Did World launch as badly optimized?

[Cercamon]

Just curious. I think I should be able to run this at 60 stable with my current pc.

[Yolomeus]

Originally posted by Kirino:

Originally posted by 1080Puktra:

World had a problem but it wasn't nearly as bad as this in World you could actually lower graphic setting to get a big boost of performance but in Wilds it just runs bad period literally nothing changed performance wise from the 6+month old beta build.

Like I don't even think they did a single performance patch since the beta.

Remember how everyone said to stop trashing the Game because the Beta was old and unoptimized compared to the final Version?.

Cause I do, and it didn´t improve jack so far....

well it actually got a lot worse, my game crashes like every 20 min. had no single crash in the beta in my 25 -30h of playing

[Gigadesu!]

Genuinely worried this games gonna make my processor catch on fire

[king_of_jamaica]

It was bad, but I don't think it was this bad.

[Freak4Leeks]

It did, not this bad though atleast from what I remember

[ShiroPirro]

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

MH World, was way way worse.
1080p.
https://i.imgur.com/DCrAUMF.png
1440p
https://i.imgur.com/2EUArhM.png
4k, LOL
https://i.imgur.com/fViLCU1.png

My EVGA FTW 1080TI, prob the strongest card to exist back then, barely broke 65 FPS at 1440p.

Im so tired of seeing this and its a straight up lie. I had a 1070 and I was getting 80-90 fps day one which after a bit upgraded to a 1080ti and was getting 120-130. The difference between world and wilds was that settings could be turned off to extremely improve it and not make your game look like pure garbage. Whereas wilds it doesnt matter if you set everything to low and make it look like a ps1 game with its god awful graphics settings, it still runs the same. The fact people are trying to defend wilds by constantly saying world was the same or even worse when its not even remotely true. My friend who had a 7850 hd which is an insanely cheap trash card was getting at least 30 fps.

[Savestate]

It's not going to get better until Denuvo is removed. Just look at what happened to RE Village. Same engine.

[king_of_jamaica]

Originally posted by Gigadesu!:

Genuinely worried this games gonna make my processor catch on fire

To my knowledge, this is the only game to ever spike my 5800X3D up to 90C. That's with a Noctua NHD-15.

[Komarimaru]

Originally posted by ShiroPirro:

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

MH World, was way way worse.
1080p.
https://i.imgur.com/DCrAUMF.png
1440p
https://i.imgur.com/2EUArhM.png
4k, LOL
https://i.imgur.com/fViLCU1.png

My EVGA FTW 1080TI, prob the strongest card to exist back then, barely broke 65 FPS at 1440p.

Im so tired of seeing this and its a straight up lie. I had a 1070 and I was getting 80-90 fps day one which after a bit upgraded to a 1080ti and was getting 120-130. The difference between world and wilds was that settings could be turned off to extremely improve it and not make your game look like pure garbage. Whereas wilds it doesnt matter if you set everything to low and make it look like a ps1 game with its god awful graphics settings, it still runs the same. The fact people are trying to defend wilds by constantly saying world was the same or even worse when its not even remotely true. My friend who had a 7850 hd which is an insanely cheap trash card was getting at least 30 fps.

That's a lie.

Even today max settings.
https://i.imgur.com/t6v5gCY.jpg
With a 3080Ti
https://i.imgur.com/MJFQPqE.jpg

I'm barely breaking 140 FPS at the starting areas, no combat.

Back then, max settings, was barely breaking 65 unless turned off Volumetric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvejstKRE48

Oh look, someone else also had the same FPS.

So yes, World was worse. I've at least had Wilds not looking as bad as low settings in World, helping people to get it to run on a 1660 and still look decent.

[Kiririn]

Originally posted by Cercamon:

Just curious. I think I should be able to run this at 60 stable with my current pc.

It wasn't optimized but it wasn't this bad. For many people simply turning down the volumetrics improved performance for many with little hit to visual quality.

In Wilds there is nothing you can truly do to improve performance that doesn't absolutely tank visual quality below its already abysmal level.

[lotion]

World was not made with PC in mind from the beginning, it was a port so it obviously had issues. They were ironed out over time. People forget this is a day 1 PC title as well and it should run on hardware that at the very least was the hardware of the time when production started. If a game began production in, say, 2016 then the bar to hit should be 2016 era hardware, at the very least able to hit the gold standard of 60 fps with minor graphical settings tweaks on hardware from that era.

[ShiroPirro]

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

Originally posted by ShiroPirro:

Im so tired of seeing this and its a straight up lie. I had a 1070 and I was getting 80-90 fps day one which after a bit upgraded to a 1080ti and was getting 120-130. The difference between world and wilds was that settings could be turned off to extremely improve it and not make your game look like pure garbage. Whereas wilds it doesnt matter if you set everything to low and make it look like a ps1 game with its god awful graphics settings, it still runs the same. The fact people are trying to defend wilds by constantly saying world was the same or even worse when its not even remotely true. My friend who had a 7850 hd which is an insanely cheap trash card was getting at least 30 fps.

That's a lie.

Even today max settings.
https://i.imgur.com/t6v5gCY.jpg
With a 3080Ti
https://i.imgur.com/MJFQPqE.jpg

I'm barely breaking 140 FPS at the starting areas, no combat.

Back then, max settings, was barely breaking 65 unless turned off Volumetric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvejstKRE48

Oh look, someone else also had the same FPS.

So yes, World was worse. I've at least had Wilds not looking as bad as low settings in World, helping people to get it to run on a 1660 and still look decent.

If I could prove you wrong, I would. Unfortunately I gave my 1080ti to a friend even tested it on mhw before sending it to him and was getting those frames and with the high def pack I was getting 100-110. With my current gpu at 1440p with absolute max I get 240+ fps.

Also no, you did not get your friends to run with a 1660 and looking decent nor would it run decent and are talking straight out your hole with that one and I know this because my friend with the 1080 ti doesnt even want to play with how bad it looks and how poorly it runs and its several times better than the 1660. It looks like pure garbage and wilds low settings are so much worse than world it isnt even funny and the 1660 runs it terribly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_zXDS8Ci_8
"YEah gUyS, loOKS gReaT!"
Man the lack of detail for anything is just *chefs kiss* and 20-30 fps is highly acceptable and looks great! Very playable and not an eye sore!

[Evil Sock]

this isn't the same capcom that fixed World. This is the capcom that left DD2 an unoptimized piece of ♥♥♥♥.

[Komarimaru]

Originally posted by ShiroPirro:

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

That's a lie.

Even today max settings.
https://i.imgur.com/t6v5gCY.jpg
With a 3080Ti
https://i.imgur.com/MJFQPqE.jpg

I'm barely breaking 140 FPS at the starting areas, no combat.

Back then, max settings, was barely breaking 65 unless turned off Volumetric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvejstKRE48

Oh look, someone else also had the same FPS.

So yes, World was worse. I've at least had Wilds not looking as bad as low settings in World, helping people to get it to run on a 1660 and still look decent.

If I could prove you wrong, I would. Unfortunately I gave my 1080ti to a friend even tested it on mhw before sending it to him and was getting those frames and with the high def pack I was getting 100-110. With my current gpu at 1440p with absolute max I get 240+ fps.

Also no, you did not get your friends to run with a 1660 and looking decent nor would it run decent and are talking straight out your hole with that one and I know this because my friend with a 1080 ti doesnt even want to play with how bad it looks and how poorly it runs and its several times better than the 1660. It looks like pure garbage and wilds low settings are so much worse than world it isnt even funny and the 1660 runs it terribly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_zXDS8Ci_8
"YEah gUyS, loOKS gReaT!"
Man the lack of detail for anything is just *chefs kiss* and 20-30 fps is highly acceptable and looks great! Very playable and not an eye sore!

That's because you couldn't prove me wrong.

And that 1660 looks way better than World launch did at minimum specs.
MINIMUM
OS-WINDOWS® 7/8/8.1/10 (64-BIT required)
CPU-Intel® Core™ i5 4460 3.2GHz / AMD FX™ 6300
Memory-8 GB RAM
GPU-NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 760 / AMD Radeon™ R7 260x (VRAM 2GB)
Network-Broadband internet connection
DirectX-Version 11
Storage-20 GB available space
Sound-DirectSound compatible (DirectX® 9.0c or higher)

And at least in Wilds, there's far more tweaking options with(For now until FSR4 comes out that limits it) an way to upscale without needing Hardware.

People were getting 15-30 FPS in World, 1080p lowest at min spec. Dropping to single digits if Rathalos decided to fireball ya.

[Ravnin]

No, didn't even have DLSS and FSR let alone frame gen. Still wasn't great but you could still get 60fps on a 1080 at 1440p.

[Aryend]

I almost refunded World due to performance issues on launch, I didn't even bother buying Wilds after trying the benchmark and Beta.

So yeah, World had issues, but not nearly as bad as Wilds in my experience... Plus Worlds issues were fixable with some tweaks and turning some stuff like foliage sway and volumetric fog off, in Wilds it either runs like ♥♥♥♥ or looks like ♥♥♥♥ no matter what I do.