UE5 is a shit engine as of now, but what can be expected of a company run by someone just as insufferable? Epic took the advent of tech like DLSS and frame generation as an excuse to disregard performance and functionality.
All you have to do is pick out any UE5 game that exists and Google that + “performance.” Even meeting the recommended specs for Rogue City, I still had to find specialized configs to get the game the game stop crashing on launch, and even then, those specs were based on using upscaling and frame generation. In reality, “recommended” was about 25fps at 1280x720. That used to be, and realistically should be unthinkable.
AND EVEN THEN, the engine’s built-in settings for upscaling and frame generation caused even more crashing. Ultimately, I had to disable it in-game and turn it on in my driver settings because of the busted-ass engine. This is a problem with the state of gaming, and people like Randy, Tim and their supporters are only exacerbating it.
The engine’s not the problem. Personally, I have only played a single game on UE5 that had shit performance on my aging PC (I can’t even use DLSS), and it’s an early access, independently made, survival crafting game. It was never going to perform well or even be finished.
Apparently the graphics are basically the same as 3, but performance is dog shit on even the best hardware and crashes are unavoidable.
When people complained, he said they need to use AI fake frame and upscale from 720. Which still wasn’t good performance.
It might get fixed later in updates. But this guy is handling so badly he might legitimately be mentally unwell. It’s at the point it’s weird he still has a job
That’s probably not the cause of the issues here though. Denuvo impacts game performance but not as badly as Borderlands 4 is seeing. The engine they chose has issues even on non denuvo games. It’s an unoptimized mess and then gearbox didn’t optimize any further themselves.
BL4 is running horribly, even on higher end PCs. I have a 4090 and a decent processor, but only getting 80FPS max with a good few settings on low or off and AI frame gen on (I would rather not, but performance is just that bad).
According to hardware unboxed 4090 at 1440 natively on the badass preset gets an average of 67 FPS. I'm not defending the poor performance of Borderlands 4, it's definitely ass, I just don't think we should take insane statements from randos at face value. Always verify performance with reputable sources instead of someone saying something on the web without giving the full picture. Who knows what they've done with their computer to get such poor performance.
That doesn’t really seem to contradict the other person’s claim that much? In fact like your said if just a few other things are running on that person’s pc and eating some resources, their claim seems super believable in the context of what you just said so I’m not sure what your point is.
A reviewer/tester is going to be benchmarking in a best case scenario environment. Real people using their real computers will be experiencing a huge variety of other environments. Different temps, hardware settings, programs running, etc. None of that context excuses the performance, and makes that person’s performance claim believable.
What’s crazy is how inconsistent the problems seem to be. I’ve got a 4080 Super and a decent processor, and I’m getting 120-140fps with most settings as high as they can go with frame gen on at 1440p. Only crashed once in about 40 hours of gameplay.
Oh, you have identical specs and built at the exact same time? Yeah, half of you are going to randomly have issues and half won’t. Enjoy head casing about that.
I’ve got a 6800xt and it runs really well on medium settings. Looks pretty good as well. Never had the game crash on me either. It’s 60fps but I’m cool with that. Gameplay feels smooth at that and it’s steady. No upscaling no frame Gen. 3440x1440.
I have heard a lot of people are having issues with Nvidia hardware though.
It’s 100% an astroturfing campaign. Doesn’t matter if it looks good or bad, it’s still getting awareness out there about the game which generates clicks and probably makes more money than the game itself.
Well it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, but Randy Pitchford is really good at providing ammo for these types of headlines. Guy needs to learn to keep his mouth shut sometimes.
Was going to say… Who is out there buying games way outside their machines’ specs? Seems pretty straightforward.
I do get a little annoyed at the folks angry at BL4 using a higher end engine. Like, it does look a lot better than previous iterations. That engine upgrade wasn’t for nothing.
There are a ton of looter shooters floating around that aren’t using the Unreal 5 engine. Just play one of those instead.
Sorry but when in the world is that even remotely acceptable that you consider last Gen was outside machine specs when the developers said sure two generations ago is perfectly fine, which btw, holy crap it’s not.
There’s a difference between a game being way outside of your specs because it’s graphically very advanced and your hardware is old, and a game just being unoptimized slop that expects its users to deal with by throwing higher specs at a fixable problem.
I have a brand new 5070ti that can play all kinds of UE5 games with much better graphics than BL4 at 4k resolution with ray tracing at a decent frame rate without relying on frame gen. And I’m in the top few percentiles here.
I have a 3090 in a 7800x3d box with 64 gb ram and I had to drop from 7680x2160 to 3840x1080 to get decent framerates. I get better performance in Star Citizen. After a few CTD’s I just went ahead and got a refund.
UE5 can run fine on older hardware, but most devs either aren’t given the time to properly optimize or don’t give a fuck about it and would rather rely on upscaling and frame gen tech.
It’s hard to consider an 81 on OpenCritic to be a trainwreck. People tend to buy games that review well, especially when it’s a co-op shooter with basically no competition.
You aren’t out of touch. Even the worst games don’t get that poor of a review. When you job depends on being on their side, it turns out you can’t voice an honest opinion.
I honestly don’t know what this “trainwreck” talk is. BL3 was passable. I didn’t like the antagonists, but the game played fine if purples dropped way too much and the new guns weren’t great. People make it seem like it was the Worst Game Ever and I don’t get it. The pre-sequel was hot garbage, but 3 was fine.
Edit: it’s a mouthful of a name and that’s bad, basic sense. If you’re a fan and you get the title, good for you but it isn’t gonna attract random gamers
“Clair Obscur” means Light / Dark in French…which most of the creators speak. It relates, generally speaking, to the theme of light versus dark that is throughout the game.
“Expedition 33” relates to the story, and the party that you’re playing is a part of “Expedition 33”.
So, neither thing “means nothing”, you’re just a grumpy person looking for something to whine about.
Well, now that everyone who want to play day one bought it, the only remaining market are the people of !patientgamers that are waiting for a sale to buy it.
And considering it is on the game pass, 4.4 million is quite good.
It was more like an oopsie moment during the Zevent weekend at the start of September. As the event takes place in Montpellier (same city as Sandfall), that the opening concert had some Clair Obscur music and most of those streamers living in Montpellier are already friends with the devs (they were invited in the studio for a huge party).
So a few devs went to the Zevent to offer gifts and answer questions and that’s when Antoine Daniel asked about sales. The answer was 3.3 and 4.4 at the same time, then they looked at each others and said "officially 3.3, in reality 4.4).
But they did not stated when those numbers were achieved.
ign.com
Gorące