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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I get that it's intentionally miserable. They should just not do is so often because it is miserable, it makes the game look horrible. I hope you're right though and it becomes more infrequent on release.
Sure you may not be happy with how it turned out, but thats normal for a beta, its not supposed to be polished and well rounded. In fact I don't expect it to be absolutely perfect day 1 either. I think it will be a very big difference in quality between beta and launch, but there'd still be issues a day 1 patch would need to solve
I also suspect that day 1 patch will solve the problems. People get real about not only GPU but also CPU. You need to upgrade for WQHD or 4K gaming.
From what I've seen, Wilds does look significantly better than World.
Compare the Wildspire Waste trailer with what we saw of the Windward Plains a few months ago.
Or, for some actual gameplay comparisons, have a look at this video in the Ancient Forest in World, and compare it to this footage from the Scarlet Forest in Wilds
You can tell the tree leaves at the start of the World video are just a flat images moving around. Compare that to the trees in Wilds, which look so much more believable. Look at how much more foliage there is on the floor. Look at how much more detail there is in the terrain.
You can see your weapon digging furrows in the sand in Wilds, and it kicks up particles in the process. You've got cloth physics. The shadows are much better defined.
There's clearly a lot more definition in Wilds, even with what looks like rather aggressive upscaling in the Wilds clip.
If you don't think the graphical improvements Wilds has over World are worth the hit to performance, fair enough, but that's a very different discussion than "Wilds does not look significantly better than World".
Anecdotally, performance has improved since the OBT on PS5, and PC will supposedly see similar improvements:
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/monster-hunter-wilds-is-running-better-in-recent-console-previews-and-the-game-director-says-the-pc-version-will-see-the-same-level-of-framerate-improvement/
Hopefully we'll get a demo before release so we can actually measure performance ourselves, without having to rely on people eyeballing things.
And I never trust game "journalists" on matters of judgement. They are extremely biased and kowtow to publishers because they rely on said publishers to feed them. It is a massive conflict of interest.
If they want people to believe the game is performing better now, then they need to prove it with a demo. The article's judgement is less than useless.
Monster Hunter Wilds DEMO does in fact look significantly better than World in a bunch of situations. It does however SUFFER from the same cheap antialiasing and upscaling methods most recent titles tend to rely on, and their effects butcher the final image quality.
If the full build's base performance doesn't catch up to run properly without relying on them, then the game will indeed look no much better than World for half the performance.
I would also like to address the supposed "bad and miserable" effects of the weather cycle.. This is a matter of art direction, and it is very much welcome since it shows a level of extra care on aesthetics many titles seem to miss nowadays. Bringing it up in a discussion around performance and graphics is pointless.
Yes, thank you for the media literacy 101. I hoped you'd understand I wasn't saying to implicitly trust what they said, owing to my use of the word "anecdotally" right at the start, and the sentence I left below the link talking about how it would be better for us to measure performance ourselves with an actual demo, instead of relying on anecdotal reports of performance.
My point was that Capcom said they were going to improve the performance following the OBT, and we now have anecdotes claiming that performance has improved. Ergo, the released game will likely perform better than the OBT did. Do you need me to repeat how it would be better for us to have a demo to measure it ourselves?
Yes, game journalists have reason to exaggerate things. But you can use your common sense and take what they have to say with a pinch of salt. More so when the same author wrote about the OBT's performance problems last month.
Again, just in case you missed it, take it with a pinch of salt, use your common sense. Maybe they're exaggerating, but there'd need to be some truth for them to exaggerate in the first place.
If you posted different video links, then I did in fact miss them, so if you could post them in reply to this post, then I will take a look.
After watching some of those videos I think you are missing the point.
I am not saying that Wilds doesn't look ever-so-slightly better; it does. I am simply saying that a 5 to 10% increase in visuals isn't worth 111% worse performance.
This already looks great:
https://youtu.be/O3R9tbA2buI?si=SHVRVHDq4OXJLtiZ
The uplift from MHWI to MHWds is minimal, and it isn't worth the blur, stutter, and drop to 60 FPS with DLSS vs MHWI running at around 130 FPS on the same hardware with no upscaler needed at all.
Like in your video of gameplay of the scarlet forest, there aren't even splashes showing up as the mount dashes through the water.