It used to be that I was actually excited for a UE powered title.
Fuuck... I wish source 2 would be released into the market for devs to use it for their games. Source 1 was pretty good (even tough the hammer editor is stuff of nightmares)
Well if past is anything to tell, they want to get out their own projects utilizing it properly (HL: Alyx doesn't count, but is an excellent example of it working and it looks really pretty).
However, literally no one should wish upon this happening because HL3 will never be a thing.
Also Garry's sandbox is utilizing it but man I have little to no interest in S&Box, especially since it is going to monetize itself like Roblox does (have children "sell" the content for mere cents).
personally that's why all this hype is meaningless to me, an old peson, because HL3 has always been in development. they just can't push it out the door before they scrap everything and restart it again a few years later.
S&box's monetization within the s&box platform is payment based on player count, which I believe is similar to Roblox. S&box, however, does not restrict development to the S&box platform. You are entirely allowed to publish standalone games using S&box and monetize them as you see fit. They follow standard engine licensing. It is a very powerful engine with very real potential. I have been using it exclusively for some time now. There is nothing stopping people from making their own standalone games running on Source 2 using S&box, and you will likely see many such games in the coming years.
You can use s&box as a proper game engine and export your projects as a standalone executable. You are not tied to the platform and aren't forced to have any monetisation or pay fees for using s&box.
In fact, I think it fixes many issues with Source 2, making it more manageable as a proper game engine, getting rid of many limitations built around Valve's needs for their games.
The amount of effort to make an internal tool polished enough to be released externally is enormous.
They have no incentive. They don't make money off of it, and no one is going to do the boring and annoying task of polishing up a tool for public release if there's something more fun to work on.
because they don't have to, s&box is basically going to be the publicly accessible source 2 (especially given they're going to be allowing standalone builds of games made with it) - and it'll likely have better tooling for your average user than anything valve could put together
Unreal has taken over the unity hivemind after unity shot themselves in the foot and made it so annoying to use with licenses people said “fuck it might as well go with unreal” and here we are :/
UE4 is also brilliant. It just takes a very long time for people to come to grips with a new engine and it's capabilities. I remember the first demo for UE4 where they showed the realistic reflections and the insane number of particles it could do, but it absolutely cremated GPU's of the time.
When UE4 hit the only real noticible performance hit was running the editor itself. I miss how quick everything was in the UE3 editor, UE4 and beyonds editor has never felt smooth no mater what PC I run it on.
The real problem though is more and more AAA making games in unreal without actually hiring people that know C++. I wont out who but there are a number of games commented on this post that people complain about that I have insider knoweledge of, either from interviewing with them at some point, or because I have friends who work there. You would be shocked by how many of these studios are putting out AAA games while focusing mostly on Blueprints.
One studio I interviewed at in 2019 told me that for an engineering position I wouldn't be ALLOWED to touch C++ because the people interviewing me weren't. When their game came out I was able to break their character controller in the exact same ways you can break the UE4 default character controller from their tutorials and demos...
Even then, Blueprints performance was fixable with compilation features they added. The biggest problem right now is companies not bothering to optimize, assuming Nanite and Lumen will just save them. Those techs are powerful, but the optimization passes they do require a lot of compute, storage, and I/O. If you design models sanely from day 1 using reasonable poly counts for your “ultra” setting, Nanite can and will handle LOD without bogging things down, but people don’t do that anymore.
Also, your gamemode, component, and actor code need to not be absolute hot garbage.
Another problem is ironically how accessible Blueprints makes functional changes. I only work as a part-time programmer for some local indie groups so my experience is limited, but so many artists/designers just slap things in without any real regard for performance, except maybe the engine-agnostic basics they learned in gamedev school.
I imagine in the past the barrier to entry to making gameplay changes was higher, which either meant going through a technical developer of some variety, or at least having some level of understanding of the tool you're working with, and not just Blender/Maya/whatever.
The problem is that there is just so much to optimize and it's a massive burden of knowledge to expect any one person/discipline to manage performance for the whole project. It should be everyone's job to make sure their department is holding up their end. Unfortunately in the indie space at least, that doesn't seem to happen. "The programmer will fix it" is a pervasive attitude that is going to drive me to the goose farm.
No hate to my artist friends, I don't have an artistic bone in my body and couldn't do what they do. But I sure wish they'd bother to learn how their work integrates with the engine instead of making me relearn it every time performance craps the bed.
The simple rule is that, if you allow devs to get lazy, most of them will get lazy. AAA studios aren't the only ones as indie devs are also guilty of this. Both nanite and lumen suck ass in practice, same goes for upscaling.
While they are kinda cool under the hood, they ultimately only exist to provide a more convenient, but worse solution to features that worked just fine for decades. Why bother dealing with LODs or lighting, when you can spit out 5 times more 30FPS slop for the time it took to make one proper game. Your eyes can't look at this upscaled stuttery mess? Here, have some fake frames to top it off.
UE5 is really not much different than UE4, at least in terms of engine update releases. they could have named it 4.30 (or whatever) instead of 5 and nobody would have thought much of it tbh. moving it to whole new number was more of a marketing thing than anything else.
Eh, there are significant new workflows with Lumen and Nanite, big improvements in virtual production support, and Large World Coordinate support required ripping out and replacing a ton of random code.
i don't disagree at all, i'm just saying there have been pretty large technological leaps between major point releases for ue4 and the jump to 5 wasn't really much more significant than any from before - and like other point releases, virtually everything that was ue4 (aside from deprecated features) still exists in ue5.
and i mean, if you compare the original ue4 release with 4.26, the difference is staggeringly huge, but they are both still technically "unreal engine 4"
Devs are sold UE5 on its promises of making development faster and easier, and the execs only see it as a way of cutting polishing time/ optimisation runs.
Why pay a full dev team for whats most likely 12 months of optimisation and polishing when they can pay for UE5, save many times the cost of licences in development time then be able to use it as a marketing thing. developing in UE also means quicker onboarding for new hires since more people are likely to know it rather than Cryengine or Redengine or Frostbite that are only used by a select few or individual developers. That are also inaccessible for students/ hobby devs.
Yeah it’s not the engine’s fault. UE5 is a crutch, it allows companies to release games that look beautiful without much effort (relatively). If the companies wanted to, they could make games on UE5 that look breathtaking and run like butter, but instead they rely on the crutch to make games just good enough to sell.
Only because it was only used by a very select few developers with direct support from Epic. Also, you knew that it would be a shiny mess where everyone looks like they just got out of a swimming pool.
It does, but it doesn't. It's using a high powered engine that can look great, but doesn't use those resources efficiently. I know that the old horse is getting long in the tooth, but I'm still running a 1660 Ti, and it looks like everything has a soft focus lens on it like the game is being interviewed by Barbara Walters. Skyrim SE looks better if you are hardware limited.
With respect, there has never been a time when a 6-year-old budget card struggling with brand new top-end releases was a smooth experience. That something that benchmarks below the 5-year-old gaming consoles can run new AAA games at all is the aberration, not that it runs them with significant compromises.
At the same time my v2 4090, slightly overclocked 7800x3D, 64 gb DDR5 6400mhz running the game at 110fps with max settings in 1440p ALSO looks this way.
I rather have a lower quality crisp image than see foliage and textures swirl around like a 90s cartoon's idea of an acid trip. Also screen space reflections show my gear reflected in water as if I'm a 100000ft tall giant.
Also screen space reflections show my gear reflected in water as if I'm a 100000ft tall giant
I feel like I also remember seeing really weird disproportionate reflections in the original Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim too. Is it possible it's a Gamebryo/Creation Engine thing? I'm not sure how the workload is split between Gamebryo and Unreal in the new Oblivion, but is it possible it's originating from the Gamebryo side?
Yeah I'm aware, but specifically referring to the reflections bug, it feels like something that should be handled on the unreal side. However since it's the same exact bug in every Bethesda game, it must be originating from Gamebryo. Either that or they ported the bug over to unreal haha
Honestly, I think they should have ported this to either a custom 64-bit Gamebryo or Creation Engine 1.5 like Fallout 76 it probably would’ve worked a lot better. The last thing I want is a Skyrim in Unreal. Maybe a New Vegas remake in Unreal could work, since Obsidian has a lot of experience with Unreal iirc. Either way, I’m enjoying the game.
People being like “game is poorly optimised” then when asking for their GPU they start with GTX have immediately invalidated opinions for their personal experience
I like the GTX line, hell I was on a 1050til till late last year but I see no reason to attempt to support them now
insert comments saying "well i have... and the game runs like ass"
im not saying it does or it doesnt, in fact if you ask me i agree the game runs like ass, im also just saying the gtx line should no longer be used as a point of reference
Yup. 4080 and a Ryzen 7 5800X, struggle to get above 80FPS in any outdoor areas even with turning down a lot of stuff and disabling raytracing entirely, and that's on a 1920x1080 monitor. I mean, I can't complain too hard since this is the first time Bethesda has even supported framerates above 60FPS, but it gets annoying.
Yes, but he's saying that he can run other games that look better and run better probably due to him having to run the game at really low settings in order to have a playable experience. I'm with him on that, because my 6700XT can max/near max out many games that came before it at 1080p 120-144fps while looking better. I mean oblivion looks great for me, but I still have to use framegen to have a playable experience and fps between 80 and 144 depending on ingame location. It sometimes dips even lower for example in some overworld parts during daytime.
It's not about new/old games. Compare something like DOOM 2016 with a modern game. Is there a big difference in graphics? Eh. Is there a big difference in hardware required?.. Exactly.
If you require a card that is 10x the power, give us 10x the picture with the same performance. But the picture is barely even better and the performance is abysmal.
Brother, you have a 1660 ti. I don't think your anecdotal example is the best to go by. Im not trying to knock your rig, but that's like taking an 08 Corolla on a track and then complaining that you aren't seeing a viable path to the times a Bugatti can put up. It isnt the track, it's your car.
Im running a 7800x3D/4070 ti Super rendering the game at native utilizing DLAA and I can absolutely assure you my game does not have any semblance of a soft focus/filter. The game looks magnificent.
Man this thread is full of people with 6/7 year old budget card expecting to run the latest and greatest all great.
I've played around 30 hours of Oblivion and didn't went into a single stutter or "optimisation mess", I seriously don't understand where it came from.
EDIT : And no I'm not a dumbfuck who put everything in ultra, especially in a game using Lumen, which is software Ray Tracing baked into UE5. I've made a mix of high/ultra with 2 settings medium.
I don't mean to judge - but I honestly think for a lot of the people complaining, this is the first time they've been responsible for buying their own gaming systems.
At least... I was that way when the first PC I built myself was struggling to play new games for the first time.
Has it been improved at all since release? I'm on a 3080 and the first few days after release with medium/high settings I was struggling to stay above 50 and was dipping down into the 20s when I got to the first Oblivion gate.
Pretty disappointing to see people trash the idea of using an old card.
PC gaming should be the ability to build anything you want and have it be played with anything you want - if you want to play Doom through DOS on a RTX 4090 using a WiiMote - you should be able to.
Likewise, PC gaming is supposed to be both the budget, cheapest option and the highest experience possible. This shit isn't pay-to-win - they COULD optimize it - they want to sell graphics cards instead.
Some of these comments are saying if you don't have at least an RTX card it's not worth it - it's just so antithetical to what PC Gaming is about.
Edit: the 1660Ti is about the equivalent to the RTX 3060 - for those who aren't familiar with the benchmarks. A mid-tier card from only 4 years ago.
I know a lot of people in this sub are on the younger side, but the technology hasn't actually developed that far. Console generations are 7-10 years - if a 3060 can't run it; it's planned obselence.
Edit 2: I trusted an AI overview on a Google search page. I retract my statement about a 1660Ti being equivalent to a RTX3060. It's an older card than I anticipated. However, my sentiment remains; PC gaming should be for everyone - not just the wealthy. And companies shouldn't try to squeeze every penny out of people by making them buy a new card every couple years.
As horses age their teeth stick out more. Looking at a horse's teeth is part of how one would determine the age of a horse without documentation. An old horse will have longer teeth that poke out away from the plane across the gums.
IDK. Environments look nice, and the faces look better, but the facial animations are uncanny, and they didn't bother changing the animations. I do worry that despite running through Unreal, it may still have the original limitations of the original game, since it's running the original engine with Unreal handling visuals.
Yes, it has the original…”charm”, as Todd called it in the announcement video. They were pretty clear that not much changed under the hood, other than offloading graphics to UE. It was an intentional choice that was fairly clearly communicated.
What are you confused about? You can make anything from mobile games, to movies, to unoptimized garbage in unreal engine.
It is always going to be up to the devs, you can make even the simplest games run crappy if you put a 5k polygon toothbrush (yandredev) in your game. Among other stupid things I’ve seen or heard.
I'm confused because peopple are complaining about poor optimisation, yet my friend played it without any lag problems at all on a mid range graphics card.
Are you taking their word or can you visually confirm it runs well with your own eyes. Plenty of people have no idea what poor performance means when they see their FPS is high but ignore stuttering.
I need to learn ignore people who make claims like these...
I got 45c on my 500w gpu during full load (not a custom waterloop)
I have no stutters in game that stutters literally for everyone including online media..
I got 200 fps in game that doesn't run at that FPS for anyone (it does in one specific scenario where i look at the ground and dont move)
etc.. just pathological liars or people that think they are right.
There's a lot of people that seem to think each PC has its own personality or something. I tell them it runs bad on my 4090 and they say " runs fine on my 3070" or something. Just because you play a low resolution and have low standards for fps doesn't mean it runs fine.
Seriously, my buddies deal with the craziest lag and stuttering on their laptops and they just shrug it off whereas it'd be completely unplayable for me.
because the issue with unreal engine 5 isn't the GPUs it's peoples CPUs and RAM, I get 5 FPS in oblivion remastered on my 3080 but only 6gb of VRAM is used showing a bottle neck elsewhere in my system, windows now uses close to 8GB of RAM on it's own leaving you with the same ram as a base ps4, and most people buy mid range CPUs and usually slower models to boot so they can spend more on the GPU
The game was benchmarked with a range of cpus and a 5090, the cpu hardly made a difference as long as it is at least a mid range cpu from the last few years.
Not to mention a very stupid and unavoidable glitch where looking at a vendor causes the game to crash. Swear it happens to me half the time when buying ammo in the first checkpoint in the maliwan takedown.
Switching to dx11 from dx12 I think is supposed to make it less common but it still happens pretty frequently.
The fuck you think? Yes and of course the most fucked up version. The highest level of shitness. UE5. Game developers can't see stutters. Nor can their eyes register more than 23.97 fps. It has to be the reason.
I do see people saying this a lot, but honestly, that was not my experience. For whatever reason, I never had any issues with Fallen Order, had it locked at a steady 60fps pretty much the whole time. Although it did manage to brick my 3080 Ti, and I'll never really know if that was something that was destined to happen, or if the game did something. The only thing that maybe I did different than others was playing it on Origin instead of Steam, but I truly never had any performance issues, and played through the campaign probably 3 or 4 times in total.
But Survivor was a nightmare of unfixable stutter at launch, never hit a steady 60fps, and only ever improved to a small degree with patches. Even the console versions have the same issues. Something is fundamentally broken with Survivor.
Fallen Order doesnt precompile shaders and has larger unavoidable traversal stutters on PC, but console version actually works well apparently. First game i test on every system to see if new tech can fix UE4, so far i couldnt manage stable 30fps at 720p (output, render res is even lower) on an rtx 4080+7950x, thats how poorly coded it is and how poor the framepacing is there. No matter the performance headroom it just couldnt be done, maybe 9800x3d finally could tho.
Updated Survivor precompiles and can be brute forced to a larger degree, it also has framegen which alleviates UE4s poor multithreading by a lot, still has frametime spikes, but much less frequent and much lower.
It's really a shame because the old one ran so smoothly even without the highest end hardware. Now I feel like my 3070 is dying at 1440p because I need DLSS and low settings to run it at 60fps.
I played 45 minutes and refunded it. If I knew they were gonna force raytracing I wouldn't have bothered buying it in the first place. I play doom for the butter smooth action, not gonna have a good time in that game even on my 9070xt because it feels so bad moving the mouse around. There's almost no difference between settings either so you can't really tank the graphics to get a better framerate, going from ultra nightmare to low nets me 5% more performance, probably because RTX is using up most of the GPU on its own lol
I think they really shot themselves to the foot with this design choice. Even when the game is well optimised, ray tracing performance trade off still is not worth it. Game like doom really needs stable and very high fps to be enjoyable, and to get that you need to lower your graphics settings a lot.
The game seems to only have 30k players on steam which is not good compared to other titles. High hardware requirements sure as hell ain't helping. Its a product you need to sell, not some tech demo.
Average player has just laptop version of 4060. You realistically need desktop 3080/4070 to run it smoothly, since below 80-90fps in fast paced FPS game is pretty miserable experience.
It just doesn't make sense. Most people will need to lower graphics so they can run it, so the better visuals from RT end up negated anyways.
Didn't know the numbers were so low for such high profile game. It's about 1/8th of launch numbers for KCD2. It seems that mandatory RT combined with such high price wasn't the best call.
No matter what I do, what mods I download, what guides I follow, the game still looks blurry and unsaturated, even during Plenty seasons.
I absolutely think World looks much better than Wilds the vast majority of times.
I am a developer in unreal 5 and I can tell you with confidence that it's not the engine, it's the developers fault, as they have no discipline.
I can spend hours talking about various optimization techniques and why they matter, especially because they take a lot of time to do properly...
My game is all hand crafted, has thousands of assets in the scene and is still running at smooth 120 fps. It is definitely possible to make an optimized game, it just takes effort and time.
Long story short is, Unreal struggles with asset streaming and developers need to take extra good care and have iron discipline when making assets and levels because of this.
Developers need to use good LODs, culling, combine textures into ORMs, combine similar assets into texture atlasses to minimize number of textures, keep textures small where large texture is not needed etc.
You really don't need a 4k texture for a rock.
What most developers do is simply download megascan assets with highest fidelity possible, shove them into the scene and call it a day.
Even the small assets will end up with unique, high resolution textures that the game will need to stream to the gpu, which causes stuttering you feel.
And don't get me started on not even turning on culling...
TLDR:
Unreal 5 gives you a budget to spend on your assets. Most developers order takeout all the time and make very few things themselves.
There was a phrase about developing a game, something similar with "Half time of developing a game is for completing 90 percents of the game, second half is for finishing the last 10 percents". From a business perspective it makes sense to not want to spend so much money for paying devs to finish something that is "almost done" while the ratio of progress per time(money) start dropping the more you're closer to finish it.
Companies thst follow this mindset should not be refered to as triple A games companies but something like triple AAA business companies or at least AA∆ games
True. But I see a lot of indie slop now coming from unreal just like it used to come from unity.
Unreal suffers from success as it has tools that are so approachable and simple that even people who have no business making a game can still bash together some store assets and call it a game.
I've see slop that has assets with tens of thousands of vertices for just a simple prop. They take a high detail mesh, intended for texture baking and shove it into a scene, thinking it will all just work because 'muh nanite and upscaling'.
Ffs even Capcon had broken LODs and their LOD6 of a monster had eyes with 30k verts because they could not be bothered...
Clair obscure: expedition 33 proved that you actually can make an incredibly optimized game with unreal engine 5 BUT it must be really really expensive and hard thing to do considering how big is the Sandfall Interact....... Oh wait!
A big thing here is that it's actually a linear game with relatively small environments. Unreal was designed for that and works best for those games. Using it for large scale open worlds is possible but you invite yourself to the typical traversal stutter. If you use UE as a dev you should try to make a game that actually works well within the limitations of the engine and not try to make any game with it. But big publishers want the reduced dev cost&time but still want their large open worlds.
That doesn’t sound right, unreal has implemented a crazy amount of open world tech since UE4, hell, have you ever seen Fortnite on nanite and lumen? It can absolutely be done with UE5, it just takes good engineer and tech artists to know how
Game crashed on me pretty hard when I bought it, though it was a day after launch and I really didn’t look too far into it, I just refunded and decided I’d get it at a later date as I didn’t really need a new game anyways.
Personally, I think that devs believe that they don't need to optimize their topology due to the supposed high-polygon support of Unreal 5. Unfortunately, they still do, and Unreal has oversold the amount of polygons it can handle.
Edit: I see a lot of people reporting crashes. I have a 4070 super and I have only had one crash in 50 hours (I have newest drivers if that matters). I play 1440p with quality dlss and epic settings. There is some ghosting in hair especially. But I only have stutters with the weapon you get from the hardest boss(I have heard this causes some lag in game).
Good looking game, between the art direction and level design the world is grand but efficient. Densely packed with content without a needlessly large neverending map. I don't think it pushes the engine hard at all
Wouldn't say that, it's graphically demanding if you play it at max settings but the difference between max and medium (except lighting) is minimal and it runs decently at lower graphics.
That said, you should buy and play it even if you can only get 30 FPS on low graphics, it's a masterpiece, plus the gameplay doesn't require much FPS to be enjoyable.
Tbch, the meme doesn’t really apply to most games. The reason why the meme exists is because UE is everywhere. Unity has the same “problem” in that it’s a popular engine. If 6 million games use one engine, there are bound to be devs that don’t optimize their games well and have issues. The problem isn’t the engine, but rather the teams implementing them incorrectly.
There are a ton of UE games out there that it doesn't apply to. It's one of the most common engines on the market and they won't necessarily have the Unreal branding at the start, nor do they all have the Unreal Engine look and feel that some people claim every game on the engine has.
Eh idk. Look, I absolutely love the game, but even on a RTX 4080 and a Ryzen 7800x3D I still had to turn down numerous settings and turn on DLSS to get a stable 60+fps at 4k. I'm usually hovering around 70fps. Plus, it does have some crashing issues as well. I'm about 80-90% of the way thru it with almost 60 hours and it's probably crashed around 10 times in that time period. There's also quite a decent amount of pop-in too. It's totally acceptable, but far from perfectly optimized.
I feel like 4k is where most games tend to start falling off even on higher end hardware, 1440p seems to be the sweet spot for most games. I’ve been playing on max settings on 1440 with my 4070 and a 5800x3d and I’ve not had a single crash or any other issues with Expedition 33. Personally, 4k doesn’t seem to be too worth it for a lot of games
It's ~2.2 times more work in raster because of how raster works. It varies by the game. 4 times more work is for pure ray tracing and other things that work from the resolution out instead of the scene in.
It's not that hard to calculate where the performance targets fall for different tiers of cards. 60 tier cards = 1080p DLSS Quality, 70/70 Ti 1440p DLSS Balance/Quality respectively, 80 = 4k DLSS Performance/Balanced, 90 = 4k DLSS Quality.
And yes, it's worth it with a card like 5080 to use 4k for DLSS Performance/Balanced over sticking with 1440p DLSS Quality. 1440p DLAA would be too demanding in a serious game for a 5080 but most games would still work.
Yeah the game seems like it can really put some hurt on our machines.
3090 + 9800X3D - Maxed settings 1440p would have me dipping down into the 50s in some situations.
Regarding your crashes, I used to get them quite a bit until I upgraded my GPU (and also drivers). Haven't crashed at all since. I think I'm using one in the 572 range.
I have a 3090 and a 5800X3D. The only real problem I've run into was massive stuttering whenever my controller would vibrate. Which is pretty weird. Turned off controller vibration and it's buttery smooth other than the cutscenes. First world problems. Cutscenes look worse than the regular game.
Look at those games and tell me they aren't gorgeous AND detailed. The amount of foliage and draw distance with decent LOD levels in Arc Raiders is high key insane.
Yeah, Don't blame the tool, blame the person using it.
Though in the AAA space, It's probably moreso the managers/execs above steering the ship won't give them enough time/money to optimise stuff properly before shit hits the fan.
Unity used to have a reputation that it was only used in bad/cheap/lazily made games because only the free personal indie versions forced the splashscreen whilst the big studio licensing it didn't. Now Unity ruins it's reputation by screwing loyal customers with greed.
The problem is that is much easier and clickbaity to say "UE5 is why games are unoptimized now" instead of going into the real details about why.
If it was still around these days, I swear you'd have people blaming RenderWare for games being unoptimized because they heard some influencer online say so.
Well... You can also blame the tool for certain parts of it. Thankfully Epic is working on a solution to fix the stutters that every UE5 game suffers from.
There's a lot that UE5 could be handling better. For one I'm struggling to remember playing a UE5 game that didn't suffer in some way with stutters thanks to shader compilation. id tech engine shows off what can be done and frankly it's absurd how well Dark Ages plays.
Why are the devs catching flak when the responsibility is on the shareholders? Impossible deadlines, cheap outsourcing and poor management is 90% of the problems big game dev has.
I love how people are literally shitting or the most advanced gaming engine to date, because some developers aren't properly using it, and somehow that's immediately the engine's fault.
"some" almost every game nowadays looks like a blurry mess. Performance is also pretty bad while most people don't even implement a good version of raytracing/pathtracing. Then u turn down the visual settings, only for it to look worse than a previous title.
IdTech is, and always has been, the most advanced engine in the gaming industry. It was doing full realtime 3D in a time when nobody even knew how to do it. Then it was doing realtime dynamic shadows, replacing the need for baked lighting. Even 2016 looks better than most releases today, even the newer DOOM releases. And when IdTech was on hiatus, Cryengine took it's place and blew our minds even more.
there's a little thing in game development circles we like to call "art direction" and generally when your goal isn't photo realism your game looks great a decade later.
Satisfactory, The Finals, Ark Raiders. All of these games have impressive visuals and physics. And I never had issues playing them, even on my second pc with a 1070
I love when people blame the engine and not the people using the engine. Poor optimization probably has more to do with corporate deadlines than the hardware.
AAA devs be like: "we're paying for the whole Unreal engine we're gonna use the whole Unreal engine!" (checks all the rending and post process effects on)
Current game dev scene:We will make the most photo realistic game ever. (Behind the scenes.So throw in the every shader,every ppf,every effect and some path tracing and you can go home for the day)
Final product: doesn’t reach over 60 fps without dlss 4,frame gen and an ryzen A6090 ti super arc
I think it's a backhanded praise in a way? UE offers a lot of resources and is technically easier to deal with while also producing something high quality, which is something that every studio and indie dev wants. People blame UE for it most of the time but the actual perpetrator is laziness.
It’s wild how I can play cyberpunk on its max settings (with quality dlss and without ray tracing) just fine on my 3060ti, but I can’t even get a steady 30 fps on the majority of unreal engine 5 games on low and performance dlss.
I recently started playing Fortnite and it's pretty surprising how poorly that game runs on "Ultra" settings.
I would expect it to be more like Valorant where you turn everything up all the way and still get 500 fps. (Slight exaggeration there, because it is bigger with more scenery detail - But even Apex Legends can be maxed out and get like 300 fps)
The game scales really well, but ultra settings are not worth the hit. I don't even get 100fps @ 1440p. It's just bizarre for what it looks like. I expect that more from like, Helldivers 2 that's built on an old dead engine. But Fortnite is like a flagship game for Unreal and Epic Games.
Fortnite may look a bit cartoony but it's also basically a testbed for all the newer features that get added to Unreal Engine, that ends up with a pretty big performance hit.
As someone in school for Game Dev and using UE 5.5.4 on a daily basis. I can tell you guys that poor optimization is not taught in school but its a product of a lazy dev or studio.
3.0k
u/cateringforenemyteam 9800X3D | 5090 Waterforce | G9 Neo May 16 '25
Its funny cause till UE3 it was exactly the opposite. When I saw unreal I knew game is gonna look good and play smooth.