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
Pay attention to how well it runs in the part where the character is going through the open field area.
Optimization is horrible- but it's mostly due tot he RE engine being ♥♥♥♥ for open world games on top of everything else.
Very well
This is not true in the slightest. You can see the terrible performance with a 4060 and a 9800x3d in the DF video. Even the fastest gaming CPU in the world with a 4060 can not run Wilds "very well".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yhacyXcizA
I have turned the mesh quality on high and seen no difference, i have had it on low and seen no difference, often the game settings just break.
I have a 9800x3d in a Carbon x870p, believe me, you are in no way doing anything wrong, it plays like crap for me on AMD and MSI's highest end products.
Since most people say the game will endure performance issues, due to poor optimization by the developers, and perhaps my build just not being that good in modern-gaming, I would like to ask to those of whom had actually played the game, what fps were you meeting at? Did you have to limit your fps to 40,50,60; and if so, was it with Frame generation enabled or without? How was the game play experience with frame generation, how does it compare without it?
If anyone could answer these questions, that would be very grand.
In truth, I wouldn't even mind playing the game at 60fps, as long as it looks good & plays well, but if I am to spend 70 euros on a game with poor optimization, with no knowledge on whether the developer is actively addressing said issue, then at least I would prefer that 60fps to be good-looking with a good gameplay experience.
Stable 60 FPS, and your PC is better than mine. The game runs fine if you keep the settings correct. It has less to do with "bad optimisation", but more how you setup things with what you have.
Nah, it really is bad optimization and/or programming. There is no excuse for bad textures and massive frame drops when players got a 4080/90 in their rigs. Capcom has to figure this out and prepare a patch with appropriate purrformance gains. Frame Gen should never be a must, especially not in a game like Monster Hunter Wilds that has nothing crazy going on justifying this.
So, it depends a bit on what you are running it at. I spent a lot of time optimizing the game for me and I get 110-120 with Frame generation.
That being said, Frame Generation is the cause of a lot of people crashing and my settings aren't exactly easily reproducable due to me using a lot of tweaks to make the graphics enduring enough to play at 1440p with Quality setting DLSS.
That is, on a 4090 and 13700K. I had to actually update the DLSS to the newest one with DLSS Swapper to make the DLSS not look like garbage. The implementation is really bad and you can see a lot of bad pixelation if you play it at that resolution.
On the other hand, a friend of mine plays this game on her widescreen monitor and with a 5800X3D and a 3070Ti. That is still more power than your PC has, but it is closer than my configuration. She says she is fine with 40-50ish FPS though, but there are mods out there that enable Frame Generation on 3000Series Geforce cards, so she could go higher than that, but there are issues with Frame Generation as well.
If you update the DLSS of this game, you can update the Frame Generation as well. It is much better then the current base implementation, so I highly recommend doing it if you want to.
You will have to do some tinkering though, because with Standard Settings and without Frame Generation even I do dip below 60s on my 4090 in some scenarios. Digital Foundry made a Tech check on this game and they currently do not recommend anyone buying it in its current state if you do not at least have a 4080.
If you want to play a Monster Hunter Game badly, I encourage you to get Monster Hunter World. It is in a much much MUCH better state on the technical side and will run well on your PC. It still has a playerbase and I have seen it for as low as 15€/$ including the expansion, which will give you easy 100h of fun and playtime. If you want more of that, you can then go for wilds, which hopefully will then be in a more playable state than it currently is.
I don't want to discourage you from playing wilds, but this game doesn't exactly run well (while looking good) on about any machine. You will either have to spend quite a bit of time tinkering with it or compromise on either Framerate or Picture Quality. The Benchmark doesn't help either, it will show you much higher numbers than what you will realistically get ingame.
There is a 2h refund timer though, so you may want to try it out for a bit and if you are satisfied, go and keep it. My recommendation however is to wait and play world in the meantime.
You can run the free benchmark they have available for download on MH Wilds Steam page, you will see in what ballpark your performance is and like someone said above, look at the part where character jumps down onto open grassy field, this will give you indication how performance will be in more demanding areas later on and during fights with lots of effects/stuff going on in, which are the most important as far gameplay goes. There is not much difference in performance between benchmark and released version. Don't look at the final score of the benchmark, because 2/3 of it is just cinematic cutscenes and some strolling through empty desert that raise average fps higher giving false view of performance.
Also don't fall into trap of using Frame-Generation if your normal base fps is below 50 without frame-gen, that will be terrible experience.
P.S. I have 6950xt ( on average 85% faster GPU than yours with more VRAM) and 5800x3D, after using benchmark I decided not to buy the game, because I would have to use upscaling on Performance mode for the game to not dip below 60fps and the game looks terrible this way,
Also, I haven't seen in Capcom communication so far plans to tackle performance optimization and on Feb. 28th in Gamesradar article they quote MH's Game producer who said "...we have polished our game as much as possible for you."
I'd say this is just braindead corporate talk and directed to shareholders.
Everyone, including the devs, know that this game shouldn't have shipped the way it did. Now they say it is optimized, but in a few weeks or months, as always and as history always repeats itself, they will confirm that the game had issues and they couldn't solve the issues at time of release.
Well, let's hope we don't have to wait too long...