Alan Wake > General Discussions > Topic Details
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 9:44am
Wow a 2010 game (4 year old!) can't even be maxed out on a GTX750
Is the game poorly optimized to some extent, or was it just "next-gen" stuff back in 2010?
Showing 1-15 of 93 comments
< >
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 9:48am 
I mean come on seriously. Even on medium settings it can't hit 60fps? Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Splinter Cell Blacklist all hit 60fps smooth-sailing with a combo of med-high settings (and this game just has High after Medium, no Very High or Ultra settings!).
Samael Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:07am 
Not sure what kind of fps you were hoping for with that card, but I wouldn't really hold by breath for 60 fps an all maxed out, you'd need to buy a stronger card for that. Considered it's a console port it's still decently optimized so you should still get good fps with high settings. I don't know why 60 fps and ALL MAX is that important to be honest, if you're a graphics junky you bought the wrong card.
Last edited by Samael; Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:09am
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:10am 
Originally posted by Samael:
Not sure what kind of fps you were hoping for with that card, but I wouldn't really hold by breath for 60 fps an all maxed out, you'd need to buy a stronger card for that. Considered it's a console port it's still decently optimized so you should still get good fps with high settings. I don't know why 60 fps and ALL MAX is that important to be honest, if you'rea graphics junky you bought the wrong card.

The point is it is a 4 year old game. Of course I play the modern/new games at medium, even low settings.

I mean, for God's sake, I run Thief at 60fps, medium-low settings. And Thief is a next gen game.

Playing further with the settings here, even on medium-low, I can't top 50fps. Something seriously wrong with the game.

I agree my card is not amazing, but it deserves better. I mentioned so many new games from the past year which run smoothly at 60fps.
Last edited by himmatsj; Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:11am
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:17am 
I put it even lower, turning down more stuff, and yet it didn't hit 60fps.

In the end, I put the graphics down the VERY LOW, and I get 70fps. (but the game is just ugly this way, especially with the lack of AA)

Thankfully I paid no more than $4 for this. Terrible performance for a 4 yr old game.
Last edited by himmatsj; Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:17am
Samael Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:17am 
Publishing date is not a good indicator of anything, Crysis is 7 years old and still a system hog even by today's standards. Considering this was made for consoles I think you should still get some fluid fps on high settings.

Comparing it with other games doesn't do you much good either as there is a bunch of other things to consider - the system they were made for, thechnologies/engine it uses, open space vs closed space etc etc

So you won't exactly get 60 fps maxed out, big deal, you'll still get great graphics and good fps, that's a pretty good deal considering what kind of pos excuses for ports/games you can get nowadays.
Last edited by Samael; Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:19am
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:22am 
Fine understood. I read about optimization problems about this game before buying it, but I didn't anticipate it to be THIS bad. Guess I know which ♥♥♥♥♥♥ devs to avoid in the future.

So far though, playing more recent games from 2012 - 2014, I never had much issues with ports (except for Bioshock Infinite which was full of stutters even though the FPS was above 60). I understood the trade-off I had to make in those games, but not here.
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:29am 
Just for the record, I have it working mostly above 60fps now (with occasional dips to 50fps where there is lots of fog) with the VERY LOW preset as a template, then bumping up FXAA to Low, Backdrop Quality to Medium and Draw Distance to 5 bars.

Looks better somehow, so I may just play it. Wanted a good story game so that's what led me here in the first place.
Last edited by himmatsj; Apr 24, 2014 @ 10:31am
xXTylonXx Apr 24, 2014 @ 6:45pm 
for the record, your graphics card is well above recommended level for running this game on a tweaked high (we're talking AA set to 2x and A filtering turned off and killing the SSAO maybe even going as far as lowering shdows to medium or low). My question to you sir, is what kind of processor do you have? I have a gtx770 card overclocked and I still cant play certain points on anything higher then 45 fps simply because im looking in a direction of the map where theres alot of models and cpu heavy ♥♥♥♥ going on. My processor is good but its not amazing, i cant play skyrim above a steady 50 ever and my eyes can tell the difference easily. Point is, regardless of how new or old the game is, alot of "objects" can cause CPU bottlenecks on anything short of a 4th gen intel quad with at least 2.6ghz and ivybridge. Otherwise go ahead and lower your render distances to 5 across the board. You're card is decent, you run theif high at 60 because (and dont quote me on it) it probably doesnt place objects so liberally as games like alan wake and skyrim do. Also like was already said, its a console port, even if you get 60fps steady, it still wont be as pretty as it should be (small grass patches on the roads doesnt render unless its a maximum of 5 feet from Alan, which is such a console port giveaway, but what can we do)
Genesis (broadcasting) Apr 24, 2014 @ 6:53pm 
On my MSI-GE60 laptop, I get 30 fps maxed out at 1920x1080 and 60fps maxed out at 1366x768, you should consider lowering your resolution and not using any kind of antialiasing or anisotropic filter.

Also, before whining about the lack of optimization, you should take into account other aspects of your computer, especially your CPU. At last, take a look at GTA IV on PC, it's even worse than Alan Wake in terms of performance.
Last edited by Genesis (broadcasting); Apr 27, 2014 @ 9:27pm
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 8:14pm 
I have an Intel i5 3330 3GHz Quad-core CPU, which exceeds the recommended specs. This CPU was launched into the market AFTER the game was released, and is fairly new. Although yes, this CPU is a bit on the medium-low-end currently, I have no reason to believe the game is being CPU limited for me. If there is any bottleneck, it should most definitely be from the GPU.

And like I said, even running on stock medium settings I can't go higher than 50fps on average.
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 8:43pm 
I been playing more of the first part, and I was wrong. With my custom VERY LOW setting, I actually don't get 60fps most of the time (unless it is at dark, non-lighted areas). So yeah, it's just 50fps. Not a deal-breaker, but 60fps is like the holy grail man.

My specs:

i5 3330 (Stock version)
GTX 750 (Factory superclocked version)
8GB RAM
Windows 8.1

My config (the last two options can't be seen...they are both set to zero):

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=252779830
Last edited by himmatsj; Apr 24, 2014 @ 8:44pm
Genesis (broadcasting) Apr 24, 2014 @ 9:09pm 
please disable antialiasing/anisotropic filtering, it's a resource hog, even at 2x.
himmatsj Apr 24, 2014 @ 9:18pm 
Originally posted by Genesis:
please disable antialiasing/anisotropic filtering, it's a resource hog, even at 2x.

2X is the lowest. But still, I mean I can do most other modern games at 8XAF and 4XAA.
Genesis (broadcasting) Apr 24, 2014 @ 9:20pm 
force it off in NVIDIA Control panel
Samael Apr 24, 2014 @ 9:32pm 
Originally posted by himmatsj:
but 60fps is like the holy grail man.
Um, what the hell are you talking about?? 60 fps is awesome but 50 is meh? Really?
Showing 1-15 of 93 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Apr 24, 2014 @ 9:44am
Posts: 93