WILDS RUNS OBJECTIVELY BAD (benchmarks on popular games)

[Jobko]

Wilds vs KCD2 comparison: https://imgsli.com/MzQ4OTMz

Monster Hunter Wilds Beta 2: 44 fps , lowest settings, 720p, DLSS ultra performance. Unplayable, crashes instantly.

Monster Hunter Wilds Benchmark: 60 fps average on medium, 1440p, DLSS ultra performance, on a 3070. Lows of like 20-30, highs of 70-80.

RDR2: 90-100 fps on 4K DLSS quality, high settings. High of 171, low of 45.

CP2077: 70 fps average , medium to ultra settings, 4k DLSS performance. 63 low, 80 high.

KCD: 80 fps average , medium settings, 4k native. 70 low, 90 high.

Black Myth Wukong (original benchmark with no post release optimisations): 99 fps average , 120 fps maximum, low 5th 88 fps, minimum (one frame spike) 17 fps. Medium settings, DLSS Ultra Performance, 1440p, motion blur off. https://i.imgur.com/LgTa8tj.jpeg (these settings mimic the Wilds ones exactly).

Path of Exile 2 60-70+ fps average @ max settings, 4k native (no upscaling).

Death Stranding 90 fps average @ max settings, 4k - DLSS Quality

This is on latest Nvidia drivers.

[Jobko]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by Jobko:

The funniest part is that all these nitpicks don't matter. Any normal person would look at both images and say KCD2 looks better.

Yeah, probably. Which is why devs have been utilising those tricks for decades.

They'd be wrong. Totally entitled to their opinion, but they are wrong. Graphically one of those images is FAR superior to the others.

People are absolutely welcome to prefer one over the other. That's a matter of opinion.

But GRAPHICALLY.. there is no debate.

Okay explain how graphically there is no debate. I want to debate it, because I simply don't understand what you're talking about. What in the Wilds screenshot is justifying the horrible performance? What in the KCD2 screenshot is justifying the good performance?

Sure, you can say "one is cutting corners", explain where they are cutting corners.

You know so much that you can tell at a glance in both these screenshots that Wilds is superior, so explain it.

Explain why you're right about this, because I actually don't understand, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

[RotGoblin]

Originally posted by Jobko:

It doesn't have ray tracing.

The textures look literally completely fine, especially for a first person game.

Just look at the background of Wilds and see how all the mountains look like Play-Doh. How is it that those textures are better?

Every blade of grass literally has a pixelated blur from horrible aliasing.

The background looks like 2D jpgs stacked on top of each other. The trees are so flat they look like sprites.

You can't even see the ground in the Wilds screenshot, so the idea that one is flat and the other is not is ridiculous because you don't even have a frame of reference for flatness for Wilds. The flatness for the KCD2 screenshot is literally a road... You know things that are usually flat...

The textures are average. They're good enough, but hardly outstanding, I have indeed seen better textures on Minecraft, like 10 years ago.

I'm not criticising the textures, I'm just stating a fact. They're decent, not great, but decent.

I AM criticising the mesh, which is outdated.

The trees are low poly, the rocks are incredibly low poly, the road has an "okay" bumpmap but it's largely obscured by copy/paste flat grass textures to hide that it's very low poly.

It's a very low poly image.

Is Wilds perfect? Heck no. Their chosen grass is very dull and the game has pop in shader issues that I hope are fixed for launch. But that's a texture issue, and I'm not talking about textures.

[RotGoblin]

Originally posted by Jobko:

Originally posted by Goblin:

Yeah, probably. Which is why devs have been utilising those tricks for decades.

They'd be wrong. Totally entitled to their opinion, but they are wrong. Graphically one of those images is FAR superior to the others.

People are absolutely welcome to prefer one over the other. That's a matter of opinion.

But GRAPHICALLY.. there is no debate.

Okay explain how graphically there is no debate. I want to debate it, because I simply don't understand what you're talking about. What in the Wilds screenshot is justifying the horrible performance? What in the KCD2 screenshot is justifying the good performance?

Sure, you can say "one is cutting corners", explain where they are cutting corners.

You know so much that you can tell at a glance in both these screenshots that Wilds is superior, so explain it.

Explain why you're right about this, because I actually don't understand, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

I'm not sure I could explain it more than I have tried.

Strip away all the textures (which are a flat image slapped on top of a 3d surface).

What you're left with is a grey (or wiremesh) image, consisting of polygons (tiny triangles) that form a shape. The more triangles you use, the more detailed the shape is. Also the harder it is to render.

