Wow. People giving bad review because of performance.

[Falcon]

I don't get it. The game gives you a free benchmark tool before you buy it. It gave a beta testing for people to try. Why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly. I agree the game is not optimized, so for now i did not buy it. But i was well informed. I'm not going to buy the game then complain about performance when they gave me the tools to try it before i spent money.
Now if the game benchmark ran it perfect for you and the game did not that is fear enough. But for the rest why buy a game that everybody knows you need a high end computer before you even try the FREE benchmark tool. Crazy.

The benchmark tool max players was 16,726.
7,069 in the last 24 hours. More people need to test.
Edit
I have a high end computer but use 4k. I refuse to use frame generation. I decided not to get it. But the amount of players in the last 24 hours playing it compared to the benchmark tool is staggering. I'm not sticking up for the company. They are not getting my money but everybody should at least use the free tool before they buy this game.

[Guest In Disguise]

Yeah, imagine not accepting being spoon fed dirt and accepting it, how ungrateful 😤

/s

[Zefar]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Artemis:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mechanique:

CAPCOM brought it upon themselves by letting poors think they can buy and play it

They should have put 4070 as minimum and 5090 as recommended in requirements and the Lidl shoppers would be praising how good it runs on their 5 years old machines instead

Nobody below 40 series is having issues, just saying. A'lotta dollars not enough sense.

That is a flat out lie. The game run real bad on lower end cards.

[Chicken Waterfall]

I ran the benchmark fine, and the beta played mostly fine with limited fps (30-40)
With the current build I can either
A: Run the game in Windows 8 compatibility mode and deal with massive graphical flickering issues
or
B: Run the game as normal and have it crash upon launching every time at the "initializing network" stage.

I'm barely using half my PC's resources and yet the game either won't start or has massive flickering.
FYI, the flickering is a new issue only on this current build and seems to affect mostly AMD graphics cards

This is why we're complaining, goofball.

[Streven]

My machine ran the beta well but full release runs like ass

[Edelgris]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Puttness:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mechanique:

CAPCOM brought it upon themselves by letting poors think they can buy and play it

They should have put 4070 as minimum and 5090 as recommended in requirements and the Lidl shoppers would be praising how good it runs on their 5 years old machines instead

For real. Why are people expecting to turn up the settings in a 2025 title with GPUs that are 2 generations out of date? Spoiled brats I tell ya, remember when Red Dead 2 came out on PC and literally nobody could max it out? That was okay because "the max settings are there to take advantage of future hardware" but when Monster Hunter does it it's an "unoptimized mess".

This game is one of the most graphically insane videogames I've ever played and people really are spoiled enough to expect cranking the settings on anything less than a 4080.

How exactly is this game "graphically insane"?

Even in desert areas which are only a sand floor and some rocks, the graphics spazz out. That's insane, but not in any good way.

The scenery art direction is very boring. Technically speaking, the maps are very sparse on detail compared to World.

The monsters are not graphically impressive. Take Rathalos for example. It looks like the model from World, but with worse textures somehow. Even with a 5090 it looks bad.

Again, how is this "graphically insane"? Explain yourself.

You're bringing up Red Dead 2, which doesn't need frame gen or upscaling to run. RDR2 also looks and runs well on lower detail levels, contrary to this game where the textures look like ass. RDR was a good experience on lower detail levels. This game is not.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Shoah Kahn]

In a game that is purportedly about hunting and then fighting monsters, if the hunting has been removed and the monster-fighting "performance" is near non-existent, for many, a "bad review" writes itself.

[Guest In Disguise]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Edelgris:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Puttness:

For real. Why are people expecting to turn up the settings in a 2025 title with GPUs that are 2 generations out of date? Spoiled brats I tell ya, remember when Red Dead 2 came out on PC and literally nobody could max it out? That was okay because "the max settings are there to take advantage of future hardware" but when Monster Hunter does it it's an "unoptimized mess".

This game is one of the most graphically insane videogames I've ever played and people really are spoiled enough to expect cranking the settings on anything less than a 4080.

How exactly is this game "graphically insane"?

Even in desert areas which are only a sand floor and some rocks, the graphics spazz out. That's insane, but not in any good way.

The scenery art direction is very boring. Technically speaking, the maps are very sparse on detail compared to World.

The monsters are not graphically impressive. Take Rathalos for example. It looks like the model from World, but with worse textures somehow. Even with a 5090 it looks bad.

Again, how is this "graphically insane"? Explain yourself.

