Why does the game look so bad even on ultra?

[Helldivers™ 2]

1080p, ultra settings, TAA on/off no difference, native display mode, the game looks worse than most games i have played the last 5 years, and the performance is terrible too.

That makes me think it must be some kind of bug, because there is no reason the game should logically look or perform like that in 2024.

edit: blocking anyone who keeps whining about 1080p as if it is not the most popular res by far, but something weird and alien. Every other game looks way better at 1080p than this, so point invalid

[Babyfaced Beauty]

Originally posted by Deep Rock Galactic:

Originally posted by BlackFlame1981:

Who cares about graphic? It looks not THAT bad and gameplay is king!

I only care about graphics when they are so bad it distracts me from gameplay, and that is the case here unfortunately.

Originally posted by BabyBeauty:

If you have any decent recent system, 1440p or 4k is the current standard. 1080 is dated > 5 years ago old stuff.

Your opinion on what is dated is irrelevant, facts say the common resolution is 1080p. And every other game looks good at 1080p

Ultra rendering looks great on 1440P, if you're running 1080P, it usually means you're not using OLED or QLED or more modern monitors with high contrast ratios.

If you can't do supersampled or native with good fps, then it is your system issue. Go buy a PS5 if you can't afford a decent PC for modern PC gaming, or go back to playing bioshock or something.

Otherwise, turn off ambient occlusion, shadows, lighting, and depth of field and see if it helps.

You want to enjoy modern game graphics but don't have the system to do so, it is not the game's fault, especially when most of us with our modern builds have totally no problems with good graphics and high FPS.

The game has very high simulation and vram demands, lots of physics, projectiles etc are actually simulated, not hitscan.

Considering it is somewhat playable on the steam deck, and ROG Ally with lowered graphics, you 'can', plan this game, but if you want to enjoy good graphics etc, update your monitor and PC.

[Babyfaced Beauty]

Originally posted by Majorita:

Oh, if you are using the game's 'upscaling' I strongly recommend setting it to 'native'.

I am no expert, but the 'Render Scale' setting seems to reflect the internal rendering resolution of the game. It's like how Dark Souls PTDE renders at 720p internally (you get DSfix to change that), or the Nier Automata Steam version rendered at 720p until it got updated a year or two ago. If you pick anything lower than 'Native' (aka Ultra Performance, Performance, Balanced, Quality, Ultra Quality) it'll render noticeably at a lower resolution than your monitor's resolution which significantly muddies the image.

Supersampling or Ultra supersampling (above 'Native') thus render the game at a higher resolution then scale it to fit your screen, basically, and while this looks slightly nicer it will severely damage your framerate.

'Render Scale' is NOT the same as Nvidia DLSS or AMD's FSR.

I have everything else maxed but vsync off, anti-aliasing off, depth of field off, motion blur off, bloom on and sharpness 0.60.

Their anti-aliasing does muddy the image a lot, so I think turning it off outright is best. And, I just kind of like bloom, so I usually leave it on.

Maybe this might help...?

You can't turn off render upscaling, it is a default setting with options on how much scaling you want. Set to native to 'turn off' upscaling.

[Majorita]

Oh also additionally I kind of just give the game a bit of a pass given this is a game engine and probably a bunch of assets from like 6 years ago or something. Helldivers 2 looks dated because it is. It might have come out in 2024, but it is not a 2024 release, really.

I am sure it's been mentioned elsewhere but the engine literally was discontinued shortly after they began development on this game and that was 6 years ago, so they probably began work 7-8 years ago, so... uh... yeah.

It's like how Kenshi officially exited early access in 2018 but development started in like 2008 using a pretty ancient open source engine (OGRE), and that game looks like a game from 2006... oof.

[Rabenherz]

I like it. Yes, it doesn't look "2024 AAA Titles using the newest tech stuff". I think as a mostly multiplayer title it aims for a huge playerbase. Tons of people don't have graphics cards of the 40 or even 30 generation yet. If graphics were top tier of "current gen" then the player base would be way smaller making it a worse experience and less reliable to survive for a few years. Live Service Titles die fast these days. Even ones that look stunning. Also with everything going on especially on higher difficulties performance would tank even worse.
I play on 1440p (Nvidia DSR on a 1080p monitor) with a 3060TI, high settings on Quality Upscaling (not ultra - this takes me below 60 fps). I notice no dips below 60 this way yet.
I also like the art style, lighting, effects and the variation on different planets. I think they did a good job with what was possible during development.
But who am I to judge - i even like Earth Defence Force ;-)
One thing that "does" bug me are the bugs. Did get stuck in terrain a few times. Also I tried the "Rescue Scientists" mission yesterday about 4 or 5 times and it only worked 1 time. The other ones failed because the scientists just stood around in front of the open door and didn't move in the target building. Some stuff needs more polish i guess.

[Majorita]

Originally posted by BabyBeauty:

The game has very high simulation and vram demands, lots of physics, projectiles etc are actually simulated, not hitscan.

This is not much of an excuse, considering like... it's less advanced and looks worse than Battlefield 1 imo, and that was a game from 2016? And that was a 32v32 FPS.

Helldivers 2 runs worse too, I would dare say it's a poorly optimized game because probably most people shouldn't be struggling with this...

[Meatbug]

Unless you provide details what's your actual issue, this smells like troll post.
Do you have issues with blurry textures?
Bad resolution?
Artifacts?

Or are you trying to say that the visual art direction isn't to your liking, cause, you know, these are 2 absolutely different things.

[Babyfaced Beauty]

Originally posted by Majorita:

Oh also additionally I kind of just give the game a bit of a pass given this is a game engine and probably a bunch of assets from like 6 years ago or something. Helldivers 2 looks dated because it is. It might have come out in 2024, but it is not a 2024 release, really.

I am sure it's been mentioned elsewhere but the engine literally was discontinued shortly after they began development on this game and that was 6 years ago, so they probably began work 7-8 years ago, so... uh... yeah.

It's like how Kenshi officially exited early access in 2018 but development started in like 2008 using a pretty ancient open source engine (OGRE), and that game looks like a game from 2006... oof.

Does not look dated, looks good and modern. The game engine having had support discontinued does not mean it doesn't have latest graphics technology including upscaling, simulated ray tracing etc.

Even cyberpunk 2077 uses an old game engine that CDPR has decided to stop using and are moving onto UE5, which isn't that new either.

Most modern game engines are designed to use ray tracing, or AI procedural generation.

The only so called new development that is modern and somewhat unuseable due to fps drops is nanite simulated surface geometry that render textures into 3d. This isn't found in most new games, except as a trial tech (in fortnite with this enabled, even on a top end overclocked 4090 with amd 7950x3d, fps drops and stutters to below 40).

So talking ♥♥♥♥ about 'no longer supported' game engines when you have no idea about what game engines actually do is a joke.

[Koita Prime]

What? This game looks beautiful. What kind of ridiculous standards for games do you have man?

[Paper Rival]

Personally the game looks great for me on max settings at 1440p. Also getting good performance, though it's not quite locked at 144 FPS. Visuals are subjective, but if you are getting poor performance perhaps your system isn't enough to run at max settings?

[hi friends]

honestly, i would say the game looks worse at ultra than any lower settings. too blurry for me imo.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by Wr4Th_0f_D0g:

Maybe my expectations are low, but I think the game looks great even on medium

This.

The game just look great, period.

[Bird24-7]

One of the biggest differences for me was disabling the bloom setting. I liked the effects on light sources, but for some reason in this game it messed with the black levels and made a lot of stuff looked washed out.

[Beytran70]

Guys his profile name is literally Deep Rock Galactic. The only way it could be more obvious is if his name was I Am Trolling.

[Zothen]

Originally posted by PlecixZ:

Deep rock as name with Level 0 Private profile, talking about graphics hahahahah

Special Steam user with over 3000 hours (!!!) in Call of duty games sneering on others about a private profile hahahahah

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by Deep Rock Galactic:

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

This.

The game just look great, period.

In this case that just means "it looks dated but i'm ok with it", so my comment is not so relevant. Fortunately some other people who want to see this rationally.

That's an opinion. Your opinion. Graphics are certainly not dated.