![]() ![]() ![]() I still haven't played it, but I've watched a few videos (and the Neebs stream last night) and from what I've gathered, the performance is rough, but playable for most people. That said, just because we expected it to be a bit of a mess doesn't mean it's ok. I think the bugginess and state of ASA is pretty much exactly what those familiar with ASE (especially it's launch) expected. The game has always been unique and really cool, but it was never what anybody who played it would call "polished" lol. Here's looking at you, BF2, CoD4, and some others if I spent more time pondering haha. You should be able to turn down settings to play on most PCs, but Crisis wasn't the only game that brought many a PC to their knees. Maybe it's just because I've been playing PC games for a long time, but I always expect a cutting edge game to challenge even the best hardware. The first one was playable over 30 and I found it pleasant over 50fps (30 was not super enjoyable for me), but it's a game with tons of textures and physics on screen at any given time, so you just sort of always expect occasional blips of stutter or that it'll be difficult to get high FPS. DLSS and frame gen are helping people, but there's expected outrage that those are required to get to 60+ at any settings. It's starting to look like they're targeting 30FPS for consoles and the posted system requirements probably get you 30FPS+ at 1440p-medium settings for the recommended and 30FPS+ at low-1080p for minimum. People who are watching their FPS and getting 40-60 with dips to 30 or lower are fuming, regardless of what hardware they have. It sounds like people who aren't running an FPS counter are tweaking settings until it runs "smooth" and they're happy, guessing in the 30-45FPS range. There are crashing issues that were expected from everyone familiar with Wildcard releases lol (not saying that's fine). The steam reviews and reddit pages are full of contradictory posts, as expected. What I've seen so far looks like the animations look out of date compared to the graphics now. I thought parts of it looked really good when it came out.but some of the animations and textures were always wonky. Maybe there'll be some driver optimizations soon. They're admittedly learning UE5 still and using this as a vehicle to do so, while including full RT and all the bells and whistles UE5 offers, so I'm not terribly surprised it's hard to run with high settings. I think it's kind of funny how many people forgot how bad ARK:SE ran on top hardware with it's single-threaded CPU usage and lack of optimizations. ![]() There were a few people with 1660's that said it ran "great" at lowest settings, so it's kind of hard to tell at this point. What does seem concerning to me on performance is that you can barely play it on lowest settings with mid-range hardware according to some reports. I haven't played it yet, so I can't really gage how bad (or maybe not bad?) it really is personally. It definitely looks beautiful, but it is probably going to suffer with the current trend of people expecting a 3060 to get 120FPS at Epic settings. There's a Reddit thread going with some reports on performance. This is the new version of Ark: Survival Evolved that they've rebuilt in UE5 with new graphics, building system, updates to all game mechanics, and supposedly going to have some new content, but it is essentially a rebuild of the same game that you can go buy for ~$40. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |