Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
BadTechLand
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Poor optimization or is the Series X/PS5 underpowered? Dying light 2 as reference
- Thread starter Gamer79
- Start date
Concern
Member
There's no reason for this not to be able to do 1440p/60fps at minimum in performance mode and upscaled 4k/30fps quality mode.
I was about to day one this but they don't deserve a fuckin penny with this lazy unoptimized bullshit.
I'll just wait for it to be updated and pick up on a price drop.
I was about to day one this but they don't deserve a fuckin penny with this lazy unoptimized bullshit.
I'll just wait for it to be updated and pick up on a price drop.
This literally has nothing to do with this thread. This isn't about getting the most amazing experience ever, by that logic tell everyone who cares about graphics/performance to get a 3090.
This thread is about them failing to effectively use the Series/PS5 hardware.
Last edited:
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
This has to do with this thread. Developers ain't going to push out performance beyond the hardware capability no matter how good they are. That's like expecting God of War PC high end graphic setting on a PS1.
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
That comment is both smug and incredibly immature. How come bans are not given for comments like that I wonder?
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I wouldn't say its bias. Fact is that you wouldn't get this game running at PC fidelity at a low level console hardware. That's something people have to accept and keep in mind.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
What are you talking about Returnal looks great on a 4k tv.
We've already seen numerous games that look & perform better on the Series/PS5 consoles (In fact I'd argue we've seen better looking last-gen games).
The fact that it takes 20-30 seconds to load on next-gen consoles is a clear indication that the game is in no way optimized to use the hardware to its fullest power.
Seriously where are you getting the idea that the Series X & PS5 are "low-level console hardware"?
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Gold Member
People are trying to explain to you that its less of a hardware situation and more reflective of the game engine/code in this particular situation.
Last edited:
Super ironic since they’re not the best with tech lololol…
Yes I’m aware I am not funny
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
But they had this game running at E3 2018 on some engine. The engine isnt the problem here. It's the fact that they could make the game look like the E3 2018 trailer but chose not to in order to run it on last gen systems.
Cyberpunk is trashed for looking like shit on last gen consoles, but at least they didnt downgrade the renderer like they did for Witcher 3. On PC, it looks just as good if not better than the original trailer. The crowd was clearly downgraded but the actual graphics are fine.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
While the 24 second loading time, 1080p resolution, no HDR and no Ray Tracing in the 60FPS Performance Mode is disappointing, the game itself still looks great and I didn't even know there was no HDR until Saturday despite playing for over 10 hours on Friday. Playing on Xbox Series X and outside of that audio bug that ACG mentioned in his review happening to me once Friday and once Saturday, I haven't had any issues nor do I really have any complaints on a visual/technical level.
Main reason being is that the game is excellent. The soundtrack is superb, the voice acting is good and sound effects are real good. Story and characters are good thus far and have kept me interested and engaged with it. The real showcase is the combat and gameplay. Like, holy shit!! Dying Light 2 easily and by far has the best melee combat that I have ever played or seen in a first person game and I barely have any combat skills unlocked yet. The parkour is responsive, fluid and feels really good when running on roof tops and whatnot.
My biggest gripe with the game is the "vision" mechanic which I fucking hate in general and wish development studios would stop implementing this shit completely. I'm using it constantly to find resources and items.
So overall, it's not the consoles at all. It's on Techland but personally, I will easily sacrifice all that visual stuff and fast loading times in exchange for 60FPS and what is basically a great playing game which is what I care about the most. Combat/parkour is so freaking great that Dying Light 2 is the very first game that's in first person in which im playing on hard. I normally play on easy or normal because im not good in first person games compared to third person but because the combat/parkour/gameplay feels so damn good that I decided to restart the game after playing through the prologue on normal and play on hard as it feels like it's the way the game is meant to be played.
So in short, it's all on Techland regarding the technical/visual short comings but the game is excellent and after 30+ hours in 3 days, im loving this game that the minor nitpicks/negatives for me don't even matter all that much.
Main reason being is that the game is excellent. The soundtrack is superb, the voice acting is good and sound effects are real good. Story and characters are good thus far and have kept me interested and engaged with it. The real showcase is the combat and gameplay. Like, holy shit!! Dying Light 2 easily and by far has the best melee combat that I have ever played or seen in a first person game and I barely have any combat skills unlocked yet. The parkour is responsive, fluid and feels really good when running on roof tops and whatnot.
My biggest gripe with the game is the "vision" mechanic which I fucking hate in general and wish development studios would stop implementing this shit completely. I'm using it constantly to find resources and items.
So overall, it's not the consoles at all. It's on Techland but personally, I will easily sacrifice all that visual stuff and fast loading times in exchange for 60FPS and what is basically a great playing game which is what I care about the most. Combat/parkour is so freaking great that Dying Light 2 is the very first game that's in first person in which im playing on hard. I normally play on easy or normal because im not good in first person games compared to third person but because the combat/parkour/gameplay feels so damn good that I decided to restart the game after playing through the prologue on normal and play on hard as it feels like it's the way the game is meant to be played.
