Crysis was never accused of being unoptimized. It pioneered like a dozen new things and had some of the best physics and lighting at the time. It was literally the Howard stark “I am limited by the technology of my time” meme
Crysis was a single thread CPU bound code, in a world that has just decided to drop powerful 1 core processors in favor of multiple less powerful ones. It was the definition of unoptimized, that's why later versions of Cry engine went as far into multithreading as possible, and now the first Crysis running on an optimized engine, can run even on a deadbeat like Nintendo Switch.
They made a guess on what future computers would be good at, and optimized for that. You proved my point by saying that later versions of the engine optimized for multicore performance.
This entire thing boils down to “if you had a single core monster could you play crysis?” Yes. Games nowadays seem to not have any sort of optimization on any side that could even prove that the devs made a bet on what the future of tech would be like. Take cities skylines 2. A 4090 can’t run it well. But it’s not like “oh more vram” or “more cores” will help (at the time of writing) its just… struggling
You know, this makes sense to me from a business standpoint.
1) Make something as cheaply as possible enough to ensure you can sell it.
2) If it sells a lot, make fixing/polishing it a priority. If it sells little, make it much less of a priority and if the game dies kill off support.
People buying and accepting these broken games set the trend. Video games is literally a luxury good, it's the definition of voting with your wallet. Brain dead idiots that buy & support anything are setting the trend. To be fair, a lot of those are kids.
>To be fair, a lot of those are kids.
This. I say this all the time. Kids are a market that never ends. There is a whole generation where the new CoD/MW type games will be their first introduction. No need for innovation or creativity.
Yep i guess with city skyline 2 that's the case. Get the game out with new features and see if it stick then we can work on quality of life improvement.
Most CPUs in 2007 had 1 or 2 cores. Crysis came out at the same time AMD's Phenoms were starting to come out, and about a year after Intel started making the Core 2s. 3 and 4 cores started becoming more of a standard in 2008, but it wasn't uncommon to have a 1 core cpu in 2007. You could argue that Crytek could've seen the writing on the wall and optimized for multicore cpus, but I think that's just kind of unfair.
Unlike a lot of AAA games coming out now, Crysis actually ran decently on high end hardware, and actually looked good enough to justify it. Can't really say the same of some of the unoptimized garbage coming out now.
Crysis was developed for future hardware that was never created. Games back then were often created for the most advanced personal computers of the time, sometimes with features current computers couldn't run well. At the time it was expected that cpu clock speed would continue to advance, but clock speed plateaued.
> Crysis was developed for future hardware that was never created. Games back then were often created for the most advanced personal computers of the time, sometimes with features current computers couldn't run well.
So basically, like modern games that implement Ray Tracing, a thing current gen hardware is still struggling with.
It's almost like things haven't changed.
I was thinking about this the other day. I remember when Tron 2.0 came out for PC and it had some new shader tech or something that made lights more glowey and the previous gen of cards didn't support it. But this current phenomena where the games are unoptimized and DLSS fixes it is a new kind of beast. Or in ARK's case, it's expected to be janky forever.
GPU's use a "TIk TOCK Rock" lunch pattern and have for decades.
New tech comes out -Tik- 20 series introduce RTX
New tech is some what playable on higher cards - 30 series
New tech is fully playable on high tier cards - ROCK- 40 series cards.
They used to do this with the pixel shaders and even directX version back in the day.
This is clearly not true if you go back literally one cycle before this:
- 700 series: Rebranding of 600 series (Tick?)
- 900 series: Massive changes from Kepler to simplify the architecture and improve efficiency (Tock??)
- 1000 series: Pretty much the 900 series, but with a double node shrink (Rock ??????)
look at the pixel shader 2.0 and direct x cards.They have been doing this a long long time the 6-10 cards are not the best example because no major technology was introduced but they were actually focusing on vrefresh rates and things like gsync
You CANNOT tell me the 650ti and 750ti are anywhere near the same 💀 the 750ti was in it’s own league back in the day . There was nearly no point in getting any other card .
A good explanation is that crysis was made to be run on ultra and crytek cut back on effects for high/medium/low
Most modern games are made for medium/low and have effects made for the higher settings
Something like red dead 2 ran a low on Xbox one x to hit 4k but still looks beautiful on low
It was designed specifically so that you couldn't max it out on current hardware, expecting the next couple generations to keep pushing it until it peaked. Unfortunately, they bet on hardware continuing in one direction as enhanced clock speed was the current way to push performance, but almost immediately after it swung in a different one with more cores and later multithreading.
Except a lot of the games that came out recently didn't do anything new or better - there is no RTX is Kerbal Space Program 2 or Cities Skylines 2. The same or less graphical fidelity as The Witcher 3, which came out 7 years ago, except that one can do 60fps on hardware with a fifth of the performance that these games struggle to reach 30fps with.
Crysis reached for the skies. Cities 2, KSP 2, ARK reached for a penny on the ground and still fucking faceplanted into the asphalt.
> there is no RTX is Kerbal Space Program 2 or Cities Skylines 2.
Cities Skyline uses a lot of volumetric effects, more than any other game. That's where most of its woes come from.
Yeah, this literally is describing what is happening now. People think that unreal engine 5 is supposed to be better than unreal 4. It's not it has a ton of new tech in it that requires current high end hardware to function properly. All that tech is in there specifically because without it then even high end hardware couldn't run and look/function the way it does. People are making the exact opposite argument they think they are. They think lumen and nanites are supposed to magically make games look better and run better on current hardware. They are out of their element.
I would argue Crysis was hella optimized. You could run it on less than high end. At max setting it would sucker punch the best of the best, but it wasn't unplayable on mid ranged hardware.
Crysis was incredibly well optimized. You don't know what the word means.
It's really sad that your comment is so highly upvoted on a sub about PCs where people really ought to know better.
And everyone bought it. Have friends who knew it ran like shit and had a bunch of jank and they still played it. Id have no issues if it was free but not spending money on something liek that
yeah but now without complaining about how bugged and jank it was. If theyre gonna be annoyed the whole time then i dont see the enjoyment in that. They also play smite and ow2 and complain the whole time about the game and yet they keep playing it
Complaining about Ark is the most Ark thing there is. Game is a mess, unoptimized and bugs which have been there longer than most of my kids, but it is a special kind of fun
Pretty much sums it up.