You're bringing up Red Dead 2, which doesn't need frame gen or upscaling to run. RDR2 also looks and runs well on lower detail levels, contrary to this game where the textures look like ass. RDR was a good experience on lower detail levels. This game is not.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Show him Kingdom come deliverance 2, he will think it's real life

[Kiririn]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Shoah Kahn:

In a game that is purportedly about hunting and then fighting monsters, if the hunting has been removed and the monster-fighting "performance" is near non-existent, for many, a "bad review" writes itself.

Very true. There is no hunt anymore. Most people's definition of the word hunt does not involve calling a taxi and waiting for it to take you directly to your destination.

[_Synt3rax_]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Puttness:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mechanique:

CAPCOM brought it upon themselves by letting poors think they can buy and play it

They should have put 4070 as minimum and 5090 as recommended in requirements and the Lidl shoppers would be praising how good it runs on their 5 years old machines instead

For real. Why are people expecting to turn up the settings in a 2025 title with GPUs that are 2 generations out of date? Spoiled brats I tell ya, remember when Red Dead 2 came out on PC and literally nobody could max it out? That was okay because "the max settings are there to take advantage of future hardware" but when Monster Hunter does it it's an "unoptimized mess".

This game is one of the most graphically insane videogames I've ever played and people really are spoiled enough to expect cranking the settings on anything less than a 4080.

This is some Major Capcom D sucking right here.
RDR2 runs bad because it was just another Garbage Console Port. To this Day its looks like ♥♥♥♥.

[Khergit Horse Archer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sya2xVHgAG4

this game just needs like a 3060 and you get photorealism but in mon hunt wilds we need a 4090 to not look like deep fried pixels

[Hempalion]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Falcon:

I don't get it. The game gives you a free benchmark tool before you buy it. It gave a beta testing for people to try. Why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly. I agree the game is not optimized, so for now i did not buy it. But i was well informed. I'm not going to buy the game then complain about performance when they gave me the tools to try it before i spent money.
Now if the game benchmark ran it perfect for you and the game did not that is fear enough. But for the rest why buy a game that everybody knows you need a high end computer before you even try the FREE benchmark tool. Crazy.

The benchmark tool max players was 16,726.
7,069 in the last 24 hours. More people need to test.
Edit
I have a high end computer but use 4k. I refuse to use frame generation. I decided not to get it. But the amount of players in the last 24 hours playing it compared to the benchmark tool is staggering. I'm not sticking up for the company. They are not getting my money but everybody should at least use the free tool before they buy this game.

Ah yeah the benchmark tool which a gives you a score.

FIY I got a score of 19999 (20K) is considered great.

Still runs like garbage.

How about you stop blaming consumers just to get attention on the web and start to make those who make you pay 70 accountable?

Let's not only forget that 70 euro for a game is not the norm.

[This PC]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RubyCante:

because the benchmark tool is a lie, it's padded with 80% cutscene vs the horrible fps in gameplay especially in open field

I got the same results from the benchmark I get in game

[This PC]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Khergit Horse Archer:

this game just needs like a 3060 and you get photorealism but in mon hunt wilds we need a 4090 to not look like deep fried pixels

Your visual experience is subjective and not representative. ^^''
Also, your technical expertise is obviously very shallow. ;p
Cue youtube vid link to prove my point. ;D

[DubbuD]

I bought the game based on a 70FPS average benchmark, scoring an "excellent" rating @ high settings, 1440p. Then the game ran at 25 FPS in town on the same settings. Now, the Lossless Scaling app has helped a lot, and feels great with that frame geeration assist, but I get the criticism. I have an RTX 3080 & a Ryzen 7 5700X3D, 32GB of RAM, gen4 NvME SSD, on a 1440p monitor. There's no game on this planet that should run at 25 FPS ever on that setup right now, especially when the benchmark ran fine. Lmao

[Madao]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DubbuD:

I bought the game based on a 70FPS average benchmark, scoring an "excellent" rating @ high settings, 1440p. Then the game ran at 25 FPS in town on the same settings. Now, the Lossless Scaling app has helped a lot, and feels great with that frame geeration assist, but I get the criticism. I have an RTX 3080 & a Ryzen 7 5700X3D, 32GB of RAM, gen4 NvME SSD, on a 1440p monitor. There's no game on this planet that should run at 25 FPS ever on that setup right now, especially when the benchmark ran fine. Lmao

not surprising. the benchmark is a scam. people should report that to steam