Is the game really that bad?

[Varv]

Or is it just riddled by bad optimization?

[culasheka]

Actually it´s one of the best games I´ve played in a long time. yes, there are performance issues but with the patches that came along the game runs quite well, at least if you have a decent rig. From time to times the game crahes but I realy can´t tell if its the game or my computer since other games crashes too.

i5-4690k
24GB RAM
MSI GTX 908ti

[Rodso]

just performance issues

[ramyland_maelstrom]

...great open world fps ( just some minor AI bugs/ respawn ) - the only problem is the performance - fps - hope they fix that in the next patch !

[Benzin]

Originally posted by President:

Or is it just riddled by bad optimization?

heh I asked sort of the same question here a few days ago. Im currently waiting for the 2.0 patch to come out so i can buy the game.
(and a sale wouldnt be bad either! xD)

[TROOPER181st]

the game itself is comparable with Far Cry for me which is good. What is bad is not the game itself but the performance.

[D.M.E]

Originally posted by Benzin:

Originally posted by President:

Or is it just riddled by bad optimization?

heh I asked sort of the same question here a few days ago. Im currently waiting for the 2.0 patch to come out so i can buy the game.
(and a sale wouldnt be bad either! xD)

Same here, I was going to buy just after release but didn't due to the feedback, Now I think that I've waited this long so I may as well wait for a sale discount.

[Gerhard]

Played the game 7-8 hours and no problems or crashes on my pc. It's better than the first, but some of the missions are repetitive.

[Sabberschlonz]

nice game, well worth the money. Just do it ....

[Phil Mabole]

I havent had any issues at all with performance unless i try to run it in triple-screen...GTX970 here and in single screen everything is maxed out.
Its also a bloody good game imho...i much prefer it to Farcry 4...so does my teenage son :).
It is currently our 'go-to' FPS game at the moment...I just wish we could have a seperate save for each of us 'old-skool' type...console generation have a lot to answer for lol.
Regards

[D.M.E]

Originally posted by TheCunningMan:

I havent had any issues at all with performance unless i try to run it in triple-screen...GTX970 here and in single screen everything is maxed out.
Its also a bloody good game imho...i much prefer it to Farcry 4...so does my teenage son :).
It is currently our 'go-to' FPS game at the moment...I just wish we could have a seperate save for each of us 'old-skool' type...console generation have a lot to answer for lol.
Regards

I caved and bought it today, I've booted up the opening chapter to check performance which isn't great, I'm running a Fury and with everything maxed it barely manages 30 fps which is terrible, A bit of tweaking improves things but it shouldn't be that low regardless. For example Dying light all maxed runs in the 70's & 80's, ROTTR run's in the 60's or better and there both modern good looking open world games. Cut scenes look jittery too and that's not a surprise as there running in the mid 20's. I should of waited longer really.

[MTL5]

Originally posted by nashathedog:

I caved and bought it today, I've booted up the opening chapter to check performance which isn't great, I'm running a Fury and with everything maxed it barely manages 30 fps which is terrible, A bit of tweaking improves things but it shouldn't be that low regardless.

The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X 4GB gets around 39 FPS in Mankind Divided at 1080p with other settings maxed.

What settings are you running at? Supersampling destroys performance, for example.

For example Dying light all maxed runs in the 70's & 80's, ROTTR run's in the 60's or better and there both modern good looking open world games.

They're not CryEngine games, though. CryEngine is especially demanding. Everyone Goes to the Rapture runs at 30fps on a GTX Titan, for example.

I've no doubt patches will improve performance, but if you're expecting to be able to max the game out, you're going to be disappointed. Crytek games have always been about compromising on visuals for acceptable performance. You don't max out CryEngine games on current generation hardware. (That was always the POINT of Crytek's games. That they were "future proof". That said, Homefront has some issues that need resolving with unexpected performance dips in low intensity areas and stuff like that. But the game running badly on maximum settings doesn't really mean much other than that it has some ridiculously expensive settings that get turned on at those levels.)

[ramyland_maelstrom]

i think i should consider myself lucky that i play with eveything on high with a mobile videocard on a ultra widescreen monitor LOL ( also be sure to put the FOV at 65 ) - stil im expecting better results from 1.20 patch !

[D.M.E]

It's a shame as the Cry engine is no longer the stand out in the crowd engine it used to be, Yes it makes good looking games but many match it nowadays without as big a performance cost. Even so Crysis 2, 3 and Ryse all run better on the Cry engine than this, It clearly needs more optimisation work.

[Phil Mabole]

Like I said...single screen (1920x1080) on an old GTX970 with a 4th gen i7 and 16gb of ddr3 and it runs like a dream on high settings....admin your pc...isnt that the idea of owning a pc rather than a console?...a Titan isnt going to run anything nicely if your rig isn't set up properly...every bit of hardware will bottleneck if it isnt set up correctly with the rest of your hardware regardless of the specs.
Regards

[MTL5]

Hopefully the 2.0 patch resolves the issues where people are getting unusually low framerates on Medium. I personally think it's totally fine to make a game that is basically unplayable on maximum settings. Far Cry and Crysis were designed that way. In five years, you can play one of these games at maximum settings at 60fps. In the meantime, you make do.

When Techland patched Dying Light to "improve" its performance, they actually tampered with the LOD slider so that the new "medium" setting was closer to the old version's "low" under the hood.

That's the sort of "optimisation" I don't want to see in Homefront. I want to see them make stuff faster by writing better code. I don't want to see the developers resort to downgrading the graphics so people's egos don't get bruised when they can't run at maximum settings.

It's become a real problem with PC gaming, where people can't tolerate running at anything below maximum, despite the fact the maximum settings are usually diminishing returns. For example, tessellated god rays. The difference between "low" and "high" god rays in games like Fallout 4 and Black Ops 3 is very subtle, but the resources required to improve accuracy are insane. Black Ops 3 isn't necessarily "poorly optimised" just because it offers settings that are stupidly resource demanding.