Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Congratulations, Remedy: this is one of the least optimised games in PC gaming

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Congratulations, Remedy: this is one of the least optimised games in PC gaming

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-me8HuxYJXU

    A video is worth 1000 words. This person has a GTX 1080 card running a Skylake CPU and on max settings at the very ordinary 1080p resolution, the game is averaging mid-30s FPS when Joyce is walking around with no action. Funnily enough, there is an FPS increase in gunfights to an occasional mid-40s.

    This mirrors my experience, except that when trying to play at 2K/1440P resolution with everything maxed, the framerates dip to mid-20s on average. I must turn off anti- aliasing to get the framerates up to mid-30s consistently. I too run a GTX 1080 card, the faster single GPU currently on the market.

    The likes of Damien_Azrael can defend this game as much as they like but this level of lack of optimisation is unacceptable. It would be easier to swallow if the game was incredibly graphically attractive, like a Crysis 3 of 2016. It is anything but. My system literally laughs at the likes of Witcher 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, GTA V, and Shawdow of Mordor, averaging from 65+ FPS to 100+ FPS on average. Sorry, this game isn't so special that I should have to endure this level of performance even after multiple patches.

    I won't be making the mistake of plonking down money on another Remedy game on the PC.


  • #2
    That video also proves the dire need for multi-gpu support. If the best graphic card as of now which is the 1080 (that even came out AFTER the game!!!!!) and which costs ~700 dollars can't max out the game, then for the moment only a good multi-gpu setup (2-ways 1080 for example) would be able to run this "correctly", i.e. 1080p @60 FPS (without upscaling of course). But then again a 1080 SHOULD be able to do run it this way, but at least a multi-gpu support would allow to "brute force" the crappy optimization.

    But oh yeah, multi-gpu is "out of the reach" of this tiny tiny tiny indie and inexperienced developper called Remedy and their very small publisher Microsoft who sell this game for 70 euros.

    Comment


    • #3
      It's not that I disagree with you that people with the right resources will benefit from multi-GPU support (who would have thought such a relatively ugly game would require 2 1080s - if supported one day - to potentially get 60 FPS in 1080p on ultra) but if they must throw resources at something, they need to resolve the chicken and egg situation and first and foremost address the issue(s) behind the extraordinarily poor optimisation. As it stands, the performance of this game is about 40% worse than most games of similar vintage and broadly comparable (the other games will almost always look better too) graphics.

      The game itself is okay-ish to good (i.e. around 6.5 tp 7 out of 10 IMO) but it's so horrendously marred by technical issues. Sorry but I didn't buy a G-Sync monitor and a GTX 1080 to play at 30-something frames with AA off at 1440p, whatever Remedy might think.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah I agree, what I'm saying is that we're doomed to poor performance no matter what in the actual situation.

        Edit: By the way the "AA" option in the menu is only some post-processing AA, it is not the MSAA 4x that is impossible to turn off just as the temporal reconstruction. If you turn off the AA you'll se almost no extra aliasing because the MSAA is still active, and also when you turn off the upscaling you'll still see ghosting because the temporal reconstruction is still active only now it doesn't use 720p frames but 1080p frames if you play on 1080p for example.
        Last edited by aligator187; 07-02-2016, 11:28 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by aligator187 View Post
          Yeah I agree, what I'm saying is that we're doomed to poor performance no matter what in the actual situation.

          Edit: By the way the "AA" option in the menu is only some post-processing AA, it is not the MSAA 4x that is impossible to turn off just as the temporal reconstruction. If you turn off the AA you'll se almost no extra aliasing because the MSAA is still active, and also when you turn off the upscaling you'll still see ghosting because the temporal reconstruction is still active only now it doesn't use 720p frames but 1080p frames if you play on 1080p for example.
          Ha. That explains it - thanks. I was wondering why turning off the AA had such relatively minimal frame rate impact (about 10%) and why everything kind of looked the same ultimately. For such a poorly optimised game, it's just crazy to force MSAA x 4 on people. And I think you might have explained why the game is so ugly too with the point about temporal reconstruction.

          Sigh. And seeing how dead this forum is I think Remedy is basically given up. Thank goodness I bought my key from someone who got it "free" with his Xbox One pre-order for about $28 USD. If I paid full retail price....... it doesn't bear thinking about.




          Comment


          • #6
            Well disabling upscaling helps with texture, now they're not blurry anymore and you don't have to wait for them to clear up when you zoom in, so that's still some improvement, but what I don't understand is that there's still the temporal reconstruction even though the upscaling can be disabled.

            I feel like it's always been desing for Xbox and they just dumped the game as is for PC. In August 2015, Phil Spencer when asked if Quantum Break and other games were coming to PC he said "Going to those teams mid-cycle and saying: ‘Hey, by the way, I want to add a platform,’ didn’t really feel like necessarily the best way to end up with the best result for the game." Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/why-scaleboun...-coming-to-pc/

            So there you go.

            Comment


            • #7
              At least you guys can play it. With the latest update from july 1st, we the core2quad owners still have the POPCNT limitation. Remedy is lol at us. Shame on you Remedy! Hope you get in default soon!
              Last edited by catalin32; 07-02-2016, 01:48 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Least optimized in history? Seriously? Have you guys even played Vampire Bloodlines? I like that game but it sure was rushed!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Maniac View Post
                  Least optimized in history? Seriously? Have you guys even played Vampire Bloodlines? I like that game but it sure was rushed!

                  We're talking about quantum break here. I abolutely don't care that there's worse, it doesnt justify nor nullify the utter lack of optimization and poor performance of this games. If we start to think this way than anything is ok: oh this guy killed a guy but it's okay sine that other guy kill 2 guys and not one, but this other one killed 3 so it's worse so we should count our blessings right...????

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Maniac View Post
                    Least optimized in history? Seriously? Have you guys even played Vampire Bloodlines? I like that game but it sure was rushed!

                    I am quite familiar with Vampires from back in the days. Yep, sure it was buggy etc and people were rightly frustrated. But I personally think the Quantum Break optimisation issues are worse because they are so, well, avoidable. A GTX 970 or the recently released RX 480 easily wipes the floor at 1080p with almost all settings on ultra in most games. Yet the guy in the Youtube video was struggling to get a consistent 30-odd FPS using a 1080. Quests can be broken; games can crash etc, I get all that but I honestly can't remember many AAA titles that run this diabolically on absolutely top line hardware. Even the much pilloried Arkham Knight wasn't this bad.

                    The fact that Remedy continues to be silent about the performance issues, beyond claiming that these might be fixed in some future Windows 10 update or via cooperation with Nvidia and AMD, makes things even more infuriating. Again, I go back to what I said earlier: show me another game that performs this bad.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by aligator187 View Post
                      .


                      We're talking about quantum break here. I abolutely don't care that there's worse...
                      Hey don't backpeddle now, this thread is clearly stating worst in history!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by edvardmunchnz View Post


                        ....... but I honestly can't remember many AAA titles that run this diabolically on absolutely top line hardware. Even the much pilloried Arkham Knight wasn't this bad.

                        The fact that Remedy continues to be silent about the performance issues, beyond claiming that these might be fixed in some future Windows 10 update or via cooperation with Nvidia and AMD, makes things even more infuriating. Again, I go back to what I said earlier: show me another game that performs this bad.
                        You are forgetting Crysis that got released in 2007 right ? About six months after Crysis is released, GTX 280 got released, and even GTX 280 only managed 26.4 fps at 1920 x 1200 with 4xAA + AF turned on ( http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,1953-18.html ). Look I am not saying what you are saying is incorrect, in fact I completely agree that the performance of Quantum Break should be better with GTX 1080, I am just pointing out that there are cases that happened in the past where one AAA title was too much even for the top end hardware at that time. Crysis did in in 2007 for example.

                        I do hope though that Remedy does something about it and make necessary changes in the way the game is coded so that the 4xMSAA can be toggled off to some other form of less demanding anti aliasing. And I do hope that Remedy decide to change their mind and do allow SLI etc. multi GPU support in the game. But whether they will do these things eventually I dont know. They got paid by Microsoft for doing the game, and they did deliver Microsoft the game. Now they are in the midst of two other un-announced project and to invest resources in fixing the game, they need Microsoft to finance them, and if that fund is not there, there will be only minimul support for this game unfortunately I think. But let's keep our fingers crossed and hope that Remedy does indeed do something about improving the performance of the game!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I guess I could be considered the crotchety old foggy of the board. I've been playing PC games since the 90s and I have seen this happen more times than I can count and most of them were with far worse games.

                          Sometimes you must upgrade your systems. The guys with the Core2 processors are probably in that camp. They came out in or around 2006...and from the sounds of it they lack the hardware features needed to run the engine well.

                          You say, make a better engine, I hear, "I don't want to buy a new PC after having it for 6 years. Why aren't they supporting these old and obsolete processors?"

                          I remember hearing the exact same complaints...in 1996...after PCs without math coprocessors couldn't play the original quake...even though they played Duke Nukem 3D...a game running on a different engine with completely different graphic features and requirements.

                          The fact is, Remedy did try to optimize the game to make it run better when the launched it. The only problem was that the whole PC community railed them for it...non stop...

                          At some point graphics tech will catch up and run these games well, but it's very difficult to constantly be able to provide for new hardware. There was a previous citation for Crysis, that's a good example. I can think of a bunch of others just from my experience.

                          Remedy has no reason to respond to you guys if they don't want to. If I worked for them I would probably just think they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Actions speak louder than words, their time is better spent looking into ways to fix these problems if they can, they're not going to spout platitudes and string people along unless they're damn sure the issue is with them and they can fix it.

                          This is what it's like to be a PC gamer. This is what is has ALWAYS been like. If this is unsatisfactory, buy the Xbox One, they cost less than a New processor and GPU and will probably work fine on your cutting edge PC monitor if it has HDMI support.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GameBunny77 View Post

                            You are forgetting Crysis that got released in 2007 right ? About six months after Crysis is released, GTX 280 got released, and even GTX 280 only managed 26.4 fps at 1920 x 1200 with 4xAA + AF turned on ( http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,1953-18.html ). Look I am not saying what you are saying is incorrect, in fact I completely agree that the performance of Quantum Break should be better with GTX 1080, I am just pointing out that there are cases that happened in the past where one AAA title was too much even for the top end hardware at that time. Crysis did in in 2007 for example.
                            True enough and Crysis 3 is only playable with ultra at 60 FPS+ on 1440p 3+ years after release. But allow me to raise a couple of points of difference: objectively speaking (based on what you can see relative to the times) both games were making major breakthroughs in terms of graphical quality and fidelity. Where's the breakthrough in Quantum Break? All that I can see is that the FPS is lower in the video when Joyce was standing around/walking around as opposed to being in firefights, for example. This suggests to me the game is poorly optimised.

                            Maniac: once again "thanks" for your condescension. I for one am not one of those "Core2 processors" people. My hardware (i7 6700K and a GTX 1080 non-reference video card) is about as good as you can get today. And again in a game like Witcher 3 (heavily modded with graphical mods that place further demands on the PC), I can be in a massively open world with huge numbers of in-game characters doing things etc in situations where the game produces much more pleasant eye candy than QB and still get 50+ FPS with everything on, including crazy stuff like hairworks. You tell me what's so special about QB graphics or gameplay that I should have to endure that performance?

                            You can't. Your own examples defeat your argument. People who complain that their PC can run Duke 3D but can't run Quake truly can't appreciate the revolutionary steps that Quake took, being the first true 3D game.

                            I am quite prepared to upgrade my PC every couple of years and almost always use top of the line components. It's just that I expect highly playable performance (like at least consistent 45+ FPS) on 1080p minimum using top of the line hardware. And as someone who plays quite a lot of games, I can say that over the last 5 years, this has been achievable in most cases except for truly revolutionary titles like some in the GTA series and Crysis. Times move on and the industry progresses - I think the facts support my and others' argument that it is Remedy that's in the wrong here with their poor product.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by edvardmunchnz View Post

                              True enough and Crysis 3 is only playable with ultra at 60 FPS+ on 1440p 3+ years after release....

                              ...Maniac: once again "thanks" for your condescension. I for one am not one of those "Core2 processors" people. My hardware... You tell me what's so special about QB graphics or gameplay that I should have to endure that performance?

                              You can't...

                              I am quite prepared to upgrade my PC every couple of years and almost always use top of the line components.
                              Well...I can. In fact I felt like I did, but you just didn't accept my reasoning. That's fine, you don't have to. Quantum Break has more than just top of the line graphics fidelity, it uses CPU and graphic features in unique ways to do effects like the time stutters. Without those hardware features (which the consoles already have) your PC essentiallycan't make the effect work, and if a way is made to have the software do it without the hardware feature, your PC would slow down as it tried to emulate the effect, to an extreme of grinding the game to a halt. That's not even including how much system resources your OS or background programs were taking up (anti virus, office, etc). So if your system can't meet the requirements, it either would not work, or run so poorly you'd still complain.

                              Performance and technical issues will always exist with the PC because that's what happens with an open standard. It used to be as you said, when you had the most expensive system it would run everything, but that simply isn't the case anymore. We're in a new era now. With the new consoles out, their architecture (and lower background memory demands) can push games more efficiently than a PC can. Since the vast majority of game sales since the early 2000s are for console versions, that's become the target. It wasn't a big deal...until the console's power started to target PC hardware. That's part of the reason I gave up on the PC, the console could deliver a better experience...used to be the other way around...well that and limited online activation DRM (I don't pirate and I don't like being treated as one).
                              Last edited by Maniac; 07-03-2016, 12:17 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X