Unreal 5 was a bad decision

[G-85 (Innectis Gaming)]

Im all for newer PCs and technology but Unreal 5 is just meh. Forced AVX2 and will be worse that Ark Survival Ascended and this will greatly limit the amount of new players they will receive from launch. I feel like they should of created their own Graphics engine for this or even a modified version of Unreal 4 to appeal to a large swath of gamers and to make the game as financially successful as possible. Ark is a prime example with ASE and ASA that while successful ASE will always be more financially successful because more people can run it. But Not even ASA requires forced AVX2 allowing people to atleast play in potato mode on Unreal 5 with some lag.

[Chris]

I got solid benchmark of 60+ fps with a nine year old company issued laptop that also has to pretend to be a PC. I am not sure how accurate that can be. It was a bit of a surprise.

When Starship Troopers extermination changed from Unreal 4 to Unreal 5 the performance fell off a cliff for absolutely no graphical quality increase (that I noticed). However, I believe it allowed persistent bug corpses. One might hope that there will be similar gameplay reasons here.

As many games show, gameplay is more important than graphics. Funcom have lots of experience with Conan Exiles. Fingers crossed.

[Entropic Mushroom]

Originally posted by G-85:

Im all for newer PCs and technology but Unreal 5 is just meh. Forced AVX2 and will be worse that Ark Survival Ascended and this will greatly limit the amount of new players they will receive from launch. I feel like they should of created their own Graphics engine for this or even a modified version of Unreal 4 to appeal to a large swath of gamers and to make the game as financially successful as possible. Ark is a prime example with ASE and ASA that while successful ASE will always be more financially successful because more people can run it. But Not even ASA requires forced AVX2 allowing people to atleast play in potato mode on Unreal 5 with some lag.

UE5 is not the problem the problem is the vast majority of consumers these days seem to have very little idea how to optimise their PC's.

[namco]

UE5 is never the issue. Its the game developers fault for not reading the UE user manual. They have a legit guide on everything the engine can do, and ZERO developers read it. There are meme videos (I call them memes because of how stupid the people making them are) where they state "I just sorta change settings to see what they do" why? why GUESS at anything when you can read the documentation and know exactly what each setting does? Its absolutely hilarious.

On that note. I ran the benchmark. 1440p max settings with FSR3 disabled and Frame Gen disabled I got average 80fps with 100+fps peaks. With FSR3 on balanced preset and Frame Gen enabled, I was getting 280fps average with 340fps peaks.... this system? 7800x3d + 7900xtx. Top of the line.

I am sure someone with a lower end system, running FSR3 in balanced will still get decent frames. I saw someone online post their low end system getting 60fps easy with balanced mode. And it WAS a low end system.

As far as AVX2.... intel cpu's support AVX2 since 2013 and ALL of AMD Ryzen processors since the first generation supports AVX2. Basically anyone gaming today should not have an issue. And if your CPU doesn't support AVX2, then your GPU probably isn't strong enough to play modern games anyway since your CPU is also old as dirt.

AVX2 stands for Advanced Vector Extensions 2, an instruction set extension introduced by Intel in 2013 with their Haswell microarchitecture (and later adopted by AMD in some of their processors). It builds on the original AVX, which debuted in 2011 with Sandy Bridge. AVX2 enhances a CPU's ability to perform SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) operations, allowing it to process multiple pieces of data in parallel with a single instruction.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/gPCJ4WRugMWUsOL4msctH57FD

[Captain Worthy]

Originally posted by Chris:

I got solid benchmark of 60+ fps with a nine year old company issued laptop that also has to pretend to be a PC. I am not sure how accurate that can be. It was a bit of a surprise.

When Starship Troopers extermination changed from Unreal 4 to Unreal 5 the performance fell off a cliff for absolutely no graphical quality increase (that I noticed). However, I believe it allowed persistent bug corpses. One might hope that there will be similar gameplay reasons here.

As many games show, gameplay is more important than graphics. Funcom have lots of experience with Conan Exiles. Fingers crossed.

The game is very compute heavy, and AVX2 helps with that a lot. So people with 8-9 year old PC's can still run this game well.

My own PC is 6 years old though I've upgraded the CPU twice(from 3600X to 5600X, then to 5800X3D), and most recently upgraded the cooling & undervolted the CPU. And I can run the game with decent frames at quite high resolutions ultra settings when using FSR3 balanced and FG enabled.

[Rhapsody]

Benchmark ran pretty well on my old 2070, so no complaints here. Remains to be seen if the actual game holds together, but judging solely by this it's working better than some other new releases using the same engine.

[Shintai]

UE5 is fine, actually even great I say.

[darkholyPL]

Originally posted by Entropic Mushroom:

UE5 is not the problem the problem is the vast majority of consumers these days seem to have very little idea how to optimise their PC's.

More like devs do very little to optimise their games.

[Chris]

Battle-passes were pay-to-grind-passes. It was a horrible way to avoid the complaint that games were pay to win.

Originally posted by Captain Worthy:

...

Its a sandbox survival game that you play with other people. Its multi-player online for sure, but "massive"? The addition of social hubs doesn't make it an MMO, but maybe that is a pointless distinction.

I would hesitate to describe it as an MMO, because then it will be judged as an MMO. When it doesn't get hundreds of thousands of simultaneous players it will be called a failure. A failure, a dead game,etc. Believed a failure even as it might have been considered a success if described as a survival game.

The framework should allow both story and cosmetic packs to be sold. World building through story telling was something Funcom were good at. Hopefully they still are.

The problem is that woke people don't tell good stories. They never let the people in the stories be themselves. They intrude too much upon the characters and so those characters never live.

So, we go back to the vitiligo. It seems unlikely that vitiligo was put in because someone at Funcom investigated sun caused medical complaints and added it in for realism. That is utter rationalisation.

For whatever reason its a woke thing. Which doesn't bode well.

[(J)]

Originally posted by G-85:

I feel like they should of created their own Graphics engine for this or even a modified version of Unreal 4 to appeal to a large swath of gamers and to make the game as financially successful as possible.

Making their own engine would require them to add another team or two dedicated specifically to that. Which would result in significant increase in development time and cost.

Why even bring up stuff like this? We are two months out from a release. Nothing major is going to change.

[Whoami]

Originally posted by G-85:

Im all for newer PCs and technology but Unreal 5 is just meh. Forced AVX2 and will be worse that Ark Survival Ascended and this will greatly limit the amount of new players they will receive from launch. I feel like they should of created their own Graphics engine for this or even a modified version of Unreal 4 to appeal to a large swath of gamers and to make the game as financially successful as possible. Ark is a prime example with ASE and ASA that while successful ASE will always be more financially successful because more people can run it. But Not even ASA requires forced AVX2 allowing people to atleast play in potato mode on Unreal 5 with some lag.

yeh it wont let me play the demo on my 8088

[Captain Worthy]

Originally posted by Chris:

Battle-passes were pay-to-grind-passes. It was a horrible way to avoid the complaint that games were pay to win.

Originally posted by Captain Worthy:

...

Its a sandbox survival game that you play with other people. Its multi-player online for sure, but "massive"? The addition of social hubs doesn't make it an MMO, but maybe that is a pointless distinction.

I would hesitate to describe it as an MMO, because then it will be judged as an MMO. When it doesn't get hundreds of thousands of simultaneous players it will be called a failure. A failure, a dead game,etc. Believed a failure even as it might have been considered a success if described as a survival game.

The framework should allow both story and cosmetic packs to be sold. World building through story telling was something Funcom were good at. Hopefully they still are.

The problem is that woke people don't tell good stories. They never let the people in the stories be themselves. They intrude too much upon the characters and so those characters never live.

So, we go back to the vitiligo. It seems unlikely that vitiligo was put in because someone at Funcom investigated sun caused medical complaints and added it in for realism. That is utter rationalisation.

For whatever reason its a woke thing. Which doesn't bode well.

You seem to be replying to me in the wrong thread here.

[G-85 (Innectis Gaming)]

Originally posted by (J):

Originally posted by G-85:

I feel like they should of created their own Graphics engine for this or even a modified version of Unreal 4 to appeal to a large swath of gamers and to make the game as financially successful as possible.

Making their own engine would require them to add another team or two dedicated specifically to that. Which would result in significant increase in development time and cost.

Why even bring up stuff like this? We are two months out from a release. Nothing major is going to change.

because i can

[(J)]

Originally posted by G-85:

Originally posted by (J):

Making their own engine would require them to add another team or two dedicated specifically to that. Which would result in significant increase in development time and cost.

Why even bring up stuff like this? We are two months out from a release. Nothing major is going to change.

because i can

OK. So it was a pointless, impossible, hypothetical comment. Got it! :)

[Seaspite]

Unreal 5 as an engine is fine. It is all a matter of how it is deployed. A developer doesn't have to use all of the components or can choose to customize some (e.g. the back end for an online game)