How has PCVR been enhanced compared to the Quest version?

[Rune]

Quest version is 2.8GB, while Steam says 10GB (Rift Store say 7.4GB). So did we get better textures? Or what are the differences if any?

Recommending a GTX 970 could indicate a 1:1 Quest port at least for the polygon levels.

[InnerspaceVR]

Hello Rune glad to see you're back :)

So, we double checked and the game should be actually 7GB after install. We just updated the description accordingly.

But since you're asking why the build is heavier: you're right, this is mostly due to texture AND sound compression which is a lot stronger on Quest, thus PC has more detailed high res ones.

That said, don't expect dramatic changes from the two different versions, Visuals look fairly similar between all platforms!

[Rune]

Innerspace VR님이 먼저 게시:

Hello Rune glad to see you're back :)

So, we double checked and the game should be actually 7GB after install. We just updated the description accordingly.

But since you're asking why the build is heavier: you're right, this is mostly due to texture AND sound compression which is a lot stronger on Quest, thus PC has more detailed high res ones.

That said, don't expect dramatic changes from the two different versions, Visuals look fairly similar between all platforms!

Thanks, looking forward to try the game, and to see if my oc'ed RTX 3090 can push solid 90 fps with Index res 400% - 500% which will be a quality in itself. Extreme super-sampling can increase the clarity of distant objects tremendously and create the feeling of a much bigger game world - if the game has a high draw distance. MaskMaker profits much from this and I get solid 90 fps in that game with Index res 500% (an insane res of 45 mill pixels per frame combining both eyes).

I guess the design of Another Fisherman's Tale is more about unique puzzles than pushing Alyx class graphics. If you would consider it for later, adding dynamic shadows would be great. 2c.

[Turmania88]

Thanks the author for this question and devs for answer. I was having the same question in my mind.

[Rune]

Turmania88님이 먼저 게시:

Thanks the author for this question and devs for answer. I was having the same question in my mind.

I'm getting 90 fps using Index 500% with the RTX 3090 (High graphics setting), so this game does feel like a 1:1 Quest 2 port.

After 45 min I've decided to refund, I'm not impressed with the game, although it does break some new ground.

The controls feel cumbersome and frustrating, especially controlling your hands. No Index finger tracking. Animated plants with frozen/baked shadows aren't to my liking. Polygon levels and texture res are very low, but also were in the original - but the original is 4 years old now. No dynamic shadows, and the lighting failed to impress. Not being able to save the game when you want is a profound limitation. Also the screen went black several times due to occlusions.
Sound and voices were great though.

Res 500% has its charm, but not enough to compensate for the other shortcomings.

I normally do not support Quest games unless devs made great efforts to enhance the port, like with Red Matter 2 and Propagation: Paradise Hotel. 2c.

[JasonB]

Rune님이 먼저 게시:

Turmania88님이 먼저 게시:

Thanks the author for this question and devs for answer. I was having the same question in my mind.

I'm getting 90 fps using Index 500% with the RTX 3090 (High graphics setting), so this game does feel like a 1:1 Quest 2 port.

After 45 min I've decided to refund, I'm not impressed with the game, although it does break some new ground.

The controls feel cumbersome and frustrating, especially controlling your hands. No Index finger tracking. Animated plants with frozen/baked shadows aren't to my liking. Polygon levels and texture res are very low, but also were in the original - but the original is 4 years old now. No dynamic shadows, and the lighting failed to impress. Not being able to save the game when you want is a profound limitation. Also the screen went black several times due to occlusions.
Sound and voices were great though.

Res 500% has its charm, but not enough to compensate for the other shortcomings.

I normally do not support Quest games unless devs made great efforts to enhance the port, like with Red Matter 2 and Propagation: Paradise Hotel. 2c.

Mm, no finger tracking support and no visual differences from Quest. That's unfortunate. I understand that so many VR developers are developing for the lowest common denominator and treating PCVR like an afterthought because Meta has put a strangle on the market by sniping exclusives and other anti-consumer means, but I don't like having to be the casualty of that all the time. Nor do I appreciate indie devs being so eager to play into their hands all the time. Just sad.

[isomaniac8888]

While this sequel brings to me a lot of new things and the whole game plays and feels MUCH larger and more content, yes graphically it is not that different from the first game. It seems the devs were using the very same graphics assets to draw a new game with new story and new game play. Steam PC VR and Quest 2 version looks very much the same.

[Sokonomi]

Games being upgraded from the lowest grade rather than downgraded from the highest is an irksome way of making games, imho.

PC versions should be leaned down for mobile, not the other way around.

[Rune]

Sokonomi님이 먼저 게시:

Games being upgraded from the lowest grade rather than downgraded from the highest is an irksome way of making games, imho.

PC versions should be leaned down for mobile, not the other way around.

Some dynamic shadows and real-time lighting would go a long way - I do not buy games looking like 1:1 Quest ports.

Selling PCVR games designed for the Quest2 Adreno 650 phone gpu with 3% (1.2 tflops) of an RTX 3090 (36 tflops) in performance is a joke, unfortunately not a funny joke. Vote with your wallet.

I was really looking forward to this game, sadly.