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
x4 Idaho Potato FE (Farmer's Edition) in quad SLI
32Kb Ram
Everythings sold out, especially the 50 series paper launch.
that isnt right unless you are talking about 4k max settings.
The writing's on the wall: Developers have fully embraced frame generation and upscalers, and so should you. Any optimizations (if they happen at all) will center around FG and upscaling, not raw performance.
If you want to cut off your nose to spite your face and cling to your GTX 1080 Ti or 20-series GPU, hoping devs will suddenly prioritize pure performance again, be my guest. But you'll be casting an insignificant vote with your wallet until you're old and gray—while missing out on countless great games.
or wait 5 years so that hardware become cheap if world war isnt erupt before that
At least the 4000 series people won't have to upgrade in at least 6-8 years with current performance leaps lol.
Quoting comments without reading them just makes you look like a complete idiot.
I mean, Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 (which is also an open world with tons of foliage and vegetation) just released too and well, not only it looks better than Wilds, but it also runs much better. It's to a point where you can slap an old 3gb 1060 and get a quite smooth gameplay at low settings, while still looking very good.
On Wilds, not only it looks awful, but it runs awful with that hardware. You aleady need a quite beefy hardware to make it look and run decent.
I'm always amazed when people, who have no clue about electronics or hardware (or even software), feel smart when they come to say to other people to "upgrade their potato" so they can decently run a game made for a 500$ console, even more when it's quite clear that the game is having issues and isn't optimised.
Even when the devs themselves sometimes have the decency to admit there are issues with their game, some idiots are still pointing other people's hardware claming it runs "fine" if you have a high end pc (while just comically ignoring the people that do have a high end pc and who are still struggling nonetheless).
Even with CP2077, which had a disastrous release, you can find tons of people "advising" others to "upgrade their potato" when the game released. It's actually funny considering the game still has issues after 5 years of patching.
Hell, even for Arkham Knight, you can find dozens of people claiming at launch they have "no issues" and that it "runs fine" while telling other people to upgrade their hardware. Which is wild considering it was pulled off the store for 4 months because even the devs deemed the port awful.
Happens all the time.
Internet people are either dumb or just plain weird. Maybe both.
That one was really funny. Arkham Knight was unfixably bad and it affected all hardware at the time - but you're absolutely right that some people would defend the constant hitching to the absolute hilt.
I've sort of come to just accept that "I don't see terrible frame timing" is the new "the human eye can't see past 30fps".
On topic, my machine can happily push Wilds at above 70 fps without Frame Generation, but that doesn't mean it's not contextually running like ♥♥♥♥. They picked the wrong engine; DD2 showed us that the RE Engine can't do open worlds - there's no fixing it, only brute forcing.
Offcourse its gonna run well.
Play KCD2 on a setup that you ran the original game on.
Guess what? It's gonna be no difference... lol
Yeah, I get very similiar with an 5080x3D out of the benchmark (5 frames lower!) - but the problem is that the Benchmark doesn't feel like a very good representation. It starts and ends with cutscenes which hugely inflate your numbers.
Anything that resembles actual gameplay is significantly lower - getting down to the 70's with me and I think one blip into the high 60's - and it doesn't even show an actual fight occurring - let alone a multiplayer fight.
That's the problem with the benchmark's frame rate average - you've got to watch it like a hawk to see what it's doing at different moments. Who cares about cutscenes? They're fundamentally less important than seeing the game run at a stable frame rate while you're playing - and while it's okay for people like you and I with high-end GPUs and all, it's going to be less cheery for people on lower end hardware, and Frame Generation isn't the answer there.
The benchmark seems quite manipulative, really.
No correlation.
As players/consumers, We shouldn't have to care about technical stuff like which engine is used. All that matters is how a game looks, runs and plays. We shouldn't judge nor defend a game by its engine.
We shouldn't say stuff like, "Oh, that game runs poorly and stutters like hell, but since it's an UE5 game, that's okay because that's to be expected, devs/publishers get a pass and you should upgrade your potato", or "this game runs good, but the former also ran good, so it was mandatory for this one to run good too".
Said differently, If the devs used an engine that isn't optimised for the game they are developing with it, it's their choice. So, if the game runs badly in consequence, it's their fault, not ours. We are no supposed to find it okay for a game to run poorly because devs decided to use that engine instead of another.
Agreed that, this is a Capcom game, so it was expected for the game to use the RE Engine, but still, if the game runs poorly, as players (and not Capcom shareholders), it is perfectly normal to say it. We are not supposed to just blindly say "it runs good considering it uses a non suited engine".
That's none of our business. Like I said, all that matters for us is how a game looks, runs and plays. And Wilds need a quite beefy hardware to even look decent, so it's understandable to read people complaining about it.
Edit:
Rise and Wilds run on the same engine. Same itteration, and has Rise litterally as its foundation.
Yet it still runs badly.
Play Wilds on a setup that you Rise on.
Guess what? It's gonna be even worse, like, much worse...