So you can "cheat", and use a low poly mesh (use less triangles) but use a detailed bumpmap. A bumpmap basically fakes depth to an image, by telling the applied texture where to add dark/light areas to create the suggestion of depth.

4 minute explanation here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH_o4KcsVyA

Both games use various kinds of mapping.

But when you strip away all the colours, strip away the textures, you will see that one game is made up of SIGNIFICANTLY more triangles than the other. There are real, renderable differences that directly relate to how graphically intense a scene is.

You can fake quite a lot with maps, but you will always run into an issue of an image being too low poly eventually.

And KCD2 is very low poly.

They've done a great job "faking it", and their lighting engine is doing some very heavy lifting. But you can only mask and fake it so much.

25 second video quickly showing low poly vs high poly, see how much smoother and rounder the high poly Blastoise is? It has more polygons, lots more. Wilds has a LOT more polygons than KCD2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9yqkf4Brf4

[Jobko]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by Jobko:

It doesn't have ray tracing.

The textures look literally completely fine, especially for a first person game.

Just look at the background of Wilds and see how all the mountains look like Play-Doh. How is it that those textures are better?

Every blade of grass literally has a pixelated blur from horrible aliasing.

The background looks like 2D jpgs stacked on top of each other. The trees are so flat they look like sprites.

You can't even see the ground in the Wilds screenshot, so the idea that one is flat and the other is not is ridiculous because you don't even have a frame of reference for flatness for Wilds. The flatness for the KCD2 screenshot is literally a road... You know things that are usually flat...

The textures are average. They're good enough, but hardly outstanding, I have indeed seen better textures on Minecraft, like 10 years ago.

I'm not criticising the textures, I'm just stating a fact. They're decent, not great, but decent.

I AM criticising the mesh, which is outdated.

The trees are low poly, the rocks are incredibly low poly, the road has an "okay" bumpmap but it's largely obscured by copy/paste flat grass textures to hide that it's very low poly.

It's a very low poly image.

Is Wilds perfect? Heck no. Their chosen grass is very dull and the game has pop in shader issues that I hope are fixed for launch. But that's a texture issue, and I'm not talking about textures.

Another comparison: https://imgsli.com/MzQ4OTQ4

Yes, I agree that up close in a first person game you can make out some bad textures. If KCD2 was 3rd person, you'd literally have 0 issues with these textures. Like if I rub my camera right up next to a planet in any game, most games would fail and make it look 2D. That's just how graphics are. That's how it would be for Wilds as well.

I think that Wilds may have some more photogrammetery accuracy on certain cliff faces and desert rocks, sure. I don't think that justifies the performance drop, especially when the image looks underwhelming.

I think the overall image for Wilds looks bad, just really bad. It doesn't matter how impressive it is on a technical level, because I've already seen games that are technically far superior run better, like The Last of Us 2 or Forbidden West. Those game, and you cannot deny this, are insane with the level of detail, completely graphically destroying both these games, and yet they run better than Wilds.

This is what I'm trying to get at. Wilds is ugly looking and runs bad. I don't care what technical feat something is if I am looking at a horrid ugly image nor can I even appreciate what they've done because it looks so ugly.

To prove my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikq0MpoepJg

Originally posted by drakesrage:

Originally posted by Jobko:

Anyone who pre-ordered it I hope to God you guys actually get a game that performs as well or better than the benchmark/beta. If you don't I pray you get a timely set of updates that fix the game.

This is complete cope, but at the very least my prayers go out to you guys, as I feel like this games going to be a total launch disaster with mixed reviews at the most.

I preordered I get over 80 fps on ultra with maxed ray tracing at 4k so even if it launches as is now Ill be happy game is gorgeous cant wait

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3423976766

[RotGoblin]

Originally posted by Jobko:

Another comparison: https://imgsli.com/MzQ4OTQ4

Yes, I agree that up close in a first person game you can make out some bad textures. If KCD2 was 3rd person, you'd literally have 0 issues with these textures. Like if I rub my camera right up next to a planet in any game, most games would fail and make it look 2D. That's just how graphics are. That's how it would be for Wilds as well.

I think that Wilds may have some more photogrammetery accuracy on certain cliff faces and desert rocks, sure. I don't think that justifies the performance drop, especially when the image looks underwhelming.

I think the overall image for Wilds looks bad, just really bad. It doesn't matter how impressive it is on a technical level, because I've already seen games that are technically far superior run better, like The Last of Us 2 or Forbidden West. Those game, and you cannot deny this, are insane with the level of detail, completely graphically destroying both these games, and yet they run better than Wilds.

