Big Patch is coming guys

[II-Siamak-II]

I just kept on tweeting the dev and he finally answered back " it will get a big update. Sorry that it takes so long "



I-Siamak-I @I_Siamak_I
Apr 06
@ElMegalomator Is it safe to assume you have completely abandoned Darksiders II Deathinitive Edition on PC?? still on Beta patch from 2015

Reinhard Pollice
@ElMegalomator
Apr 09

@I_Siamak_I No, it will get a big update. Sorry that it takes so long

[Zaxx]

They should really release that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ patch, the performance of this game is atrocious. Warmastered Edition is giving me a solid 60 fps in 4K but this one? Regularly dips below 60 in 1080p. :D With these graphics, Nordic? :D I was already suspicious when I saw that the console versions of Deathinitive are locked at 30 fps but man, this is a new definition of broken on PC.

It's like the original port of Darksiders 1 all over again... or Painkiller Hell & Damnation, another terribly optimized Nordic release.

[magaldi]

Originally posted by tm0Lif3:

I'm considere replaying because of remaster. Since patch is coming out soon, why not just wait?

Well, because of comments like the one below yours. PC players are a weird lot. They consider something to be "broken", just because the game doesn't run at 60 FPS at 4k, when 30 FPS in 1080 is quite acceptable. Is this the worst of the game's problems? If so, I don't mind waiting for the patch at all.

But if the issues are a little more extensive. Like random crashes, unfinishable quests, or even some really jarring graphical issue, like textures not poping in, or really bad draw distance. Then I'd be better off waiting indeed.

So I ask again, what's really wrong with the game at the current state?

[JellyPuff]

Originally posted by magaldi:

Originally posted by tm0Lif3:

I'm considere replaying because of remaster. Since patch is coming out soon, why not just wait?

Well, because of comments like the one below yours. PC players are a weird lot. They consider something to be "broken", just because the game doesn't run at 60 FPS at 4k, when 30 FPS in 1080 is quite acceptable. Is this the worst of the game's problems? If so, I don't mind waiting for the patch at all.

The quality standard for PC games is 60FPS@1080p, for a decade now. 60FPS in particular since '99 (for the most part), so complaints about not being able to achieve that (if you're at/above the recommended specs) in this day and age is not weird at all. 21:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios should also be supported.

4K is still a bit overkill, but expected from newer releases and PC remasters nonetheless. It's still one of those features, that are "good to have, but not a big deal, if missing", like 144+FPS. You can always downsample, if your rig got the horsepower.

I'm downloading the game right now and going to check tomorrow, how bad/good the performance is, for myself.

[magaldi]

@Jellypuff, Would appreciate if you commented back here about overall performance.

About the frame rate. Ok, maybe 60 FPS is the norm on PC. I wouldn't know cause pretty much every machine I owned was always a couple of tiers above whatever the gaming PC of the time is.

All i'm saying is that "not running at 60, but running pretty smooth at 30" isn't broken. And if that's the worst of the technical problems about this game, than I (and I believe many others that are holding on this game) won't care all that much.

[JellyPuff]

Originally posted by magaldi:

All i'm saying is that "not running at 60, but running pretty smooth at 30" isn't broken. And if that's the worst of the technical problems about this game, than I (and I believe many others that are holding on this game) won't care all that much.

Not caring about 30FPS is fine. That's what PC gaming is all about - You like high quality graphics but don't care much about performance? PC got you covered. You couldn't care less about graphics and want the smooth, inputlag-less gameplay experience, that 60+FPS provides? PC got you covered. It's about having options. At least, that's why i game on PC. Consoles do not give me any options whatsoever.

However, for many, many players, the majority even, anything less than 60FPS, even "smooth 30FPS" (something i personally consider an oxymoron) is not acceptable and broken. That's something worth considering, even if you're fine with 30FPS.

