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
I get newer gamers may not have the know how or patience for this but they can wait for updates and fixes I guess. In the mean time a ton of people are currently enjoying the hell out of the game regardless if you are or not. Or what you may believe.
If you are on PC you should be looking into some of the mods and tips people have given to fix a lot of the performance issues if you are one of the ones having them. Does it fix everyone's issues of course not but a good chunk oh yeah!
Welcome to elder scrolls mate. :)
Not to say that they shouldn't have waited a bit longer before release. As quite a few other games should have as well. Give it a few weeks and so much is going to be out on the mod side, as well as at least a solid patch release. Just wait a bit come on not that hard.
Everyone has the ability to read reviews, look up videos and make a educated decision. No need to try and decide for them :)
DF is on record as saying that this game should not have shipped.
I did actually expect performance to be more of an issue given I knew before I bought it that this was a bit of a kludge straddling two very different engines.
I hope they do optimise it more for those having an issue.
But I am aware that it's using lumen lighting ray tracing and path tracing are not computationally inexpensive and always cost performance and whole generations of cards exist that have RTX hardware that always has and always will struggle to give high frame rates when they are actually being used.
I also think maybe I am happy at lower frame rates than some, as I was around when most people considered 32 FPS the frame rate to aim for and if you got 60 really great.
But them hardware overtook the render engines of the day and suddenly we all got 60+ and often 120FPS.
Then real time ray traced lighting and it's more expensive path tracing variation got introduced to engines, making things look much more realistic lighting wise but also having a heavy performance cost even on some cards that had hardware support for it in theory. Now it's back to 32 FPS in some games for mid end hardware and 60 - 80 being good.
I'm having a blast. Very happy I bought the deluxe edition.
Another thread promoting a youtuber.
Good puppet.
I agree.
This the case here.
UE5 is used by new devs because its easy to use and saves time because you can automate lighting and shadows. Even create whole worlds. Because there is nothing baked into the game like shadows and lighting, if you turn off Lumen you will lose a lot of fidelity. Hence why I put up with it.
It is timesaving but it also then means you are dependant on the engine. UE5 is a hog. One of the worst engines I have played on. You need to upscale everything, so your graphics are alreadfy not at their best, then theres fake frames, which again, looks and plays bad.
Nvidia are the worst because the heart of evey gpu going forward is the ai chip. Raster performance may as well not exist now. They promote their cards with lies, saying something is 5 times faster than the previous gen. Yes, with fake frames, up to three now.
So software devs use this to give a new baseline going forward. 60fps with upscaling and fake frames. Hence they don't feel the need to optimise cos Nvidia gave them a get out clause.
Of course anyone who is disappointed by it should say so.
I guess my frame rate expectations where lower than many peoples to start with because I knew this game would have to run across to engines and that it made full use of the extremely performance expensive ray traced lighting techniques.
Also I have been gaming for long enough to remember when 32FPS was considered a good and very playable rate for a 3D game to run at and that 60FPS was considered amazing.
Then hardware improved ahead of developers making full use of it and people where suddenly getting 120FPS from their games at very high resolutions.
Then RTX was introduced and other similar technologies that where very computationally expensive and the hardware (supposedly built for it) struggled to be able to perform the lighting calculations at a playable frame rate, Hence using AI to generate false frames to get that frame rate up.
Suddenly people getting 30+ or 60 -80 FPS started going on about how terrible and unacceptable those frame rates where, but they still wanted the fancy dynamic lighting and CGI quality static assets that Engines like UE5 can provide. They just expected them to run with no performance costs at similar frame rates to Half-life 2 on their current or last generation hardware.
I think they can do some tweaks and optimisations and hopefully even out the frame rate a bit. But they cannot "optimise" the game to the sort of FPS you would all like without dropping the lighting quality and it will never run as well as a game only using UE5 could because they have meshed together two fairly similar engines here.
Honestly for me it's working better than I expected, I initially only tried Ultra settings with my 3060 to see what it looked like thinking I'd have to turn things down to get playable frame rates but I haven't so personally I'm good.
To go from 20-30fps (on low settings), to a pretty steady 30fps on High across the board after only replacing the engine file with an edited version put up by a guy on Nexus is insane. Stutters from UE5 shenanigans aside...why pump out sometjing so unoptimised for lower end machines like the Steam Deck? Lol