This is what I'm trying to get at. Wilds is ugly looking and runs bad. I don't care what technical feat something is if I am looking at a horrid ugly image nor can I even appreciate what they've done because it looks so ugly.

To prove my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikq0MpoepJg

Hnngh, you keep going on about textures. It has literally nothing to do with the textures.

[Jobko]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by Jobko:

Another comparison: https://imgsli.com/MzQ4OTQ4

Yes, I agree that up close in a first person game you can make out some bad textures. If KCD2 was 3rd person, you'd literally have 0 issues with these textures. Like if I rub my camera right up next to a planet in any game, most games would fail and make it look 2D. That's just how graphics are. That's how it would be for Wilds as well.

I think that Wilds may have some more photogrammetery accuracy on certain cliff faces and desert rocks, sure. I don't think that justifies the performance drop, especially when the image looks underwhelming.

I think the overall image for Wilds looks bad, just really bad. It doesn't matter how impressive it is on a technical level, because I've already seen games that are technically far superior run better, like The Last of Us 2 or Forbidden West. Those game, and you cannot deny this, are insane with the level of detail, completely graphically destroying both these games, and yet they run better than Wilds.

This is what I'm trying to get at. Wilds is ugly looking and runs bad. I don't care what technical feat something is if I am looking at a horrid ugly image nor can I even appreciate what they've done because it looks so ugly.

To prove my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikq0MpoepJg

Hnngh, you keep going on about textures. It has literally nothing to do with the textures.

"The textures are average. They're good enough, but hardly outstanding, I have indeed seen better textures on Minecraft, like 10 years ago.

I'm not criticising the textures, I'm just stating a fact. They're decent, not great, but decent."

You literally said this.

Also I brought up photogrammetry which is nothing to do with textures. It's getting a 3D scan of an environment and putting it into an engine for touch ups. The actual reason this is done is to capture the intricate polygons that make up a rock, for example, and the texture almost has nothing to with the reason photogrammetry is important.

[RotGoblin]

Originally posted by Jobko:

Originally posted by Goblin:

Hnngh, you keep going on about textures. It has literally nothing to do with the textures.

"The textures are average. They're good enough, but hardly outstanding, I have indeed seen better textures on Minecraft, like 10 years ago.

I'm not criticising the textures, I'm just stating a fact. They're decent, not great, but decent."

You literally said this.

Also I brought up photogrammetry which is nothing to do with textures. It's getting a 3D scan of an environment and putting it into an engine for touch ups. The actual reason this is done is to capture the intricate polygons that make up a rock, for example, and the texture almost has nothing to with the reason photogrammetry is important.

Yes, that's not a criticism, it's a statement. KCD2 is using "okay" textures. I don't know why you'er so hung up on textures when the graphical fidelity has absolutely FA to do with textures....

I typed out an entire essay that you've conveniently ignored, so here it is again for your displeasure;

Strip away all the textures (which are a flat image slapped on top of a 3d surface).

What you're left with is a grey (or wiremesh) image, consisting of polygons (tiny triangles) that form a shape. The more triangles you use, the more detailed the shape is. Also the harder it is to render.

So you can "cheat", and use a low poly mesh (use less triangles) but use a detailed bumpmap. A bumpmap basically fakes depth to an image, by telling the applied texture where to add dark/light areas to create the suggestion of depth.

4 minute explanation here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH_o4KcsVyA

Both games use various kinds of mapping.

But when you strip away all the colours, strip away the textures, you will see that one game is made up of SIGNIFICANTLY more triangles than the other. There are real, renderable differences that directly relate to how graphically intense a scene is.

You can fake quite a lot with maps, but you will always run into an issue of an image being too low poly eventually.

And KCD2 is very low poly.

They've done a great job "faking it", and their lighting engine is doing some very heavy lifting. But you can only mask and fake it so much.

25 second video quickly showing low poly vs high poly, see how much smoother and rounder the high poly Blastoise is? It has more polygons, lots more. Wilds has a LOT more polygons than KCD2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9yqkf4Brf4

In this comparison image that you posted;

https://imgsli.com/MzQ4OTQ4

This is what i'm seeing;

https://ibb.co/TBr0Z1J6

Wilds is so much higher poly.