[Zaxx]

Originally posted by magaldi:

Well, because of comments like the one below yours. PC players are a weird lot. They consider something to be "broken", just because the game doesn't run at 60 FPS at 4k, when 30 FPS in 1080 is quite acceptable.?

Seriously now?

Okay, let's look at the game's recommended system requirements:

RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows 7, Windows 8 or Windows 10 (64bit)
Processor: Any Quad-core AMD or Intel Processor
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 512MB Video Card or AMD equivalent
DirectX: Version 9.0c
Storage: 13 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX compatible Sound card

I think I should be pushing that 1080p 60 fps with a GTX 970, an i7 CPU and 16 gigs of RAM. Based on the performance I'm getting I'd be curious to see how the game runs on the recommended specs... I guess not well. It looks like the game is terribly CPU bound for some reason and if I dip below 60 on an i7 that means good luck holding a steady 30 on an i3.

So you know, it's okay to have low standards and if the hardware requirements are justified I'm more than happy to play a game at 30 fps... but it's DS2, a 5 year old game and apart from the new lighting the updated visuals of Deathinitive shouldn't demand that much.

What we have here is a dated engine forced to handle modern stuff... that never works out.

Oh, and the fact that you need to restart the game to change almost any of the options (including the resolution, the resolution for ♥♥♥♥'s sake!) really deserves a special shoutout. Who does that these days?

I bought the game on the current sale so it's no biggie but the port is so lackluster that I won't play more than 2 hours and just wait for the promised engine upgrade instead. If that comes out in a few months: cool. If not: cool again because I'll refund the crap of this.

[magaldi]

@Zaxx, I hear you, but still, saying it's "a new definition of broken on PC" is a bit of a stretch. If that is all the problem the game has it still works fine. And by fine I mean you won't be unable to play the game, even if it could/should run it better giving your rigg.

My point here is, and it's something that I see everyday on Steam reviews, PC gamers tend to exaggerated when games don't run as perfectly was they wished on their very expensive, very powerfull PCs. And that's quite miss leading.

When I read "broken" or "unplayable" I think of some really serious game breaking bugs, or hard crashes, or any kind of issue that won't let me play/finish the game at all. Not having to suffer 30 FPS on 1080, regardless of how much better the game should run on your machine.

[devSin]

Originally posted by Zaxx:

I think I should be pushing that 1080p 60 fps with a GTX 970, an i7 CPU and 16 gigs of RAM.

The only way you should not easily be getting a locked 60 on that PC is if you installed the beta patch (it has a performance regression that causes frame rate to fall in a lot of areas for no apparent reason) or you have shadow quality set to max (the highest setting is broken and shouldn't be used).

You'll probably get dips in cutscenes because the SSAO implementation struggles with close-up shots, but in normal gameplay, 60 fps is where you should be almost all the time.

That's if you're talking about frame rate. If you're talking about frame pacing, then that requires some extra voodoo (Darksiders 2 is notoriously bad at delivering consistent frame times for anything above 30 fps).

[Zaxx]

Originally posted by devSin:

Originally posted by Zaxx:

I think I should be pushing that 1080p 60 fps with a GTX 970, an i7 CPU and 16 gigs of RAM.

The only way you should not easily be getting a locked 60 on that PC is if you installed the beta patch (it has a performance regression that causes frame rate to fall in a lot of areas for no apparent reason) or you have shadow quality set to max (the highest setting is broken and shouldn't be used).

You'll probably get dips in cutscenes because the SSAO implementation struggles with close-up shots, but in normal gameplay, 60 fps is where you should be almost all the time.

That's if you're talking about frame rate. If you're talking about frame pacing, then that requires some extra voodoo (Darksiders 2 is notoriously bad at delivering consistent frame times for anything above 30 fps).

Tried lowering the shadows and yes, that improved it but man, what is up with those shadows then? :D The max setting looks tolerable for a 2015 remaster but everything below that reminds me of the original DS1 PC port with its pixely shadow resolution. It's really weird compared to Warmastered because that game has really crisp shadows and the performance impact is minimal... guess that must be an upgraded version of the original DirectX9 engine while Deathinitive still has the old one.

