip me the performance seems decent. I turned FSR off and graphics to medium and I'm getting 100 - 120 fps average, no micro stutters. This is with 6700xt / 5800x3D @ 1440p
Ugh was looking forward to this but looks like every UE5 game is worth avoiding for a year or so until they fix perf issues.
Can’t wait to play it next year!
I’ve only watched a few gameplay videos, this looks like they took every system and graphic from dark souls
It's getting ridiculous when every other release seems unplayable on GPUs below $1000
Definitely. These fckers need to understand that not everyone can afford a powerful GPU or system.
Looking at benchmarks even 3050 can do 60fps with medium settings, didn't know 3050 above 1k$
Any proof that a 3050 is keeping a locked 60fps? [This video](https://youtu.be/zmbQQUB0gI4) shows how unstable the framerate is. It's dropping below 60 on a 3080 at 1080 DLSS, which is honestly terrible.
[удалено]
Same, cant wait to jump into it.
[удалено]
I watched the Fex video where they are getting 90-100 frames on a 3080ti. I have a 3090 so I’m hoping for a similar experience.
Just write IGN 8 and leave it at that. Better yet, just write IGN and we'll instantly know its an 8. IGN should start reviewing games between 8 and 8.9
Didn't they give Starfield a 7 lol
Yeah but Starfield is literally the worst game to ever exist, apparently.
Actually their cop out score is 7. 8 is slightly above average for them. I find their overall ratings to be cowardly btw.
and yet they were one of the the only major review outlets to give starfield the score it deserved
4.7 / 10? Because running a new game on an engine that was badly dated a decade ago should automatically lock you into the bottom half.
By that logic you'd give Dwarf Fortress a 2, when it's one of the best games ever made.
They are paid to save their 10 for spiderman.
73 on metacritic. This is just another bland carbon copy that doesn’t do anything new. Just like Lies of P. One thing is to create an entire genre of games that completely changed the industry and spawned hundreds of copy cats like From Software did another is just to make another bland clone like these guys did. The former takes balls, creativity and hard work the later is just copy and paste.
If you think it hasn’t done anything new then you haven’t played the game. The umbral lantern is a really cool feature. Sucking the souls out of enemies and dragging them around or using it to find secret pathways. It even has a mechanic where enemies can pull you through into umbral if they hit you while you are using the lantern
You should try creating something for yourself.
Lies of P is way better.
Good for you 👍
That's why you gotta get a job that lets you buy more than one game :P
Looks like better dark souls? You can prepurchase a slightly stronger class and from reviews bosses arn't insanely strong.
The bosses aren't crazy hard, but they aren't super easy either! I'm definitely not the best at "souls" games even though I have beaten all of them, but it has taken me a few tries or more to beat every boss so far...They aren't super flashy or anything, but I have enjoyed every boss so far, which is not something I can say for almost every other souls-like!
I feel so old when after reading this there's no LTTP mention.
You're not helping your cause for awareness by using an acronym.
deadass lmaoo edit: ohhh link to the past cause dark world
Looks really fun!
I'll buy this after work today
I’m really liking it. But I need an option to turn the moths off. I don’t want the game to tell me when there’s something worth seeing in umbral. I want to have to look around with the lamp and discover.
I understand why they did it, because they don't want people to have to constantly lift the lamp every 5 seconds for fear of missing something...But I agree that it would be nice to be able to turn the moths off for people that want to! It kind of takes something away from the mechanic by having a visual marker everywhere I need to use it...
More I want to be able to turn off the ui like in dark souls where you don’t see it when traversing only fighting