Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The performance is like that because the game engine is too old for today standards, and that Falcom devs tried to push it to the break limit by making much bigger and complex maps, and more physics computation (since we have the verticality such as wall running now).
Good news is Falcom moved to their new in-house developed engine already, with Kuro 1 & 2.
I knew super sampling was that way back when Witcher 2 came out, i just didn't expect it to be so demanding on a game like this with a 30 series card. But the engine explanation makes sense.
Anyways my original point was just that i was surprised that super sampling would still grind decent systems down on game as technically limited as this. For something like Witcher 2 (first time i used supersampling) it was understandable as that is a much higher fidelity title.