Yeah, framepacing is not great either (though not nearly as bad as what we had in the old DS1 port), chances are it's because the fps can fluctuate heavily. Maybe RTSS can fix that, it usually works.

[Zaxx]

Originally posted by magaldi:

@Zaxx, I hear you, but still, saying it's "a new definition of broken on PC" is a bit of a stretch. If that is all the problem the game has it still works fine. And by fine I mean you won't be unable to play the game, even if it could/should run it better giving your rigg.

My point here is, and it's something that I see everyday on Steam reviews, PC gamers tend to exaggerated when games don't run as perfectly was they wished on their very expensive, very powerfull PCs. And that's quite miss leading.

When I read "broken" or "unplayable" I think of some really serious game breaking bugs, or hard crashes, or any kind of issue that won't let me play/finish the game at all. Not having to suffer 30 FPS on 1080, regardless of how much better the game should run on your machine.

I never wrote that it's unplayable, I said broken and when I say broken I mean that the engine is clearly not up to snuff and that the remaster only updated the visuals and not the engine itself.

When it comes to the "remastering process" well, that should be a software that is a shiny and chrome version of the original game in its entirety (meaning that an engine upgrade is kind of a must) and that's where this release is broken from the get go. You just can't release a game in 2015 that runs under DirectX 9.

On top of that I wouldn't call the experience polished at all even without taking the fps into consideration: I had 2 crashes while tinkering with settings, there are a ton of small glitches and lighting bugs etc. and in today's crowded market that matters. It all comes down to what matters to you: if you want something that is objectively playable then yes, this game is playable... however if you want something that is as enjoyable as Darksiders 2 should be then you're just out of luck.

[magaldi]

Originally posted by Zaxx:

On top of that I wouldn't call the experience polished at all even without taking the fps into consideration: I had 2 crashes while tinkering with settings, there are a ton of small glitches and lighting bugs etc. and in today's crowded market that matters. It all comes down to what matters to you: if you want something that is objectively playable then yes, this game is playable... however if you want something that is as enjoyable as Darksiders 2 should be then you're just out of luck.

OK, now *this* is a good argument. Claming the game set a new definition of broken cause you can't get 60 FPS in 4k is not. This is usefull information for anyone that wants to know how the game run, and if it's worth waiting for a patch or not.

[Rtoo]

Originally posted by magaldi:

So I ask again, what's really wrong with the game at the current state?

For me this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY-N5Ow1Ncg
Encountered within the first hour of the game.
Pulled me out of the experience so much I have not played it since.
From what I've read this isn't the only location like this.
Also it stutters a lot

[JellyPuff]

So i've just gave this game a try with my rustbucket of a PC, which is rocking a good ol' trusty GTX660 and an I7 950.

Stable 60FPS and for the most part, stable 16.6MS frametimes at 1920x1200p, med shadows and AA as well as disabled AO in the intro stage at least. GPU ocassionally bottlenecks and is always hitting max usage and as a result gets rather hot.

So far, disabling AO and limiting the framerate seems the way to go unfortunately. AO really is by far the biggest FPS killer for me, causing jittery 40-50FPS, if enabled.

Since i don't wanna play with a bumped up, noisy GPU fan, while still getting stutters, i'll just wait for the patch or until i get my new hardware, whichever comes first.

[PCMaster]

I crashed 30 times in final boss battle

[MISTERIO SALGADO]

Originally posted by MisterioIsBack:

Why doesn't he announce it as a dev post? He said that last year too. Maybe they are just words. I really hope the patch arrives because I want to get D3 too, but after so much time of expecting an acceptable performance it's hard to buy anything from a team like that. I'll believe it once it's announced, otherwise it's just the same noise as last year.

this.