The rocks on KCD2 are very low poly. The rocks in Wilds could be higher poly, I'd actually say Wilds has overculled on the poly-count on Wilds terrain to meet PS5 compatibility, but you could argue they went too far on the Monsters. They could offer a lower poly Monster mesh to ease up rasterisation performance issues on older GPU's. (so then people can complain about origami monsters)

[Jobko]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by Jobko:

Okay explain how graphically there is no debate. I want to debate it, because I simply don't understand what you're talking about. What in the Wilds screenshot is justifying the horrible performance? What in the KCD2 screenshot is justifying the good performance?

Sure, you can say "one is cutting corners", explain where they are cutting corners.

You know so much that you can tell at a glance in both these screenshots that Wilds is superior, so explain it.

Explain why you're right about this, because I actually don't understand, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

I'm not sure I could explain it more than I have tried.

Strip away all the textures (which are a flat image slapped on top of a 3d surface).

What you're left with is a grey (or wiremesh) image, consisting of polygons (tiny triangles) that form a shape. The more triangles you use, the more detailed the shape is. Also the harder it is to render.

So you can "cheat", and use a low poly mesh (use less triangles) but use a detailed bumpmap. A bumpmap basically fakes depth to an image, by telling the applied texture where to add dark/light areas to create the suggestion of depth.

4 minute explanation here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH_o4KcsVyA

Both games use various kinds of mapping.

But when you strip away all the colours, strip away the textures, you will see that one game is made up of SIGNIFICANTLY more triangles than the other. There are real, renderable differences that directly relate to how graphically intense a scene is.

You can fake quite a lot with maps, but you will always run into an issue of an image being too low poly eventually.

And KCD2 is very low poly.

They've done a great job "faking it", and their lighting engine is doing some very heavy lifting. But you can only mask and fake it so much.

25 second video quickly showing low poly vs high poly, see how much smoother and rounder the high poly Blastoise is? It has more polygons, lots more. Wilds has a LOT more polygons than KCD2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9yqkf4Brf4

I know what a bump map, normal map, tessellation, parallax, and all that ♥♥♥♥ is. Normal maps are just telling light how to interact with an object to create depth within a flat texture. I understand that.

I understand what you mean when you say polygons, and like I said, Wilds definitely has really good photogrammetry on their desert cliffs and rocks. However I don't think this is enough to justify the performance even then.

Wukong has a higher polygon count than Wilds and runs better. So again, doesn't justify the performance.

KCD2 looks better is all I'm trying to get across. I prefer a game looking better than being more impressive under the hood, which I don't even think that Wilds is that impressive to be honest. They made the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument for AI in Dragon's Dogma 2, and I followed NPCs around to see how advanced the AI was, and they literally just walk on set paths every day, it wasn't that crazy. We had to phase them in and out because it was so CPU heavy, and they barely acted any different than a pre-scripted Skyrim character.

On paper something can be impressive. Oh these NPCs are computing 1000s of AI megashits per hour. In reality though? I don't even see what the benefit of it was. They don't do anything special at all. Dwarf Fortress has more entertaining AI simulation than that game.

So you're excuse can be "this about of polygons", but then Wukong is brought up and then what? What's the excuse. The game looks horrendous, runs bad, and the excuse is something that doesn't even make it run better than a game that has more intricate polygons.

Wasn't nanite made to literally combat polygon issues? Or can Wilds not run nanite because it's in REengine?

[GamingWithSilvertail]

Originally posted by Jobko:

Originally posted by Goblin:

I'm not sure I could explain it more than I have tried.

Strip away all the textures (which are a flat image slapped on top of a 3d surface).

What you're left with is a grey (or wiremesh) image, consisting of polygons (tiny triangles) that form a shape. The more triangles you use, the more detailed the shape is. Also the harder it is to render.

So you can "cheat", and use a low poly mesh (use less triangles) but use a detailed bumpmap. A bumpmap basically fakes depth to an image, by telling the applied texture where to add dark/light areas to create the suggestion of depth.

4 minute explanation here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH_o4KcsVyA

Both games use various kinds of mapping.

But when you strip away all the colours, strip away the textures, you will see that one game is made up of SIGNIFICANTLY more triangles than the other. There are real, renderable differences that directly relate to how graphically intense a scene is.

You can fake quite a lot with maps, but you will always run into an issue of an image being too low poly eventually.

And KCD2 is very low poly.

They've done a great job "faking it", and their lighting engine is doing some very heavy lifting. But you can only mask and fake it so much.