So in short, it's all on Techland regarding the technical/visual short comings but the game is excellent and after 30+ hours in 3 days, im loving this game that the minor nitpicks/negatives for me don't even matter all that much.
IC3M@N FX
Neo Member
The Big problem they have is the lack of Dynamic Resolution, especially the Performace Mode which usually has to run at 1200-1300p 60 fps.
Next HDR in 2022 no implation!
Even simple indie games have this feature, other things for example comparing 2018 vs 2022 is a Developer decision.
Next HDR in 2022 no implation!
Even simple indie games have this feature, other things for example comparing 2018 vs 2022 is a Developer decision.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
More like people doesn't want to accept that its due to the hardware issue by shifting the blame to the developers.
Well we have seen it performing at higher fidelity elsewhere
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Gold Member
This has got to be the most balanced opinion I've ever seen since I joined. Thanks for sharing.
geary
Member
Then dont price the game the same if the minimum expected is not reached.
Ironman_Bad
Member
I wonder how many arguing the tech have even the seen the game on a 4ktv...it looks really good in performance mode its the highest res looking 1080p game I've seen lol but debate on
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
No like I am not saying that it's impossible, more like really hard. And most resources are mostly dumb to other areas and worst thing of all is that most often than not, with long running developments, there is a inclination to keep Engine working so shit does not break. Certain techniques require rework of the whole pipeline and sadly that's not most people do. Like a said 4A are probably only one which is a small studio, which gives their engine a lot of care.But they had this game running at E3 2018 on some engine. The engine isnt the problem here. It's the fact that they could make the game look like the E3 2018 trailer but chose not to in order to run it on last gen systems.
Cyberpunk is trashed for looking like shit on last gen consoles, but at least they didnt downgrade the renderer like they did for Witcher 3. On PC, it looks just as good if not better than the original trailer. The crowd was clearly downgraded but the actual graphics are fine.
And for a Cyberpunk, not sure if I can praise it, because when ti comes to absolutely basic features of open world, they utterly failed to deliver on that one, it has shitty animation, etc. so that it looks good, meh. Mafia Definitive Edition in my opinion looks better and it works like an open world with police chases and so on.
geary
Member
When you do games for 1-2 configurations is not hard to be top dev in optimization.
DL2 was done for PS5, PS4 Pro, PS4 base, Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Series S, Xbox Series X, PC, Stadia, GForce now, Nintendo (later this year) and Techland is basically a indie/AA dev.
What expectation do you have for the scope of this game?
Last edited:
TransTrender
Gold Member
Oi! Trebeck! What is, your mother's poorly optimized?
Justin9mm
Member
I don't care for Ray Tracing and I don't care for native 4K. I have both current gen consoles and I just want 1440p / 60. It shouldn't be too hard to ask for on most games open world or not. I'm sure Techland did the best they could do but I guarantee it's last gen holding us back and can be done.
b0uncyfr0
Member
Im voting on poor optimisation. There's no DRS, no HDR and it looks no better than recent games. Also loading wasn't optimised : how in the hell is the PS5 the slowest. Dead give-away.
1080p/60 was their safe bet. They just dropped the res, hit 60 fps and called it a day. Simply not good enough - 1440p or higher should be achievable with these visuals.
1080p/60 was their safe bet. They just dropped the res, hit 60 fps and called it a day. Simply not good enough - 1440p or higher should be achievable with these visuals.
Oddvintagechap
Member
sounds like you should have waited for the reviews/videos if thats all very important to you.
I deserve the AI of Deathloop, since I was warned. Should have read it. Now to me, how stupid is the AI is more important than 4K and 60fps.
I deserve the AI of Deathloop, since I was warned. Should have read it. Now to me, how stupid is the AI is more important than 4K and 60fps.
Tchu-Espresso
likes mayo on everthing and can't dance
As I have noted previously, the game is pushing more pixels per frame at 1800p30 (5.7m) than it is at 1080p60 (4.2).
1080p60 was clearly their safe bet but I don't know how much higher they really could have gone on the current engine.
Inviusx
Member
I dont think anyone wants anything to do with 30fps modes this gen, even if it has all the fancy RT junk or native 4k. People want 60fps minimum and a bump up from 1080p.
Dr.D00p
Gold Member
The more power you give developers, the less inclined they are to ensure optimized coding.
In PC land, DLSS has released them from the onerous task of getting their games running at an unstable 40-50fps, to one running at a locked 60fps without having to do anything.
Is a second string developer like Techland going to put in weeks/months and thousands of extra man hours of effort, coding & optimizing, to get the same result as DLSS can deliver at the flick of a switch in the games settings menu....
In PC land, DLSS has released them from the onerous task of getting their games running at an unstable 40-50fps, to one running at a locked 60fps without having to do anything.
Is a second string developer like Techland going to put in weeks/months and thousands of extra man hours of effort, coding & optimizing, to get the same result as DLSS can deliver at the flick of a switch in the games settings menu....
Bo_Hazem
Banned
The expectation that they set with their bullshot 2018 reveal.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Ok, I accept that you can't rebut the argument now.