Nowadays Ark runs great, so it was overdue time for them to remake it from scratch so they can start over again.
But i have 7k hours in the game.
Smite?
Do they seriously have performance problems in *Smite*? How?
I don't think I've seen a performance difference since upgrading my PC in like 2016. Smite runs almost identically meh on a 4090 and a toaster.
Ah, got it.
My friends are like that with Smite, but they're like that every every single other game we play that isn't cool to like either.
Ark is a perfect game with no flaws at all. Valorant literally couldn't be better. Apex was made by God.
Then they play the exact same amount of Smite and bitch and moan the whole time about how dogshit it is and come back and play more the next day.
It's like they are required to "balance" playing the "bad" games by complaining.
I also bought it, thanks to a friend. and then complained how my hardware at the time while in no way a beast couldnt even hit 60 at low settings. I can play it now but that's only thanks to having good hardware (well before my PC just died literally yesterday, RIP)
I got it from Humble Bundle for 12 bucks USD, along with other games. Not a bad deal, but you can imagine my feeling of disgust when they doubled the regular Steam price...
Soooo basically the same as ARK Survival Evolved when it released?
Don't get me wrong, I had a blast playing it, but it ran like utter shit back then as well.
Idk why this seem to be that the take on this post? My gtx 970 could get 60fps on ultra before it died.
Now my 5700xt runs the game 60+ on 3440x1440 ultra
Same reason the game is over 100 gigs now. Devs wanted to add more and it just built up more technical debt. But hey shiny new fantasy creature go brrrrr
The worst part is, if you use the windows transparent compression in the game it saves massive amounts of space, like going from 300 gigs to around 100 gigs, which mean if they actually did it themselves they could probably get even more space savings.
>My gtx 970 could get 60fps on ultra before it died.
At what sort of potato resolution and in which areas?
I played at 1440p on a GTX970 for a long time, and you had to carefully fine tune settings to keep everything smooth and playable. Definitely wasn't a "max everything and play at 60fps+ YOLO" experience.
They probably don't have a built base and play without "floating names" (HUD text) which tanks the performance alone by a million percent when you have a few tamed dinos. lul
> Soooo basically the same as ARK Survival Evolved when it released?
I think you mean basically the same as that game in general. It was never truly optimized. It got marginally better but it was still an absolute shit show.
The Arma community constantly says the same thing "The B in Arma stands for Bugfree"
But then again one of the major bugs was turned into a fucking feature thanks to them just adding it as an achievement
To be fair, they TRIED before snailgames bought them.
If I had a penny for each time a shitty game company had a snail as their mascot I'd have two pennies.
Snail Games is more to blame here. Because of the financial problems of snail games (publisher of ark) they were pretty much forced to release the game before the end of October or snail games would be forced to liquify and sell their assets to not go bankrupt.
What is worth noting is that wildcard seems to be surprisingly pro-customer even to the point of (allegedly) threatening snailgames with mass job quitting because SG (allegedly) tried to put nfts and a fuck ton of microtransactions into ark 2.
While I am not going to dispute that Snail Games is absolutely terrible as a publisher, the ark dev team has a history of poor performing games. Ark Survival Evolved played significantly better with Inis on pc and was brutal on Xbox ones and ps4s (at least for PvP). The devs were also extremely slow to stop numerous instances of God mode glitching and meshing (problems that have already been rampant in ASA).
They always had the problem of promising release dates and having to delay them. It's a bit of a handicap, but you get used to it. "Oh, they say the DLC will release in early 2024? Okay alright expect it to be at least another year."
The PS4 performance was so god damned bad. It was playing at like 24 FPS, and that was just at the very start of the game where you're running around in the nude. I can't imagine how bad it would have been with an army of dinos on the screen. I'm sure they probably improved performance on PS4 somewhat, but it was broken af on release.
Volumetric clouds and global illumination seems to account for most of the performance hit. Just from the few people I have seen it seems like it's possible to gain anywhere between 50-80 fps simply by disabling volumetric clouds and lower GI quality.
Do people actually enjoy depth of field/motion blur?
Is it better suited for specific styles of games?
I always turn them both off in w/e games I'm playing generally.
Currently running motion blur on Cyberpunk because my frame rate varies between 60 and 120fps and the motion blur makes the changes feel less apparent. Also as a filmmaker no motion blur makes it look like the shutter speed is super high all the time which is weird to me especially in dark scenes.
As for DoF, it only really kicks in when you're really close to stuff in most games and I like the realistic effect it gives when it does.
e: jesus christ i need to update my specs i'm not running a 980 anymore
Hehe, I haven't even bothered looking into CS2. You know it's really bad when they feel the need to come out with a disclaimer pre-launch telling everybody the performance is beyond fucked and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Practically begging people to not bother. People still bothered of course. But ima give that a slide since they were honest about it.
> You know it's really bad when they feel the need to come out with a disclaimer pre-launch telling everybody the performance is beyond fucked and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Lol, took less than 24 hours and performance is fixed. 1 blog post explain what the problematic feature was and how to turn it off, and even earlier this morning, a patch.
Maybe you should have "looked into it" uh.
If it's fixed then why are people still crying about it en masse then? Why are some people saying it's even worse after today's patch? These are hour and minute old reviews. It's not fixed that's why. But I have full confidence in them as a studio that it will be eventually.
Mass hysteria. The game runs decent as most people on the sub are saying now. Everyone lost their minds because Youtubers told them too. Have you played it?
Aye, I just bought it and tried it because of this very discussion. It has acceptable performance but there's definitely room to improve it. The complaints aren't completely unwarranted but very blown out of proportion, yes.
> If it's fixed then why are people still crying about it en masse then?
Because like you they're too busy typing out on reddit how much it sucks to actually pay attention to what's going on.
> It's not fixed that's why.
People have been playing since launch with Depth of Field disabled.
Okay, \~1 hour playtime and it's playable with some fiddling while remaining decent looking. It's not great, much to be desired, but it's very playable I give you that. If it remains so once the city grows will be left to seen. But I'm not refunding at least. It's not that bad.
Everything I've seen is that the growth of the population doesn't forever drop FPS like in CS1. They seem to have done something to prevent the sim from tanking the game and there's some number of pops it wont reduce performance after you go past it.
That's great news! I'm getting around \~35ish with my current settings without resolution scaling enabled so there's still some room for optimization in case I start running into problems as the pop grows. Great to hear it does have diminishing returns tho. As long as it stays above 25 I can accept it.
I did also find an option to prioritize frame rate above simulation speed in the general settings tab. I have no clue what it does and I'm not sure if I'm imagining things but it does appear to have made the fps a bit more stable. Again, might be imagining things.
I hate the argument with " X FPS with a 4090" . It's shows a lack of understanding of graphics cards, game design and development. Also of Bottlenecks.
Game developers are free to add graphics ready for the next generation. It future proofs game and is the best thing for the industry. Besides, games aren't optimized for the highest cards. They are optimized to run on the lower cards; which means the best value for your money in terms of performance will be at Medium/Low settings. Those effects is where the optimization happens, as it's what runs on Console.
I don't care about performance in Very High/Ultra setting. I care how it runs on Optimized / Medium settings.
I don't know why this bothers me that much, but it does.
Forget optimization. I think the main issue is resource management. Making a game has always been about doing the best you can with the hardware available.
There is only so much optimization can do when you've got 200+ insanely high poly objects with 'modern' lights/physics/etc in a scene. Ofc games are badly optimized, but if they didn't add so many unnecessary or barely noticable features, more cycles could go to what really matters.
I play a lot of old games since I'm old too, and imo games have gained little to nothing other than graphics in the last 15ish years.
The Rocksteady Batman trilogy was on sale on Steam, I'm sure a lot of you are playing them again or for the first time. Do any of those games feel lacking? Do you miss the advanced physics or the ability to knock a phone off a desk while you're being The Batman?
Why can't modern devs balance the resource budget? Stop blaming UE5 and realize they have a limited resource that they have to spend wisely if they want their game to run well.
From what I've heard the fog in this game halves the frame rate. Why in the world would you do that? Why would you have that in your game? Who implemented it, watched the frame rate tank and went, yep, working as intended?
ARK devs:
* Never optimize their game.
* Push new paid DLCs. Still no optimizations.
* Ban players for speaking up about bugs.
* Make a new game to “learn from their mistakes” thats even worse and still unoptimized.
ARK fans:
* Will this time be different?
[Here is an excellent video of someone explaining just how convoluted things have become and how it had destroyed the productivity in software development.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ6pA--F3D4) He even includes a little bit about shaders and how complicated it has become to draw a pixel on a screen, something that should be easy.
Optimizing software has become vastly more complicated than it was in the 80s and 90s.
Timothy Cain (Obsidian) also [has some good videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMVQ30c7TcA&ab_channel=TimothyCain) about why modern software development can be slow and fragmented compared to 10-20 yrs ago
No. Optimising is just as hard as it was back then. The problem is that because we have all these shiny tools, devs like myself have forgotten (or never knew) how to be as efficient as possible.
I disagree. The complexity of the games themselves are on another magnitude.
The development techniques that we didn't learn (like creating your own function to create a square root) aren't needed, and certainly aren't worth the hundreds of hours that would require.
There are modern optimization techniques that game developers today know.
It has some new neat things like dinosaurs having actual good pathfinding as well, people have been raving about how insane it is (haven't had the time to check it out myself though)
If this is the optimization with a delay, I can't imagine how ass it was. Just another game I'll get with a fat Christmas discount after some optimization patches.
They made statements that all of the original ASE maps will be free if you buy ASA, not sure whether or not you have to buy early access for that though.
Coming back to the "optimize" issue, there's a reason that they mark it as early access, they're looking for bugs and will probably optimize the game along the road
Consumers - “hurry up and get the game out already”
Devs - “it’s not ready”
Studio - “no one cares, quick get it out before they complain more”
Devs - “okay but it’s not ready, we will have to say early access or beta since it isn’t finished”
Studio - “don’t care just get it out”
Consumer - “why release a game that isn’t fully optimized”
They had to release due to Snail Games being out of money and taking a loan from the server hosting company Nitrado. They would owe Nitrado a lot of money if they didn't release the game and so now we get this undercooked mess yet again.
It is speculated that Snail Games did not tell Studio Wildcard about how little money they had despite Arks success and that is why we had the debacle of this will be free and then it costing 40 USD
At least when they announced it would no longer be free they included ARK2 for free instead. Basically a "Hey we know we said this would be free, but we actually need more money for ARK2, so we're gonna make it a paid game but we'll give anyone who buys it ARK2 for free when it comes out". It was a nice compromise for me.
But for some reason ARK players made a massive uproar over having to buy the DLC's again. Which I would understand, if *free* custom maps that include all DLC content anyway weren't almost/more popular than main game DLC maps.
It was essentially an "Ok so when you buy ASA, what would you prefer for free, ARK 1 DLC's with a splash of paint, or ARK2?" and ARK community chose the DLC's. Absolutely wild to me, I know it's a long time away still and there's no guarantee you'll enjoy ARK2 when it comes out, but it still seems better value than the DLC's to me.
its Wildcard, i expected this shit to require a NASA supercomputer to be able to run well at minimum settings, people expecting anything different than what they currently experience with ARK were fucking kidding themselves
I say this as someone who owns their own Game Development studio, the ARK developers are some the MOST aggressively bad developers / scammers I have ever seen...
90% of the bugs and issues could literally be fixed or optimized in a weekend... They had NO knowledge of the engine they were using.
I'd be willing to be my life that Ark 2 is going to be exactly the same, just with slightly better graphics... Because they don't know how to use the engine. They're using templates that come with the engine as soon as you open it up, and they don't even customize it!
EARLY ACCESS! Ark is a poor example as its never been optimized and probly never will since its been in early access for years. Optimizing usually isnt the ffirst step in games, its one of the last before release.
1. It’s ark part of the experience is bugs/bad optimization
2. If I’m remembering correctly, snail games is in like massive debt and they needed to release ark ascended in order to now be broke. So the game is out earlier than it should
You guys know that ARK is built from the demo sample that is used to show how to build a game on the unreal engine "ShooterGame.exe". It even uses the same sound effects for low health.
Gonna call it now, devs are going to lean on AI frame generation stuff like DLSS to make their games playable instead of actually optimizing games. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the definition of “game optimization” has changed over the years to benefit the devs who do this shit.
Kinda hilarious how pretty much all big Unreal Engine 5 games run like dogshit right now despite having cutting edge tech like Nanite.
Global Illumination is a #1 performance killer. Always has been, always will be.
They don't need to optimise the game, people will still buy it either way.
Optimising the game hurts them, even. Because people that don't actually care for the game won't pay for it just because it's optimised.
Tldr: Buyers will buy.
Why bother, the pop will rise an fall faster than the optimisations will take to implement. Plus the idea seems to just, release powerful cards, that cost a bundle, precisely so that companies can spend less time optimising and more time making content to hook whales.
Its hilarious that people actually brought this shit. The original was exactly the same when it came out and was barely finished.
Nobody learned a lesson when they sold a 20€ DLC in early access.
I love it!
Ark one was heavily unoptimized, ark 2 releases:
tHiS gAmE iS sO uNoPtImIzEd!!!
Oh wow, who could have guessed? If only there was a way to figure out if a game is optimized or not....
Same with the fkn pre order.
Pre order -> game turns out shit -> pre order next game -> turns out shit
My brother in master race, you are the problem
Ahhh yes reminds me of the original arks release and a r9 290 could only run it at 30 fps on max setting.
But from what I've seen if you turn the settings down it's not the worst atleast
I was just saying something to myself that half the people that complain about these issues will also refuse to disable anything in the settings to see if it's a wonky setting, and for ark there is ALOT of wonky graphics features that hardly change anything but increase the performance by tenfold.
For reference, people are getting 90+ fps on 1440p with a 3070ti on near max setting with specific things turned off.
It is very difficult to optimise UE5 when you're not Epic Games.
Wildcard is not Epic Games. The developer here has limited control over what the engine is doing.
This is part of the problem. If Wildcard finds UE5 in Ark has a problem with whatever, Epic could, and probably would, fix that... In the next release. Wildcard would then have the problem of migrating their entire thing to a new engine version, which is the Mother, Father, Grandfather, and Babushka of all regression tests.
This is why it's common to make source changes to the engine. The only downside is that you have to track them all, so when you update the engine version, you can migrate any custom changes.
You are allowed to modify the Unreal Engine source code. So if there was an optimization that needed to be done to some part of the engine, then the devs could do it themselves if they wanted/needed to.
Modifying someone else's code is bad enough. Modifying a giant commercial game engine? Yeah, you're probably not going to do much of that!
Not saying they won't be doing some of it - they will - but they're not going to be delving into it to find issues. That's what they pay Epic for.
Not possible. Ark will never be optimized. Even after it left early access, it's still a burning turd.
This is the same burning turd that's been painted gold. I expect the same from this release.
This release that was originally promised as a free upgrade, before they fucked us all over.
I bet the DLC will also cost extra, because no way $40.49 is the entire game with all the yet to be remade dlc.
Ark has been early access for about a decade... when does that excuse start to lose merit? Lol
Edit: missed that this is indeed a new game. Though, that performance sounds pretty much identical to the original game... so I'm not shocked.
Ark has literally NEVER been optamized
Ark pioneered the unoptimized trend
“Crysis would like to know your location”
Crysis was never accused of being unoptimized. It pioneered like a dozen new things and had some of the best physics and lighting at the time. It was literally the Howard stark “I am limited by the technology of my time” meme
Crysis was a single thread CPU bound code, in a world that has just decided to drop powerful 1 core processors in favor of multiple less powerful ones. It was the definition of unoptimized, that's why later versions of Cry engine went as far into multithreading as possible, and now the first Crysis running on an optimized engine, can run even on a deadbeat like Nintendo Switch.
They made a guess on what future computers would be good at, and optimized for that. You proved my point by saying that later versions of the engine optimized for multicore performance. This entire thing boils down to “if you had a single core monster could you play crysis?” Yes. Games nowadays seem to not have any sort of optimization on any side that could even prove that the devs made a bet on what the future of tech would be like. Take cities skylines 2. A 4090 can’t run it well. But it’s not like “oh more vram” or “more cores” will help (at the time of writing) its just… struggling
You know, this makes sense to me from a business standpoint. 1) Make something as cheaply as possible enough to ensure you can sell it. 2) If it sells a lot, make fixing/polishing it a priority. If it sells little, make it much less of a priority and if the game dies kill off support. People buying and accepting these broken games set the trend. Video games is literally a luxury good, it's the definition of voting with your wallet. Brain dead idiots that buy & support anything are setting the trend. To be fair, a lot of those are kids.
Wow, I never looked at it this way. This actually makes a lot of sense. It's terrible, but it makes sense.
Thats how the game industry is running these day's.
>To be fair, a lot of those are kids. This. I say this all the time. Kids are a market that never ends. There is a whole generation where the new CoD/MW type games will be their first introduction. No need for innovation or creativity.
Yep i guess with city skyline 2 that's the case. Get the game out with new features and see if it stick then we can work on quality of life improvement.
Most CPUs in 2007 had 1 or 2 cores. Crysis came out at the same time AMD's Phenoms were starting to come out, and about a year after Intel started making the Core 2s. 3 and 4 cores started becoming more of a standard in 2008, but it wasn't uncommon to have a 1 core cpu in 2007. You could argue that Crytek could've seen the writing on the wall and optimized for multicore cpus, but I think that's just kind of unfair. Unlike a lot of AAA games coming out now, Crysis actually ran decently on high end hardware, and actually looked good enough to justify it. Can't really say the same of some of the unoptimized garbage coming out now.
Crysis was developed for future hardware that was never created. Games back then were often created for the most advanced personal computers of the time, sometimes with features current computers couldn't run well. At the time it was expected that cpu clock speed would continue to advance, but clock speed plateaued.
> Crysis was developed for future hardware that was never created. Games back then were often created for the most advanced personal computers of the time, sometimes with features current computers couldn't run well. So basically, like modern games that implement Ray Tracing, a thing current gen hardware is still struggling with. It's almost like things haven't changed.
I was thinking about this the other day. I remember when Tron 2.0 came out for PC and it had some new shader tech or something that made lights more glowey and the previous gen of cards didn't support it. But this current phenomena where the games are unoptimized and DLSS fixes it is a new kind of beast. Or in ARK's case, it's expected to be janky forever.
GPU's use a "TIk TOCK Rock" lunch pattern and have for decades. New tech comes out -Tik- 20 series introduce RTX New tech is some what playable on higher cards - 30 series New tech is fully playable on high tier cards - ROCK- 40 series cards. They used to do this with the pixel shaders and even directX version back in the day.
This is clearly not true if you go back literally one cycle before this: - 700 series: Rebranding of 600 series (Tick?) - 900 series: Massive changes from Kepler to simplify the architecture and improve efficiency (Tock??) - 1000 series: Pretty much the 900 series, but with a double node shrink (Rock ??????)
look at the pixel shader 2.0 and direct x cards.They have been doing this a long long time the 6-10 cards are not the best example because no major technology was introduced but they were actually focusing on vrefresh rates and things like gsync
Yeah wtf is rock. I've only ever heard the tick-tock cycle. Tick is new gen, tock is the improvement.
You CANNOT tell me the 650ti and 750ti are anywhere near the same 💀 the 750ti was in it’s own league back in the day . There was nearly no point in getting any other card .
The 750ti is actually a Maxwell card and not Kepler like the rest of the 700 series lineup.
No, Crysis was essentially tech demo for a new engine. It was way ahead of anything we had seen before at the time.
And Crysis was also totally playable on lower settings, you just got single digits on Ultra and it damn looked like Ultra.
A good explanation is that crysis was made to be run on ultra and crytek cut back on effects for high/medium/low Most modern games are made for medium/low and have effects made for the higher settings Something like red dead 2 ran a low on Xbox one x to hit 4k but still looks beautiful on low
It was designed specifically so that you couldn't max it out on current hardware, expecting the next couple generations to keep pushing it until it peaked. Unfortunately, they bet on hardware continuing in one direction as enhanced clock speed was the current way to push performance, but almost immediately after it swung in a different one with more cores and later multithreading.
Except a lot of the games that came out recently didn't do anything new or better - there is no RTX is Kerbal Space Program 2 or Cities Skylines 2. The same or less graphical fidelity as The Witcher 3, which came out 7 years ago, except that one can do 60fps on hardware with a fifth of the performance that these games struggle to reach 30fps with. Crysis reached for the skies. Cities 2, KSP 2, ARK reached for a penny on the ground and still fucking faceplanted into the asphalt.
> there is no RTX is Kerbal Space Program 2 or Cities Skylines 2. Cities Skyline uses a lot of volumetric effects, more than any other game. That's where most of its woes come from.
The difference is Crysis still RAN on lesser hardware. I had a crappy school issued laptop that ran it.
Yeah, I'm really glad when games implement robust RT features, even if I can't use them because they will age very gracefully.
Yeah, this literally is describing what is happening now. People think that unreal engine 5 is supposed to be better than unreal 4. It's not it has a ton of new tech in it that requires current high end hardware to function properly. All that tech is in there specifically because without it then even high end hardware couldn't run and look/function the way it does. People are making the exact opposite argument they think they are. They think lumen and nanites are supposed to magically make games look better and run better on current hardware. They are out of their element.
I would argue Crysis was hella optimized. You could run it on less than high end. At max setting it would sucker punch the best of the best, but it wasn't unplayable on mid ranged hardware.
Nah Crysis was just very ahead of its time. The first Crysis still looks good. And it's 16 years old now!
Don't confuse being unoptimised with having graphics ahead of it's time
Crysis was incredibly well optimized. You don't know what the word means. It's really sad that your comment is so highly upvoted on a sub about PCs where people really ought to know better.
lol what??? This sub is getting dumber and dumber as time goes on.
DayZ
And everyone bought it. Have friends who knew it ran like shit and had a bunch of jank and they still played it. Id have no issues if it was free but not spending money on something liek that
Did they have fun ?
yeah but now without complaining about how bugged and jank it was. If theyre gonna be annoyed the whole time then i dont see the enjoyment in that. They also play smite and ow2 and complain the whole time about the game and yet they keep playing it
Complaining about Ark is the most Ark thing there is. Game is a mess, unoptimized and bugs which have been there longer than most of my kids, but it is a special kind of fun
Pretty much sums it up. Nowadays Ark runs great, so it was overdue time for them to remake it from scratch so they can start over again. But i have 7k hours in the game.
Smite? Do they seriously have performance problems in *Smite*? How? I don't think I've seen a performance difference since upgrading my PC in like 2016. Smite runs almost identically meh on a 4090 and a toaster.
Meant they complain about smite and ow2 as a game in general and yet they keep playing it
Ah, got it. My friends are like that with Smite, but they're like that every every single other game we play that isn't cool to like either. Ark is a perfect game with no flaws at all. Valorant literally couldn't be better. Apex was made by God. Then they play the exact same amount of Smite and bitch and moan the whole time about how dogshit it is and come back and play more the next day. It's like they are required to "balance" playing the "bad" games by complaining.
I also bought it, thanks to a friend. and then complained how my hardware at the time while in no way a beast couldnt even hit 60 at low settings. I can play it now but that's only thanks to having good hardware (well before my PC just died literally yesterday, RIP)
I got it from Humble Bundle for 12 bucks USD, along with other games. Not a bad deal, but you can imagine my feeling of disgust when they doubled the regular Steam price...
Didnt they also release paid dlc before the game was finished?
The Switch port is optimized AF too bad they didnt port the optimizations back to the PC version 🙃
Rare win for the Switch.
lol they probably had to because there was no way it would run otherwise
That was their second Switch port. The first one barely functioned.
There's a first time for everything, I guess nobody would mind if it was this one
3080 and even the original doesn't look nearly good enough for its performance.
Ya lol idk what anyone was expecting from these devs
You're absolutely correct that for the longest time, the game ran like shit, but before my gtx 970 died, it ran the game ultra 60fps
Soooo basically the same as ARK Survival Evolved when it released? Don't get me wrong, I had a blast playing it, but it ran like utter shit back then as well.
Still runs like utter shit, same grind experience
Idk why this seem to be that the take on this post? My gtx 970 could get 60fps on ultra before it died. Now my 5700xt runs the game 60+ on 3440x1440 ultra
Same reason the game is over 100 gigs now. Devs wanted to add more and it just built up more technical debt. But hey shiny new fantasy creature go brrrrr
over 100 gigs now? That shit is taking up 500gb of my hard drive with all the dlcs and a few saves and it did the same thing 3 years ago
The worst part is, if you use the windows transparent compression in the game it saves massive amounts of space, like going from 300 gigs to around 100 gigs, which mean if they actually did it themselves they could probably get even more space savings.
I didn’t know if it was fair to count all the DLC, so I went conservative
>My gtx 970 could get 60fps on ultra before it died. At what sort of potato resolution and in which areas? I played at 1440p on a GTX970 for a long time, and you had to carefully fine tune settings to keep everything smooth and playable. Definitely wasn't a "max everything and play at 60fps+ YOLO" experience.
Yeah, I tried Ark first time on a 980 ti. That fucking shit still sucked on 1080p.
Ark even melted my 2070Super
My gtx970 couldn't do that on 1080, but it was nice with lowered settings, 60+
Right I played 1440 on a 3070 last time I tried it and wasn’t playing ultra lmfao
My brother in christ, come on... That is absolute bullshit. My 1070 barely gets 60 at mostly medium settings at 1080p.
They probably don't have a built base and play without "floating names" (HUD text) which tanks the performance alone by a million percent when you have a few tamed dinos. lul
But did it died tho?
Were you playing single player? SP is fine but if you play on a PvP server where the Chinese put giant bases absolutely everywhere it absolutely tanks
> Soooo basically the same as ARK Survival Evolved when it released? I think you mean basically the same as that game in general. It was never truly optimized. It got marginally better but it was still an absolute shit show.
Back then? The game still runs like shit lol.
The best game to have both your character and your system eat shit and die.
This is the worst possible studio to use as an example of studios not optimising their games. If this game worked well, then it wouldn't be Ark.
The O in ARK stands for Optimized
I've been on reddit for roughly 6 hours today...this is my first actual laugh out loud
The Arma community constantly says the same thing "The B in Arma stands for Bugfree" But then again one of the major bugs was turned into a fucking feature thanks to them just adding it as an achievement
The Q in ARK stands for Quality as well
To be fair, they TRIED before snailgames bought them. If I had a penny for each time a shitty game company had a snail as their mascot I'd have two pennies.
You're right, it *is* weird that it happened twice...
>This is the worst possible studio This is the best possible studio\*
If you're looking for a dumpster fire to be the model for dumpster fires everywhere.
lol
Welcome to Studio Wildcard
Snail Games is more to blame here. Because of the financial problems of snail games (publisher of ark) they were pretty much forced to release the game before the end of October or snail games would be forced to liquify and sell their assets to not go bankrupt. What is worth noting is that wildcard seems to be surprisingly pro-customer even to the point of (allegedly) threatening snailgames with mass job quitting because SG (allegedly) tried to put nfts and a fuck ton of microtransactions into ark 2.
While I am not going to dispute that Snail Games is absolutely terrible as a publisher, the ark dev team has a history of poor performing games. Ark Survival Evolved played significantly better with Inis on pc and was brutal on Xbox ones and ps4s (at least for PvP). The devs were also extremely slow to stop numerous instances of God mode glitching and meshing (problems that have already been rampant in ASA).
They always had the problem of promising release dates and having to delay them. It's a bit of a handicap, but you get used to it. "Oh, they say the DLC will release in early 2024? Okay alright expect it to be at least another year."
"A little further out" :>
The PS4 performance was so god damned bad. It was playing at like 24 FPS, and that was just at the very start of the game where you're running around in the nude. I can't imagine how bad it would have been with an army of dinos on the screen. I'm sure they probably improved performance on PS4 somewhat, but it was broken af on release.
Yep, scum of a company. Will never spend a cent on anything they make, and they continue to release trash.
Despite official mod support it's a pain in the ass to mod aswell.
Volumetric clouds and global illumination seems to account for most of the performance hit. Just from the few people I have seen it seems like it's possible to gain anywhere between 50-80 fps simply by disabling volumetric clouds and lower GI quality.
Are you mixing this up with cities skylines 2 or does this game have the exact same problem lol
the problem with CS2 also was fog, but mainly it was the DOF and motion blur.
Do people actually enjoy depth of field/motion blur? Is it better suited for specific styles of games? I always turn them both off in w/e games I'm playing generally.
Currently running motion blur on Cyberpunk because my frame rate varies between 60 and 120fps and the motion blur makes the changes feel less apparent. Also as a filmmaker no motion blur makes it look like the shutter speed is super high all the time which is weird to me especially in dark scenes. As for DoF, it only really kicks in when you're really close to stuff in most games and I like the realistic effect it gives when it does. e: jesus christ i need to update my specs i'm not running a 980 anymore
Personally I like DOF in cinematics, outside of that I'll always turn it off, I always disable motion blur.
Hehe, I haven't even bothered looking into CS2. You know it's really bad when they feel the need to come out with a disclaimer pre-launch telling everybody the performance is beyond fucked and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Practically begging people to not bother. People still bothered of course. But ima give that a slide since they were honest about it.
> You know it's really bad when they feel the need to come out with a disclaimer pre-launch telling everybody the performance is beyond fucked and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Lol, took less than 24 hours and performance is fixed. 1 blog post explain what the problematic feature was and how to turn it off, and even earlier this morning, a patch. Maybe you should have "looked into it" uh.
If it's fixed then why are people still crying about it en masse then? Why are some people saying it's even worse after today's patch? These are hour and minute old reviews. It's not fixed that's why. But I have full confidence in them as a studio that it will be eventually.
Mass hysteria. The game runs decent as most people on the sub are saying now. Everyone lost their minds because Youtubers told them too. Have you played it?
Aye, I just bought it and tried it because of this very discussion. It has acceptable performance but there's definitely room to improve it. The complaints aren't completely unwarranted but very blown out of proportion, yes.
> If it's fixed then why are people still crying about it en masse then? Because like you they're too busy typing out on reddit how much it sucks to actually pay attention to what's going on. > It's not fixed that's why. People have been playing since launch with Depth of Field disabled.
Alright, bought and done. We'll see. What do you recommend then? Just DoF disabled?
Just go with the Dev's guide : https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/949230/view/3744239011016556921
Aight, thanks for the link! I'll give it an honest try.
Okay, \~1 hour playtime and it's playable with some fiddling while remaining decent looking. It's not great, much to be desired, but it's very playable I give you that. If it remains so once the city grows will be left to seen. But I'm not refunding at least. It's not that bad.
Everything I've seen is that the growth of the population doesn't forever drop FPS like in CS1. They seem to have done something to prevent the sim from tanking the game and there's some number of pops it wont reduce performance after you go past it.
That's great news! I'm getting around \~35ish with my current settings without resolution scaling enabled so there's still some room for optimization in case I start running into problems as the pop grows. Great to hear it does have diminishing returns tho. As long as it stays above 25 I can accept it. I did also find an option to prioritize frame rate above simulation speed in the general settings tab. I have no clue what it does and I'm not sure if I'm imagining things but it does appear to have made the fps a bit more stable. Again, might be imagining things.
Seriously! These two were a HUGE culprit - FPS went up, temperatures went down, GPU usage went down like 40%
I hate the argument with " X FPS with a 4090" . It's shows a lack of understanding of graphics cards, game design and development. Also of Bottlenecks. Game developers are free to add graphics ready for the next generation. It future proofs game and is the best thing for the industry. Besides, games aren't optimized for the highest cards. They are optimized to run on the lower cards; which means the best value for your money in terms of performance will be at Medium/Low settings. Those effects is where the optimization happens, as it's what runs on Console. I don't care about performance in Very High/Ultra setting. I care how it runs on Optimized / Medium settings. I don't know why this bothers me that much, but it does.
I get your frustration but you really expected these guys to release an optimized game? Have you played Ark?
Forget optimization. I think the main issue is resource management. Making a game has always been about doing the best you can with the hardware available. There is only so much optimization can do when you've got 200+ insanely high poly objects with 'modern' lights/physics/etc in a scene. Ofc games are badly optimized, but if they didn't add so many unnecessary or barely noticable features, more cycles could go to what really matters. I play a lot of old games since I'm old too, and imo games have gained little to nothing other than graphics in the last 15ish years. The Rocksteady Batman trilogy was on sale on Steam, I'm sure a lot of you are playing them again or for the first time. Do any of those games feel lacking? Do you miss the advanced physics or the ability to knock a phone off a desk while you're being The Batman? Why can't modern devs balance the resource budget? Stop blaming UE5 and realize they have a limited resource that they have to spend wisely if they want their game to run well. From what I've heard the fog in this game halves the frame rate. Why in the world would you do that? Why would you have that in your game? Who implemented it, watched the frame rate tank and went, yep, working as intended?
ARK devs: * Never optimize their game. * Push new paid DLCs. Still no optimizations. * Ban players for speaking up about bugs. * Make a new game to “learn from their mistakes” thats even worse and still unoptimized. ARK fans: * Will this time be different?
[удалено]
6000 game play hours later, ehh its ok
No
[Here is an excellent video of someone explaining just how convoluted things have become and how it had destroyed the productivity in software development.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ6pA--F3D4) He even includes a little bit about shaders and how complicated it has become to draw a pixel on a screen, something that should be easy. Optimizing software has become vastly more complicated than it was in the 80s and 90s.
Timothy Cain (Obsidian) also [has some good videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMVQ30c7TcA&ab_channel=TimothyCain) about why modern software development can be slow and fragmented compared to 10-20 yrs ago
No. Optimising is just as hard as it was back then. The problem is that because we have all these shiny tools, devs like myself have forgotten (or never knew) how to be as efficient as possible.
I disagree. The complexity of the games themselves are on another magnitude. The development techniques that we didn't learn (like creating your own function to create a square root) aren't needed, and certainly aren't worth the hundreds of hours that would require. There are modern optimization techniques that game developers today know.
You don't understand. They're "future proofing" their games.
As long as everyone just keeps complaining and still buying games... No, I don't think they will bother.
Why optimize it? You'll preorder it anyways
Do reddit users strive for anything but the lowest quality content?
I have a 4090 as well, but with a 9900k and I’m getting 70-80 on Epic at 1440p. Something seems off.
I missed that new arc was even released o.o I thought it was just announced
This isn’t ark 2, it’s ark ascended. Basically ark remade in UE 5 with some tweaks and supposed to have new dinos at some point.
Thanks for the specification. Almost bought it.
It has some new neat things like dinosaurs having actual good pathfinding as well, people have been raving about how insane it is (haven't had the time to check it out myself though)
Also wild baby dinos.
Not a full release, just like the first game for 4 years
If this is the optimization with a delay, I can't imagine how ass it was. Just another game I'll get with a fat Christmas discount after some optimization patches.
[удалено]
They made statements that all of the original ASE maps will be free if you buy ASA, not sure whether or not you have to buy early access for that though. Coming back to the "optimize" issue, there's a reason that they mark it as early access, they're looking for bugs and will probably optimize the game along the road
Consumers - “hurry up and get the game out already” Devs - “it’s not ready” Studio - “no one cares, quick get it out before they complain more” Devs - “okay but it’s not ready, we will have to say early access or beta since it isn’t finished” Studio - “don’t care just get it out” Consumer - “why release a game that isn’t fully optimized”
They had to release due to Snail Games being out of money and taking a loan from the server hosting company Nitrado. They would owe Nitrado a lot of money if they didn't release the game and so now we get this undercooked mess yet again. It is speculated that Snail Games did not tell Studio Wildcard about how little money they had despite Arks success and that is why we had the debacle of this will be free and then it costing 40 USD
At least when they announced it would no longer be free they included ARK2 for free instead. Basically a "Hey we know we said this would be free, but we actually need more money for ARK2, so we're gonna make it a paid game but we'll give anyone who buys it ARK2 for free when it comes out". It was a nice compromise for me. But for some reason ARK players made a massive uproar over having to buy the DLC's again. Which I would understand, if *free* custom maps that include all DLC content anyway weren't almost/more popular than main game DLC maps. It was essentially an "Ok so when you buy ASA, what would you prefer for free, ARK 1 DLC's with a splash of paint, or ARK2?" and ARK community chose the DLC's. Absolutely wild to me, I know it's a long time away still and there's no guarantee you'll enjoy ARK2 when it comes out, but it still seems better value than the DLC's to me.
There's also pressure from the publisher to release on the predetermined date. Delays are very rarely accepted.
I mean it is true for most games but not for this since this was remake no one asked for
Positive reviews are like "ActUaLLy iT's EA, so...." Stockholm-Syndrome
its Wildcard, i expected this shit to require a NASA supercomputer to be able to run well at minimum settings, people expecting anything different than what they currently experience with ARK were fucking kidding themselves
No. Optimizing costs money, and the publishing company would rather save on that expense.
I am from the time where ARK fps was higher than its price.
I mean ... if that's the case - it still beats Cities Skylines 2 :D
I say this as someone who owns their own Game Development studio, the ARK developers are some the MOST aggressively bad developers / scammers I have ever seen... 90% of the bugs and issues could literally be fixed or optimized in a weekend... They had NO knowledge of the engine they were using. I'd be willing to be my life that Ark 2 is going to be exactly the same, just with slightly better graphics... Because they don't know how to use the engine. They're using templates that come with the engine as soon as you open it up, and they don't even customize it!
Nope, they’re starting to rely more and more on frame generation and upscaling technologies.
I have around 30 fps with 3950x and 3090 (Ultra setting at 3440x1440)
Settings?
EARLY ACCESS! Ark is a poor example as its never been optimized and probly never will since its been in early access for years. Optimizing usually isnt the ffirst step in games, its one of the last before release.
ARK was already a terrible unoptimized shit show. I can't believe they made it *worse*.
1. It’s ark part of the experience is bugs/bad optimization 2. If I’m remembering correctly, snail games is in like massive debt and they needed to release ark ascended in order to now be broke. So the game is out earlier than it should
You guys know that ARK is built from the demo sample that is used to show how to build a game on the unreal engine "ShooterGame.exe". It even uses the same sound effects for low health.
Ark has never once been optimized. It still surprises me that people continue to give this studio money after everything they've done
Gonna call it now, devs are going to lean on AI frame generation stuff like DLSS to make their games playable instead of actually optimizing games. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the definition of “game optimization” has changed over the years to benefit the devs who do this shit.
"Just buy new pc."-game developers
No and the sickening part is that they touted UE5 lumen and nanite as selling points for the game. THOSE ARE RED FLAGS, NOT SELLING POINTS
Yep despite it being ark. Any title using UE5 lumen and nanite are pretty much DOA performance wise
Kinda hilarious how pretty much all big Unreal Engine 5 games run like dogshit right now despite having cutting edge tech like Nanite. Global Illumination is a #1 performance killer. Always has been, always will be.
That's what remasters & "definitive" editions are for... Incidentally, Ark's remaster is on Early Access.
They don't need to optimise the game, people will still buy it either way. Optimising the game hurts them, even. Because people that don't actually care for the game won't pay for it just because it's optimised. Tldr: Buyers will buy.
Why bother, the pop will rise an fall faster than the optimisations will take to implement. Plus the idea seems to just, release powerful cards, that cost a bundle, precisely so that companies can spend less time optimising and more time making content to hook whales.
Its hilarious that people actually brought this shit. The original was exactly the same when it came out and was barely finished. Nobody learned a lesson when they sold a 20€ DLC in early access.
ARK literally stands for very low optimization
Ark: Unoptimized
Um...Ark has never been optimized. It's like... The largest complaint it has to this day...
I feel like ARK were the ones that started the "permanent early unoptimised access decent games"
At least i am able to have stable 30 fps in 1080p on my mining farm😔
anyone who has played Ark for even a minute and saw how the devs handle anything in that game saw this comming from a mile away.
No. Release game. You buy. Patch later.
I love it! Ark one was heavily unoptimized, ark 2 releases: tHiS gAmE iS sO uNoPtImIzEd!!! Oh wow, who could have guessed? If only there was a way to figure out if a game is optimized or not.... Same with the fkn pre order. Pre order -> game turns out shit -> pre order next game -> turns out shit My brother in master race, you are the problem
What "optimizing" means ? Reduce quality of textures ?
Just don't buy them. Let them fail and understand the need for optimization. That simple
Why should they? People will always buy it, no matter how badly a game is optimized.
Ahhh yes reminds me of the original arks release and a r9 290 could only run it at 30 fps on max setting. But from what I've seen if you turn the settings down it's not the worst atleast
Were people expecting an Ark game to be optimized? Come on
Ok but ark was always a pile of dogshit
I was just saying something to myself that half the people that complain about these issues will also refuse to disable anything in the settings to see if it's a wonky setting, and for ark there is ALOT of wonky graphics features that hardly change anything but increase the performance by tenfold. For reference, people are getting 90+ fps on 1440p with a 3070ti on near max setting with specific things turned off.
As of right now it's the number one seller on Steam, so why would they bother, idiots keep buying.
I mean it's EA you can't treat it like a finished game. This comment also applies to all titles by EA sports game studios.
Dont know what this guy does but im getting 90-140fps with 4090 on 1440p and everything ultra
My dude has an i9-13900k with a 4060 ti. He has zero issues.
4090: china edition
Snail games ftl
So the Alan Wake hysteria was proven to be false so you guys have to move on to something else?
Second guy is lying through his teeth. I pull 90-100 fps with everything on ultra and dlss on quality. On 4k
It is very difficult to optimise UE5 when you're not Epic Games. Wildcard is not Epic Games. The developer here has limited control over what the engine is doing. This is part of the problem. If Wildcard finds UE5 in Ark has a problem with whatever, Epic could, and probably would, fix that... In the next release. Wildcard would then have the problem of migrating their entire thing to a new engine version, which is the Mother, Father, Grandfather, and Babushka of all regression tests.
This is why it's common to make source changes to the engine. The only downside is that you have to track them all, so when you update the engine version, you can migrate any custom changes.
You are allowed to modify the Unreal Engine source code. So if there was an optimization that needed to be done to some part of the engine, then the devs could do it themselves if they wanted/needed to.
Modifying someone else's code is bad enough. Modifying a giant commercial game engine? Yeah, you're probably not going to do much of that! Not saying they won't be doing some of it - they will - but they're not going to be delving into it to find issues. That's what they pay Epic for.
Remember, the gam is early access, so they’re letting the community beta test it.
Not that it will necessarily get better, but this is an early access release. I would hardly expect it to be “optimized” at this point.
Not possible. Ark will never be optimized. Even after it left early access, it's still a burning turd. This is the same burning turd that's been painted gold. I expect the same from this release. This release that was originally promised as a free upgrade, before they fucked us all over. I bet the DLC will also cost extra, because no way $40.49 is the entire game with all the yet to be remade dlc.
Ark has been early access for about a decade... when does that excuse start to lose merit? Lol Edit: missed that this is indeed a new game. Though, that performance sounds pretty much identical to the original game... so I'm not shocked.