25 second video quickly showing low poly vs high poly, see how much smoother and rounder the high poly Blastoise is? It has more polygons, lots more. Wilds has a LOT more polygons than KCD2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9yqkf4Brf4

I know what a bump map, normal map, tessellation, parallax, and all that ♥♥♥♥ is. Normal maps are just telling light how to interact with an object to create depth within a flat texture. I understand that.

I understand what you mean when you say polygons, and like I said, Wilds definitely has really good photogrammetry on their desert cliffs and rocks. However I don't think this is enough to justify the performance even then.

Wukong has a higher polygon count than Wilds and runs better. So again, doesn't justify the performance.

KCD2 looks better is all I'm trying to get across. I prefer a game looking better than being more impressive under the hood, which I don't even think that Wilds is that impressive to be honest. They made the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument for AI in Dragon's Dogma 2, and I followed NPCs around to see how advanced the AI was, and they literally just walk on set paths every day, it wasn't that crazy. We had to phase them in and out because it was so CPU heavy, and they barely acted any different than a pre-scripted Skyrim character.

On paper something can be impressive. Oh these NPCs are computing 1000s of AI megashits per hour. In reality though? I don't even see what the benefit of it was. They don't do anything special at all. Dwarf Fortress has more entertaining AI simulation than that game.

So you're excuse can be "this about of polygons", but then Wukong is brought up and then what? What's the excuse. The game looks horrendous, runs bad, and the excuse is something that doesn't even make it run better than a game that has more intricate polygons.

Wasn't nanite made to literally combat polygon issues? Or can Wilds not run nanite because it's in REengine?

How do you know? Did you 'rip' the models out of both games? Afaik nobody did ? XD

[Atlantus]

Originally posted by Jobko:

Originally posted by Atlantus:

I don't know how informed you are.
At least in the German gaming press it was reported 1 month ago (roughly) that the developers are working on the performance and it should already be better than the first beta, this performance patch is not yet live!
And the developers have also told the press that they will continue to work on the performance.

So just wait and see, for all I care, watch performance videos on YouTube with your hardware for the release or see for yourself.

The fact is, MH Wold was also a hardware-hungry monster at release and only became playable for everyone over time.
The games you mentioned in your list also had this problem!
Because games are no longer released ready or well optimized, but that doesn't just apply to Monster Hunter Wilds!

Can you just answer my question? What DLSS setting are you using in the frame gen off screenshot?

I don't know, I selected the Ultra preset and took what was in there, I think I saw quality but can't say for sure

[Jobko]

I'm also going to mention that absurd amount of polygons has a tapering effect where it starts to not be noticeable, especially in a 3D game. So if the reason why Wilds runs bad is an absurd amount of polygons, then they are as dumb as the person who made a vase in Final Fantasy 14 have an absurd amount of polygons for no reason when a lower amount has the same effect.

So that is a matter of optimisation. You have to cut corners and fake stuff to improve the image. Wilds would look better if they lowered the polygon count to a level that basically looks the same from a distant, and then used those resources for other things.

Visual optimisation is optimisation. So Wilds is unoptimised. Point proven.

[Jobko]

Originally posted by Atlantus:

Originally posted by Jobko:

Can you just answer my question? What DLSS setting are you using in the frame gen off screenshot?

I don't know, I selected the Ultra preset and took what was in there, I think I saw quality but can't say for sure

What fps do you get with no DLSS? Can you do a benchmark and post?

[RotGoblin]

Originally posted by Jobko:

I know what a bump map, normal map, tessellation, parallax, and all that ♥♥♥♥ is. Normal maps are just telling light how to interact with an object to create depth within a flat texture. I understand that.

I understand what you mean when you say polygons, and like I said, Wilds definitely has really good photogrammetry on their desert cliffs and rocks. However I don't think this is enough to justify the performance even then.

Wukong has a higher polygon count than Wilds and runs better. So again, doesn't justify the performance.

KCD2 looks better is all I'm trying to get across. I prefer a game looking better than being more impressive under the hood, which I don't even think that Wilds is that impressive to be honest. They made the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument for AI in Dragon's Dogma 2, and I followed NPCs around to see how advanced the AI was, and they literally just walk on set paths every day, it wasn't that crazy. We had to phase them in and out because it was so CPU heavy, and they barely acted any different than a pre-scripted Skyrim character.

On paper something can be impressive. Oh these NPCs are computing 1000s of AI megashits per hour. In reality though? I don't even see what the benefit of it was. They don't do anything special at all. Dwarf Fortress has more entertaining AI simulation than that game.

So you're excuse can be "this about of polygons", but then Wukong is brought up and then what? What's the excuse. The game looks horrendous, runs bad, and the excuse is something that doesn't even make it run better than a game that has more intricate polygons.

Wasn't nanite made to literally combat polygon issues? Or can Wilds not run nanite because it's in REengine?

If it looks better to you, great. I've literally stated that multiple times.

Watching a KCd2 4k Ultra playthrough and i can literally count the polygons on so many items. To me that's literally unplayable.

It actually has the graphical fidelity of something like Skyrim, it is VERY dated. They've done a good job with the lighting, but it's very dated.

Lol, I looked up a HD reskin mod for Skyrim and yeah, it's exactly like the graphical fidelity of Skyrim,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9v5jMg8ig

I think they should have pushed Wilds further, IMO, the detail is there. They've scaled back really far to get it running on the hardware that it is. I'm interested to see how the Scarlet Forest looks upon release though.

As for the Wukong debate, again.. and we've gone over this a hundred times already in a hundred different threads. That's a GPU bound game with much, MUCH lower processing requirements. They can afford to go heavier graphically because there isn't a CPU bottleneck.

And anyone that says "so make Wilds like Wukong" simply doesn't understand that you currently cannot. You cannot make a game like Wilds without hammering the living bejeezus out of the processor.

[Jobko]

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

Originally posted by Jobko:

I know what a bump map, normal map, tessellation, parallax, and all that ♥♥♥♥ is. Normal maps are just telling light how to interact with an object to create depth within a flat texture. I understand that.

I understand what you mean when you say polygons, and like I said, Wilds definitely has really good photogrammetry on their desert cliffs and rocks. However I don't think this is enough to justify the performance even then.

Wukong has a higher polygon count than Wilds and runs better. So again, doesn't justify the performance.

KCD2 looks better is all I'm trying to get across. I prefer a game looking better than being more impressive under the hood, which I don't even think that Wilds is that impressive to be honest. They made the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ argument for AI in Dragon's Dogma 2, and I followed NPCs around to see how advanced the AI was, and they literally just walk on set paths every day, it wasn't that crazy. We had to phase them in and out because it was so CPU heavy, and they barely acted any different than a pre-scripted Skyrim character.

On paper something can be impressive. Oh these NPCs are computing 1000s of AI megashits per hour. In reality though? I don't even see what the benefit of it was. They don't do anything special at all. Dwarf Fortress has more entertaining AI simulation than that game.

So you're excuse can be "this about of polygons", but then Wukong is brought up and then what? What's the excuse. The game looks horrendous, runs bad, and the excuse is something that doesn't even make it run better than a game that has more intricate polygons.

Wasn't nanite made to literally combat polygon issues? Or can Wilds not run nanite because it's in REengine?

How do you know? Did you 'rip' the models out of both games? Afaik nobody did ? XD

Wukong's terrain looks infinitely more complex than Wilds, that's how I know. If that's not actually the case, refer to my other comment:

Originally posted by Jobko:

I'm also going to mention that absurd amount of polygons has a tapering effect where it starts to not be noticeable, especially in a 3D game. So if the reason why Wilds runs bad is an absurd amount of polygons, then they are as dumb as the person who made a vase in Final Fantasy 14 have an absurd amount of polygons for no reason when a lower amount has the same effect.

So that is a matter of optimisation. You have to cut corners and fake stuff to improve the image. Wilds would look better if they lowered the polygon count to a level that basically looks the same from a distant, and then used those resources for other things.

Visual optimisation is optimisation. So Wilds is unoptimised. Point proven.

[GamingWithSilvertail]

Originally posted by Jobko:

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

How do you know? Did you 'rip' the models out of both games? Afaik nobody did ? XD

Wukong's terrain looks infinitely more complex than Wilds, that's how I know. If that's not actually the case, refer to my other comment:

Originally posted by Jobko:

I'm also going to mention that absurd amount of polygons has a tapering effect where it starts to not be noticeable, especially in a 3D game. So if the reason why Wilds runs bad is an absurd amount of polygons, then they are as dumb as the person who made a vase in Final Fantasy 14 have an absurd amount of polygons for no reason when a lower amount has the same effect.

So that is a matter of optimisation. You have to cut corners and fake stuff to improve the image. Wilds would look better if they lowered the polygon count to a level that basically looks the same from a distant, and then used those resources for other things.

Visual optimisation is optimisation. So Wilds is unoptimised. Point proven.

But thats not how you klnow. For that you have to rip the things out of the game....

Kinda silly to make such statement.