What about DLSS and RT off at 1440p?
Zathalus
Member
You can get that graphical fidelity, it just requires the use of all the RT features and DLSS on a 3090.
geary
Member
CuteFaceJay
Member
Heck I've seen videos of people trying to run this game maxed out on a 3080 and it's having issues.
Inviusx
Member
Lose/lose is a good way to put it.
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Then its time to get a pc right?
Skifi28
Member
You're missing the whole point of the discussion, but I do have a PC. Thanks anyway.
I dont care, optimized or not this game has been in developement for 7 yrs, no excuses.
Last edited:
nikolino840
Member
Papacheeks
Banned
Swift_Star
Banned
120fps with blurry graphics, so good… not.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
The problem with Dying Light 2 is not that it needs 1080p to get to 60FPS, or 1080p and 30FPS to enable some raytracing effects.
The problem is the fact that when we compare it to many other games that released on the current-gen consoles, its visuals are simply not on par, which makes the low performance harder to swallow.
If we compare Dying Light 2 even to other open world games on current-gen consoles like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Watchdogs Legion, Ghost of Tsushima DC, Death Stranding DC, Halo Infinite, etc. then the game not only performs worse but also looks worse.
The thing is this is a relatively small studio with a small budget for development, when considering the very large scope of the game.
To compensate for the lack of budget-per-scope, some of these studios (mostly from central+eastern Europe) enter development agreements with NVidia, where the latter sends engineering manpower to the studios to enable graphics enhancements.
NVidia's efforts here are obviously not to do charity for game developers. Their goal is to make money, and they make more money on their high-end graphics cards because that's where their margins are enormous.
So what happens is we get games that look and play great on ultra-expensive graphics cards from NVidia by enabling either fully proprietary technologies like DLSS and making heavy use of technologies where NVidia has an architectural advantage (like certain parts of the raytracing pipeline). Many of these technologies are even black box implementations (like RTXGI) where, although the code can run in any GPU, the developer can't even optimize for other architectures so it's stuck forever in this situation unless the developer codes a raytracing implementation from scratch.
This comes at the cost of the game looking pretty bad and/or performing poorly when these technologies aren't being used, and the consoles don't use NVidia GPUs so their versions end up looking and performing sub-par.
Techland's Dying Light 2 is just one of such games, but there's plenty of others:
- Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition from 4A
- The Ascent from Curve
- Control from Remedy
- Cyberpunk 2077 from CDPR
Like Dying Light 2, these games tend to look a bit bland without a raytracing implementation that was developed by NVidia (and for NVidia's latest high-margins GPUs), and they also need DLSS to perform well on a high-end modern GPU.
I wouldn't say this is any specific entity's fault, though. The developers who need to resort to NVidia's "free" engineering hours probably wouldn't get as much publicity because their game wouldn't look as good on screenshots and videos.
We can say NVidia's methods are anti-consumer, but wouldn't AMD or Intel do the exact same thing if they could?
The problem is the fact that when we compare it to many other games that released on the current-gen consoles, its visuals are simply not on par, which makes the low performance harder to swallow.
If we compare Dying Light 2 even to other open world games on current-gen consoles like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Watchdogs Legion, Ghost of Tsushima DC, Death Stranding DC, Halo Infinite, etc. then the game not only performs worse but also looks worse.
The thing is this is a relatively small studio with a small budget for development, when considering the very large scope of the game.
To compensate for the lack of budget-per-scope, some of these studios (mostly from central+eastern Europe) enter development agreements with NVidia, where the latter sends engineering manpower to the studios to enable graphics enhancements.
NVidia's efforts here are obviously not to do charity for game developers. Their goal is to make money, and they make more money on their high-end graphics cards because that's where their margins are enormous.
So what happens is we get games that look and play great on ultra-expensive graphics cards from NVidia by enabling either fully proprietary technologies like DLSS and making heavy use of technologies where NVidia has an architectural advantage (like certain parts of the raytracing pipeline). Many of these technologies are even black box implementations (like RTXGI) where, although the code can run in any GPU, the developer can't even optimize for other architectures so it's stuck forever in this situation unless the developer codes a raytracing implementation from scratch.
This comes at the cost of the game looking pretty bad and/or performing poorly when these technologies aren't being used, and the consoles don't use NVidia GPUs so their versions end up looking and performing sub-par.
Techland's Dying Light 2 is just one of such games, but there's plenty of others:
- Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition from 4A
- The Ascent from Curve
- Control from Remedy
- Cyberpunk 2077 from CDPR
Like Dying Light 2, these games tend to look a bit bland without a raytracing implementation that was developed by NVidia (and for NVidia's latest high-margins GPUs), and they also need DLSS to perform well on a high-end modern GPU.
I wouldn't say this is any specific entity's fault, though. The developers who need to resort to NVidia's "free" engineering hours probably wouldn't get as much publicity because their game wouldn't look as good on screenshots and videos.
We can say NVidia's methods are anti-consumer, but wouldn't AMD or Intel do the exact same thing if they could?
Last edited: