Funny thing, that. It’s not a well-optimised game. That’s the problem.
Modern gaming, why expect anything more?
Avoid UE5 games, they are all the same. Underperforming messes.
I’m still not convinced the engine is the problem. Maybe it’s not helping, sure, but heavy reliance on upscalers to achieve nominal performance is probably a bigger issue.
That, and shipping before proper optimization passes is probably more profitable in the short term, so publishers will push for that.
Yes, the engine could be used well, but it’s used for it’s out of the box “good” graphics, lighting and such. Which then yes, devs slap on shitty DLSS, frame generation or whatever at the end to reach a somewhat playable framerate (or “framerate number” should I say with the way things are going. Fuck you Nvidia).
No developers are going to spend ages tweaking the engine to get good performance when people will just buy the game regardless. I’ve yet to see a good performing UE5 game with good fidelity and I probably never will because it’s entirely reliant on TAA as it’s deferred rendering as standard. I hate seeing developers abandoning their own in-house engines just to swap to shitty UE5. I know, I know, it’s all about the money…
The engine is a plague, as every developer is seemingly moving to it. Chasing “upgraded” graphics that no one asked for. All games consolidating onto one engine is very bad.
It’s good for movies, bad for games. Give us good raster performance back, no TAA, no upscaling, no frame gen.
Why buy this absolute disaster of a game?
Because the previous ones were great and this one has glowing critics reviews. For me though, the system requirements are too high, so I’ll buy and play it sometime after a PC upgrade.
Great? The first one was OK. Then it kinda went down hill from there.
BL3 was just as much (if not more) of a mess - people shouldn’t be surprised, especially with Randy telling people they should be selling their souls to have the privilege of playing this game.
I played through BL3 on a 2016 PC and it was OK. Not perfect, but perfectly playable. Looking at that PC Gamer article, I don’t even understand the complaint of being unable to run the game at 120 FPS. Seems like an unreasonably high bar. I’d take 60.
Its initial launch on Epic was a mess for multiplayer, and there was plenty of documented issues for PC.
The story was probably also a sign to come for the movie that would release after…
If you asked me to recall the story of any of the games, I’d not be able to. I don’t think people play the games for the story. It’s just a fun looter shooter, especially in co-op, which is how I played BL3 around its Epic launch. Revisiting my technical review of the game from then, yeah, you’re right, and I documented various reports of issues, though there were quick fixes deployed or workarounds available for the biggest issues. That seems commonplace in the industry though.
250GB install sizes plus an additional 100GB shader caches. This is what the future looks like, buckle up.
For a cartoon game.
With the aesthetics they have, this could have been playable on the steam deck without anybody noticing the difference in graphics.
Why do they need 2-billion-polygon rocks only to flatten them all out and make it look like a cardboard cutout? It’s ridiculous.
managers have insane priorities
It could have looked like BL2 with a few upgrades and more physics and that would have been fine.
BL2 even had some PhysX simulations when using an Nvidia card for particles and effects, so between those and running at higher internal resolutions and framerates, it’s already better than the new one in some areas.
Nah, this is just one horribly unoptimized game.
250GBs? Cries in DSL
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system OS: Windows 10 / Windows 11 Processor: Intel Core i7-9700 / AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Memory: 16 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / Intel Arc A580 Storage: 100 GB available space Additional Notes: Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system. Requires 8 CPU Cores for processor. Requires 8 GB VRAM for graphics. SSD storage required
Holy shit a 2070 for minimum specs!!!
Game doesn’t look good enough to justify a 20 series card, probably has mandatory raytracing but holy fuck that’s bad
in 3 years PC build guides are gonna be like “You need 3 drives in your gaming PC. One for the OS (this can be small, its not important), at least 2TB for games, and another 1TB for the shaders for those games. Oh and you’ll need a top of the line Nvidia card because even a dumb UE5 asset dump game like Notary Simulator won’t run on a budget card”
Or just have DLSS run the game at 480p, but upscale it to 4k! You’ll never notice the difference we swear!
For AAA games, that might be the case.
So what I’m hearing is that it’s not even worth trying to play on a Steam Deck 😂
I did it for the hell of it, I think it had 60-80 fpm after the opening cutscene, literal slideshow experience.
There’s people on proton db claiming higher frames, but like 18-22 fps, def far from playable
Uh, Jesus Christ…
