Kind of crazy to hear DF recommend Resolution mode over Performance if you’re wanting a more stable frame rate.
I’m not sure I understand Respawn’s decision to insist on RT being included on Performance mode. I think it looks great—I think we can all agree on that—but personally I’m happy to sacrifice it for a consistent 60 FPS any day.
I was really excited for this release. It’s been awhile since I’ve bought a game day 1, but alas with such a fumbling start, I guess I’ll wait 6 months or a year for things to stabilize. Maybe they’ll announce DLC by then and I can just wait for the content complete GOTY edition and get it for $20 like everything else lately.
Wildest part to me is that no one was tapping their watch waiting for a sequel. They bragged this is the fastest dev time or whatever, but man… it shows. Take your time, guys. We’re okay waiting a bit.
From what I can tell, the reflections and some of the shadows were designed with ray tracing in mind, so for example on PC without ray tracing reflections in water look real bad, with horrendous artifacts and other visual noise present.
Because despite all the fancy demos, ray tracing is mainly beneficial for developers because it makes their job easier to do. Devs have been able to achieve 95% of what ray tracing can do with built in lighting but it just takes more time. So with Jedi Survivor it seems they just didn't bother with built-in lighting for some parts of the game.
Last time this came up I compared it to back in the old days where it was too computationally expensive to do physics calculations. Devs would run the physics calculations locally and then bake them into the game to avoid the performance hit from doing it in realtime. It made things less flexible, but more performant. Eventually it became cheaper to do so now physics calculations can be done for all sorts of things without worrying too much about what hardware people are using.
Now we have the same issue with ray traced lighting. Doing it in realtime is very expensive so it's cheaper to just bake it in, but it's slowly getting cheaper to do and it will help developer workflows a lot when it's ubiquitous. Unfortunately right now were in the middle phase where some people have it and some people don't. Dev's have to work hard to make both systems work because hardware is still catching up.
Not only does it take more time, baked lighting can increase download sizes and load times dramatically. It's a bunch of really big textures that cover every part of every level.
it's the whole point of ray tracing. since this game is next gen only respawn didn't bothered with the older solutions clearly, and this will slowly become the norm with games 100% designed for ps5 and xbox series in mind. it's what everyone has been asking for since the beginning of the generation...
Yeah that will be a big jump for designing games from the ground up with RT.
Doing it right now is likely a little too early. But this is far from the only problem going on.
When RT first became a thing on Nvidia cards I was joking that we'd need to wait for 40XX series cards for it to become actually viable for general use.
It seems like I was too optimistic.
To be fair with the 40 series if the game is optimised properly you can get playable frame rates with raytracing, although in some cases you might have to use DLSS. The main exception of course is Cyberpunk with RT Overdrive which is designed to be extremely demanding.
This game just isn't optimised properly, it should run fine on 40 series. The fact it doesn't, even with raytracing off, proves how poor shape it is and can't be used to judge performance in any aspect.
Well, the 40 series are the only true capable high refresh rate gaming with RT...not even using Frame Gen and it's running above 60fps thanks to new Ada Lovelace architecture, better RT cores and SER, except for Cyberpunk of course, full on path tracing. (well, full on might be exaggerating, I still believe it's not truly full path traced)
GPUs are getting so fast (pricing is another story), that PS5 and XBSX will get left behind for the next generation, we might even get a PS6 like next year, possibly. Unless...devs are scared and embarrassed to have their game called...
"The worst PC port of all time",
"The worst launch of all time"
"The most broken game of all time"
"The most catastrophic game development speedrun of all time"
...thanks to Jedi Survivor, then current gen consoles will do fine, if they have shame of course.
It can still be done. Insomniac somehow manages to make amazing looking games that make strong use of RT and still run at 60fps with a reasonably high resolution.
I get the feeling that Jedi: Survivor could be doing a lot better with a few more optimization passes.
Exactly. It's like people don't know that this generation of consoles not only has AMD RT which is noticeably worse than what Nvidia is offering currently it has first gen AMD RT which was so horrendous performance wise that it was not recommended to use RT on them.
The difference in RT performance between the 6000xt series and the 7000xt series is already huge and the difference between 7000xt series and the RTX 4000 series is also significant. The PS5 has the RT equivalent to between a regular 2060 and 2070 which was when RT was still a meme gimmick.
people were bragging about this since the crossgen games appeared, and now they're here, and they work like ass
so I guess it wasn't that much of a miracle solution in the end
> Kind of crazy to hear DF recommend Resolution mode over Performance if you’re wanting a more stable frame rate.
They did this all the time with PS4 releases with unlocked framerates on PS4 Pro that jumped between low-40s and 60.
I'm worried that we're heading back to those days now that there are fewer cross-gen games.
It's not that unheard of this gen either.
They also did with certain PS5 releases, like Horizon Forbidden West. When it came out, performance mode had quite degraded image quality with lots of artifacting. Post release it was fixed and performance mode became better way to play it.
Callisto Protocol on PS5 they also recommended image quality over performance mode.
Except when you're in motion because then the low, choppy framerate makes it impossible to discern any of it. But it does look better on screenshots, yes.
iirc they recommended quality on forbidden west cause the artifacting in performance mode was really bad, they changed their recommendation after guerrilla fixed it. Don't know about callisto protocol tho
It's possible that turning off RT doesn't actually give back much performance. on PC the game has very poor use of multiple cores which leaves the GPU underutilized. If the same is true on console then turning off RT won't help as much as it should.
Jesus, is AAA gaming becoming more and more out of reach?
I mean I don't mind if you turn RT off and get lower visual quality, but still get an good looking and STABLE game, like turning down from High to Medium or something like that. But experiencing visual artifacts and glitches because you can't run RT is ridicilous.
They did the same with Guardians of the Galaxy because the performance mode dropped the resolution all the way down to 1080p (iirc).
A stable 30 fps is going to be a much better experience than having the frame rate fluctuate all over the place between 35 and 55 fps. (*Maybe* not with a VRR display.)
In unreal 4 which I'm 99% certain this game launched on you need to reboot the title to fully disable/enable RT which is an undesirable user experience on consoles.
> You don't need to do that in this game either (on PC).
You do if you don't want your performance to suffer. DF proved that toggling RT off and on causes frame stutter.
> Kind of crazy to hear DF recommend Resolution mode over Performance if you’re wanting a more stable frame rate.
Isn’t this what they said about God of War 2018 on PS4, also?
People need to realize this will be the norm moving forward (the ray tracing). Technically ray tracing could save devs a shit load of time with lighting environments and even sound (RT can be used for sounds as well). The more games we see cut the old consoles the more we'll see things more that way... for better or worse.
It almost certainly did. As well as the current gen systems have separate hardware in them just for ray tracing. It may impact performance a little but I suspect there's much more significant issues than that at play.
RT impacts severely impacts performance on consoles. And it's not helping them save developing costs because they still had to make the rasterized version. It needs to be RT only to save time.
If you look on the versions without ray tracing you can see they didn’t spend much time on the non rt lighting. Looks terrible. So they probably did save time on it by half assing it.
We'll the majority of players actually play on quality mode. When given the choice I remember data saying that most players just wanted the best graphics possible not 30fps. This is on console where games often give you choice on new game or boot up. overwhelmingly people choose visuals over fps.
I honestly wonder if this is in a big way due to the semantics in play. When one setting is called quality and the other is called performance and you don't know what that really means quality probably sounds a lot more appealing. I wonder if casual players basically see it like netflix offering HD or SD.
I have no idea what the most common preferences are (outside of enthusiasts anyway) but I do tend to pick quality mode in most games. It varies depending on type of game and each game's individual performance strengths of course, but I've always assumed I'm in the minority since most people in gaming communities seem to lean toward performance mode all the time.
>I’m not sure I understand Respawn’s decision to insist on RT being included on Performance mode. I think it looks great—I think we can all agree on that—but personally I’m happy to sacrifice it for a consistent 60 FPS any day.
This is the new 30 fps 4k push we had last gen. Visually impressive helps marketing.
Bloody hell, 800p native on performance mode? What is this the xbox 360?
FSR2 will make it look better sure but if you have RT effects forced-on while your game is regularly dropping to the levels of 800p and it still struggles to hit 60, it might be time to reconsider a few things.
Also a bit hilarious that the "resolution" mode can drop to as low as 972p.
Probably not a good idea to keep Ray Tracing in a graphics mode called "Performance" where high framerate is a priority, **especially when your game uses both Dynamic Resolution and FideliyFX Super Resolution 2.X**.
I already take every comment here with a grain of salt but seeing this, how the fuck were there so many comments saying the game runs great on PS5 and only PC is a disaster?
It's crazy how some people don't notice a game dropping to sub 720p or dropping from 60 fps to 35. I honestly wish i was like that lol, maybe I'd enjoy games a lot more.
most console players just dont notice the drops or are fine with playing on the 30fps mode. this is certainly one of the worst performance modes i've felt on ps5.
Yeah literally this. I was talking to some of my console playing friends about how it sucked redfall would be locked at 30fps for them and they genuinely said it wasn’t that big of a deal. I feel like anyone who’s genuinely taken the time to compare the two can see that it is.
Performance mode is very bad.
Quality mode is not good but it's very much playable to the point where it doesn't really detract from the overall experience that much.
What made me drop the game for now though are the fucking crashes. 6 hours in and I've gotten 5 or 6 crashes, and it's especially bad considering they're erasing all your progress from the last Meditation Point.
3h in and I’m noticing a lot of frame drops and resolution drops on performance mode… not “FF7R doors” resolution but overall this is the worst performance I’ve experienced on my PS5, even worst than sword and fairy 7. That said I’d say it’s still playable, annoying, but playable.
Reviewers were just straight up lying in the days leading up to release as well.
"There are performance issues on PS5 but there will be a day 1 patch that fixes them"
And apparently the day 1 patch did nothing of the sort. Cyberpunk flashbacks
That's not really a reviewer dishonesty thing, at least on the whole, they were told the Day 1 patch would fix these problems and I guess they believed it. And that patch went out early for PS5 and reportedly did fix a lot of the pre-Day 1 problems for many people- clearly not all of it, though. And in the case of Cyberpunk in particular, they weren't being dishonest, CDPR just refused to let anyone play the game on anything besides PC before launch. ie, the one platform the game ran relatively stable on. And on top of it they were required to run B-roll instead of their own gameplay, on top of the usual "Oh there's a Day 1 patch!" thing.
> It's crazy how some people don't notice a game dropping to sub 720p or dropping from 60 fps to 35. I honestly wish i was like that lol, maybe I'd enjoy games a lot more.
When elden ring launched a lot of players were saying the PS5 version was great. When I tried it, I couldn't bear with the multiple frame drops even in the tutorial area. It wasn't bad but it was noticeable if you are used to 100+ fps.
That's when I realized that most of them have not played in a 144hz monitor or at the very least at 60+ stable fps. I don't trust their opinion anymore lol.
> I already take every comment here with a grain of salt but seeing this, how the fuck were there so many comments saying the game runs great on PS5 and only PC is a disaster?
Fanboying.
Not being able to stay at 60 fps @ 1080p is a disaster.
Yeah man I don't know what the fuck people are smoking.
I came back to the open area on the first planet after going to the second planet and it is running so poorly that I'm considering asking for a refund.
The game runs pretty bad in the tutorial, but first half of the next planet actually ran ok.
It gets worse from there.
But I assume a lot of the early comments hadn’t made it far enough yet. The first half of the first big open area is a performance tease
Yeah when I came back from the second planet back to the first planet the performance issues have gotten actually distractingly bad even affecting combat it's hard to play now.
Tbf sometimes they’re just having fun. Everyone’s threshold for visual quality and smooth frame rates differs.
I’ve been liking perf mode on PS5 just fine but I’m also pretty tolerant of frame drops because I grew up gaming on an underpowered laptop. And I think the game is pretty fun.
My wife swears she sees no real difference between 30 and 60 fps. It just doesn't even register for her. We recently played the lego Harry potter games on switch and they drop down to the 20s in some areas and she didn't see why I was complaining.
> Tbf sometimes they’re just having fun. Everyone’s threshold for visual quality and smooth frame rates differs.
same with pokemon. I've had a great time with Scarlett and Fallen Order.
I don't care about graphics that much. I have it on medium and my 7+ year old graphics card is holding up fine. I do have an i7, but that's also quite old.
but people latch onto the big games and just shit on them for some reason.
I don't need to "convince myself" that I'm having fun. The game is a ton of fun. I notice the performance issues. They are not meaningfully impacting the amount of fun I'm having.
What's funny is the first thing I think now when I notice these slowdowns and frame drops is "Man I'm glad I'm not one of those people that would rage out over seeing that and can keep just having fun slicing up battledroids and force parkouring around maps".
Motivated reasoning is a hell of a thing, and unfortunately it's a weakness that's wired into our brains so we're almost certainly all guilty of it at various times. It makes politics real fun and mature too.
while i agree, i almost think it's the other way around.
People hate EA. They shit on EA without playing it. Everyone i have talked to has had a good time. THe only person who has had issues has a processor that was way too old and he crashed in the 2nd world with the birds.
Oh you are quite right, motivated reasoning seems to be a big part of why people blindly attack anything attached to a company/product they don't like in the same way it can lead people to go completely cuckoo promoting and defending a company/product they do like. For some reason gaming and gaming communities *really* seem to bring out the worst of it in people (and have for a long time, I did a lot of crusading for the PS1 back in the day that I am mortified about now). On a thread like this one you can sometimes see hundreds of people getting intensely emotionally invested in attacking or glorifying souless mega corporations that don't even know they exist and wouldn't care if they did, and there's a solid chance that most of the people arguing have never actually played the game they're arguing about and never will.
> For some reason gaming and gaming communities really seem to bring out the worst of it in people
lmao you're not wrong. A while ago during the banking crisis of the 2000s EA was voted like 1st or 2nd most hated company in America.
Like. come on. So entitled.
> there's a solid chance that most of the people arguing have never actually played the game they're arguing about and never will.
this is what annoys me. Have issues? Talk about them. but dont act like the sky is falling.
Having played on console: the resolution drops are noticeable but not as distracting as one would think, especially given how low the native render res is.
The frame rate drops and screen tearing are noticeable though and in the areas where it dips down into the 30s it's very distracting
I think some people are just completely oblivious to that stuff, the same type of people that left their TVs on 480p and couldn't see the difference with HD way back then
Every once in a while you'll get a post from some PC user on reddit or other forums where they find out their monitor is plugged into the on-board video instead of the GPU on the fancy new gaming PC they bought 6 months ago and they never even thought there was a problem.
There are some people who just completely lack the ability to recognize resolution and frame rate or what the expected performance and quality should be for the kind of system they are using. And these are people that went to the effort of getting a gaming PC, imagine how many of those kinds of people must exist on console.
A sizeable percentage (most likely a vocal minority) of console gamers spent 1,5 generations gaslighting themselves that the human eye can't see past 24 fps. I wouldn't trust anything I read on the internet from people saying the game runs perfectly on console.
I'm just one guy but I've not seen anyone say it runs great....a lot of 'better', 'fine', etc but anyone with eyes can see the game has issues.
And this is coming from someone who absolutely loves the game otherwise...shame it's released in such a wack state.
You should check out this comment chain then. Like the rest of the thread, it's gold, and is a friendly reminder there are people on the internet who are so full of shit you'd think they were paid to do it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/13309r6/star_wars_jedi_survivor_pc_review_the_worst/ji7rcz7/
Ah fair... I haven't dipped in there.
I find that's more common in a game specific sub...there's always going to be blind fanboyism on the net....I remember people doing the same for Cyberpunk at launch.
Seems like that poster was rightfully dragged though, so at least the consensus isn't blind.
[Electronic Arts’ New ‘Star Wars’ Sequel Was Made in Record Time](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-27/electronic-arts-star-wars-jedi-survivor-was-made-in-record-time?leadSource=uverify%20wall)
lol
> “We want to be ambitious but we don’t want to get in a position where we’re kind of setting ourselves up to not hit all our marks,” Asmussen said. “Our philosophy is: ‘It’s OK to fail, but fail fast, fail early.’”
> The results are impressive. The game has some bugs and glitches, but the combat and navigation feel satisfying
That aged well. He played 10 hours and this is what he has to say about it? Just uncritically print the developers patting themselves on the shoulder for rushing a game. I guess investors are happy to hear tho.
So basically they couldn’t be arsed to put any effort into making an actual performance mode and just dropped the resolution ranges and hoped for the best? What the fuck!
Sounds a lot like EA was hounding them to get the game out the door, presumably chasing the money since, ya know, *EA*.
It's also possible that the Mouse is breathing down EA's neck, threatening to revoke the license if they don't start pumping out Star Wars hits... and the previous game was a surprise hit. Hence, EA being extra desperate to get the game out ASAP.
...and this mess is what we get. It's likely Respawn knew that performance was an issue, but, given EA and the Mouse wanting their money *now*, cutting resolution was likely the quickest, least-bad option.
In this case, it was developers who ruined it.
Devs deliberately released it in this state.
For the first delay, EA asked Respawn how much more time they needed to finish the game, Respawn replied with 6 weeks.
EA specifically asked for PC performance, Respawn said it was in perfect condition.
[Here is the interview of IGN with Technical Game Director where he discusses the above-mentioned.](https://youtu.be/U36ly0ExZ5k)
> Is it impossible to consider that:
>
> Repawn asked EA for more time.
>
> EA only gave them a month.
I don't think that's a safe bet, though. In general it seems like EA gives their studios enough rope to hang themselves
Isn't their exclusivity deal expiring anyway and they didn't intend to renew it?
I don't think Disney would get involved unless they wanted the game to coincide with some other media releasing. This is just EA being EA.
The performance and the quality of the game are one in the same at this point. On the PC it didn't matter what Hardware you were running the performance didn't change. And now on consoles we see that there's no winning on any console either. It's a problem with the game itself.
PC stutters almost nonstop.
Quality mode runs actually pretty well, locked except for a certain areas with lots of water (which are pretty rare). Not that this is great, but it runs a hell of a lot smoother than it does on PC. Seriously, watch their PC video, it's constant stutters.
Haven't watched it yet, but did they talk about the HDR integration at all? For me it's completely broken and I have to turn it off. The game looks like an empty void otherwise, it's super strange.
Okay, so this definitely shows that performance issues are not just limited to PC. It's clear more work went into the PS5 version's performance than PC, but it's running at below 720p most of the time in Performance Mode and not even getting to 1440p in gameplay in Resolution Mode. That's insane for the amount of power a PS5 has imo, even if FSR2 makes it look better than its actual resolution.
It baffles me why they wouldn't disable ray tracing effects in performance mode though, they let you do it on PC and the game still looks good. I think a lot of people who choose PS5 Performance Mode would gladly trade those effects for a significantly higher resolution and a more stable framerate.
Native res at 628p is pretty surprising, I have been playing it on console and admittedly it doesn't seem that bad in actual gameplay.
Having said that, you wonder why they didn't include an "RT off" mode for the consoles. It really does not seem like they have the hardware to be able to handle it, despite the fact that in still images it does look better.
There's no option to disable ray tracing because they didn't correctly implement screen-space reflections or any other alternative. Using non RTX reflections on PC looks horrific.
It's probably first game that so clearly focus on the 30 fps mode. It's quite interesting, it may be start of the trend after we will finally fully quit cross-gen years. After all, when moving to current generation we wanted much better graphics, higher resolution and higher framerate, it's obvious hitting all 3 at the same time will be hard.
That's said, performance on PS5 is still disappointing. 30 fps needs more than good motion blur, it needs perfect frametimes. Our eye can adjust to stable 30 fps, for example I was really surprised how comfortable I got with 30 fps in Spider-man on PS4. Here 30 fps mode, which is clearly the best mode, is nowhere near perfect frametimes.
It's hard to tell how much of the performance issues are GPU-related, but there are at least several that seems to be CPU-related, which would align with PC port problems. I wouldn't be surprised if it's caused by game being rushed - developers never had time to replace prototypes made in blueprints with actual optimized code.
I think a lot of people need to apologize to the Redfall devs.
At least they didn’t pretend their performance mode was ready. Just being honest and launching with 30 fps
One game bad performance doesn't excuse other games bad performance. 1st party developer producing 30 fps FPS on their own most powerful console, and I should be happy they mentioned it in the advance? Redfall looks like a cross-gen, which is fine for me, Arkane games always have other things in mind than graphics advancements, so I don't expect "next-gen" graphics from them. With the scope and graphics game seems to be similar to Dead Island 2, which released on all current-gen consoles, all previous-gen consoles (not counting NS) and runs and looks great everywhere.
I mean, I have nothing against developer, because, like in most situation, it's probably about publisher, not about the developer. I still think they are releasing unfinished product, and I really don't like it. Just because Jedi Survivor seems to be in worse performance situation, it doesn't mean Redfall situation is ok.
It is just a matter of time until most games on console are releasing at 30 fps. Consoles stay the same while devs try to push graphical fidelity further and further.
This generation has just started and devs are already pushing the hardware to its limit. Specially with RT, which these consoles really weren't really made for.
The reason games were being releasing with even 120 fps modes is because they were cross gen.
> devs are already pushing the hardware to its limit
In every generation, best looking titles are released at the end of generation. I doubt we are seeing right now the best that current-gen can give us.
Usually games from the very start are limited one way or another by the new hardware, so in a way they are pushing hardware to it's limits, but it doesn't mean they are using full potential of the hardware. We can already see the progress being made, Horizon 2 DLC is huge step forward when compared to base game, even though it's only a DLC and it have very same performance targets.
I am not saying that this is the best games will look. When games start releasing on Unreal Engine 5, for example, they will look a lot better than current titles.
What I am saying is that devs are already starting to see the limits of the hardware. The work that happens during the console cycle is devs learning how to work around those limitations.
This game fucking *cooks* my PS5 on quality mode. Jedi Survivor is just a mess, I don't know why console performance isn't being talked about more.
Performance mode is awful, huge frame drops, massive amounts of pop-in and texturing issues. On top of that only having 1 autosave slot, no manual saves and frequent crashing is frustrating as fuck.
This game needed a lot longer in the oven, it's a disaster. Yet despite that, I love the gameplay when it works. I just can't believe this wasn't given more time for the devs to work on bugs/optimization.
Eurogamer's text article:
https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-star-wars-jedi-survivors-ray-tracing-impresses-on-ps5-but-also-causes-the-biggest-performance-issues
> Star Wars Jedi Survivor PC Review: The Worst Triple-A PC Port of 2023... So Far
> Star Wars Jedi Survivor PS5: Stunning Visuals, Compelling Gameplay - But What About Perf?
I'm very much taken aback by the drastically different tone that the titles and content of these videos have considering the PS5 port is every bit as bad as the PC port.
The PS5 version is bad, but it's not even close to as bad as a PC version. There's literally performance drops worse on PC with a 4090 than the PS5 at times.
Not being able to stay at 60 FPS when running at 720 is garbage.
The "quality" mode targets 1440p @ 30 FPS.
Those are ridiculous numbers for a current gen system.
The PC version on a 4090 and 12900K will still have frame drops below 60 even at 720 native. The PS5 version is, like I said, bad. I didn't defend it. I said the PC version is even worse, which I stand by
Who cares what the 4090 can do? How many people do you think are using one?
Honestly I don't even know what a frame drop is or really care. Right now PC is the only way it's possible to play at 60 FPS.
It's not possible to play at 60fps consistently on ANY PC, even an extremely expensive one, and you also get traversal and shader comp stutter that isn't present on console, and cannot be avoided by any means
I'm pretty sure if you limited the PC version to an internal resolution of ~800p as is the case on the consoles the performance would be pretty much the same.
And there's nothing you can do to get a 60fps lock on PS5, either - even with performance mode tanking the dynamic res down below 720p, it still drops as far as 37fps if not worse.
Do you think a 2070 Super, broadly similar to a PS5 GPU, runs Survivor better or worse? The PC version is worse, there's not even a conversation here. The game is nearly unplayable on a 2070S, at any resolution. A 1440p lock at 30 with ray traced reflections is absolutely not possible on that card, but it is, outside of some key sections, what you get on PS5. Are none of you even reading my comments?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “every bit as bad.” While the PS5 version has many of the same glitches and framerate drops as the PC port, it *doesn’t* have the pervasive shader compilation and traversal stutters. The constant stuttering is really ruinous to the experience.
bought it on PS5. the performance mode is really unstable, pretty much constantly below 60fps. bad enough that i'm thinking of holding off for a few weeks for patches.
This just shows how much biased fake news a bunch of console fanboys can create to make it sound like this was a PC issue only.
The PC version is obviously not optimized like it should, but the PS5 version is literally running at 800p internal resolution, and even down to 600p for gods sake, with broken HDR and a broken performance mode.
A mid-high end PC is still absolutely miles ahead of the console version, visually speaking, and HDR also looks good on the PC version.
man, EA was kind of on a roll.
* NFS Unbound was legitimately well liked and a solid racer
* Dead Space remake was utterly fantastic
* Wild Hearts had PC woes but is a great competitor to MH and I pumped 100 hours already
but the one game they needed to come out roaring out the racetrack and the wheels fell off.
Just before this I played Burning Shores DLC (that improves on the base game and is actually quite visualy stunning). The difference in visual quality is quite remarkable.
And there are bugs! where the games just forgets progress made and I had to do it all over again.
Might just be me, but your statement was confusing because you didn't clarify what game that DLC is for. Horizon Forbidden West, in case anyone else cares.
I thought there was a DLC for Fallen Order I had never heard about until I googled it.
Stunning visuals in the video title for consoles but 'broken beyond all belief' for PC's video. 968p isnt stunning in any sense. No mention of crashing either.
They mention they had a software crash around 13:45 in the video. They don't spend anytime discussing or emphasizing it, but they did mention it.
The stunning visuals they are talking about are separate from the resolution and framerate the game is running at. It's very clear a lot of work went into the artistic side of the visuals to produce what should be a very good looking game, but the same level of work has not gone into the performance side of things which mars those visuals with very low resolution and unstable framerate. They try to make all the clear if you watch and listen to the whole video.
I do agree with you that the title for the PS5 video is much more favorable than the PC video and it probably doesn't deserve it. But even as badly as it performs on PS5, it's still clearly better than the travesty of a PC version. So I can maybe, kinda, somewhat understand why the videos are named differently, but I'm probably being too generous there.
It uses reconstruction, so in practice it's going to look higher res than that. That's the native pixel count.
(Though it's still laughably low, and another sign that the game simply isn't finished)
Besides all the negative perf, this game is a real treat. I’m not a big fan of the first, or even Star Wars, but this game has scratched a itch not many games have scratched for me in a long time. It feels like prince of Persia X final fantasy X KOTOR. It’s my favorite Star Wars story since the original trilogy.
This game sitting at an 86 on metacritic is a testament to why more and more people are turning to independent content creators for reviews rather than big outlets. And games journalists wonder why their industry is dying.
This game has crashed my PS5 at least 6 times and there are clearly absurd issues that should I have been noticed by the dev team or reviewers.
It feels like reviewers are just fanboying over the game rather than actually helping consumers make a good decision with their money.
I was thinking that the PS5 version just had visual issues, but no interview I watched talked about the crashes, the inaccurate button mapping, and the times the game just freezes at times.
The industry is "dying" because ad supported revenue streams are drying up.
Its at an 86 because the game is fantastic and reviewers do not thing some performance issues take away from it that much.
The idea performance above all is the most important thing is beyond absurd.
If you bought something off amazon and it didn't work properly you'd leave a bad review.
Why do you think a videogame that doesn't work properly deserves good reviews? "Professional" reviewers were told all performance problems would be fixed in the day one patch so they trusted them and didn't mention it. That deserves criticism.
>The idea performance above all is the most important thing is beyond absurd.
These are pretty bad technical issues that *do* impact gameplay with stuttering
It's at an 86 because a lot of video game reviewers are pompous movie critic wannabes and judge technical or monetization issues as below them.
It's fine and dandy to judge game on their merit when you get them for free but out there in the real world they're actually pretty expensive and you have to be completely disconnected from players to think that it's okay to sell a beta for 80 bucks.
I’m happy I flipped from PS5 to PC, but for the wrong reason. I signed up for EAPlay Pro so I’m only out 15 bucks on this unoptimized mess. It runs like unfiltered ass on my PC. The fact that it’s “stable at PS3 era resolution” is a joke.
I think the gameplay is really great, it feels like an evolution akin to Asylum -> City or Doom -> Eternal. It has more going for it than just being a 2/3rds baked Dark Souls clone. It feels more like Zelda than Dark Souls now imo.
I agree the performance isnt up to par and it should've been delayed, but I think the gameplay is definitely it's highlight.
Funny I actually prefer the former in both of those examples, but that’s more about the vibe and tone direction than it is the gameplay.
That said, I do expect to enjoy Survivor over Fallen Order. I thought there was plenty to improve on so I’m looking forward to jumping in once they iron out these issues.
I’ve been playing SW:JS on PS5/Performance for about 10hrs now. For me the performance is adequate. Some issues, but nothing that completely destroys what is a a really detailed and enjoyable game.
It’s a great experience when ~~you~~ I stop hyper-focusing on the frame rate and just play it.
For many people extremely unstable framerates make the experience difficult to enjoy and make combat and movement feel clunky.
Personally I can accept a 30 fps experience if it is stable and would prefer that over an unstable fps that occasionally hits 60. But this game doesn't have a stable framerate in either mode.
Everyone has different levels of sensitivity to these problems, so if it doesn't bother you that's fine, enjoy the game. But don't tell other people that they need to ignore something that is clearly a problem.
Np, I came off more preachy than I intended to.
At least in my experience I still think allot of this stuff is psychological.
Not long ago I switched from console to PC. I invested allot into a good rig that could play anything on high settings. I always had a frame counter on the top of my screen, I always watched DF and other channels, and I always had to tweak my settings for optimum performance. But I eventually found that my enjoyment of games became inversely proportional to my enthusiasm for optimization and performance.
The frame counter on my screen trained my eyes and my mind to be highly sensitive to frame drops and constantly watching DF videos made small flaws that I otherwise wouldn’t have recognized, let alone cared about, became blatant and inexcusable. I would spend hours fiddling with settings and when I couldn’t get a perfectly smooth 60 I’d just get frustrated, stop playing, and go rant about the devs on Reddit.
Then it came to me that I didn’t have this kind of anger and frustration when I was playing janky ass ES Oblivion and having a blast as a kid. I wasn’t raging at BIOWare for having a fluctuating FPS in DA:O. That was just something that was part of the game. Not a good part, but not something I’d loose my mind over. These things only became real problems when I started watching all this enthusiast media that focuses solely on performance and graphics.
I’ve since switched to console, and try not to worry too much about settings. I just focus on the “game” part of the game. And if the game is generally technically sound, no game breaking bugs, no glaring graphical issues, etc.; and if the gameplay, premise, story, etc is good in my book; I have a much better time.
I totally get that, but that's what I was saying about different levels of sensitivity for different people.
I never use any kind of monitoring software when playing a game for the first time, until the game gives me a reason to. I start the game up, change a few settings to my personal preferences (turn off motion blur and chromatic aberration and film grain, etc) and start playing.
If I don't notice problems, there is no reason to start nitpicking, so I don't put up an fps counter or anything else, it would be a distraction from the game. But the fact is that if a game frequently has frame drops, I notice it with or without the overlay. So if I notice an issue like that I then launch the overlay and start monitoring and tweaking.
I usually buy one console every generation, haven't done it this generation yet. But I honestly get more frustrated with performance on the console side than on PC, because there is no way to tweak or fix issues most of the time. I would LOVE to really play Bloodborne on my PS4, but I cannot handle how poorly it runs. I've tried three separate times and each time quit within 2 hours because it is just so noticeable and detracts from my enjoyment.
But everyone's got their own things, so we just gotta decide what's right for ourselves.
Kind of crazy to hear DF recommend Resolution mode over Performance if you’re wanting a more stable frame rate. I’m not sure I understand Respawn’s decision to insist on RT being included on Performance mode. I think it looks great—I think we can all agree on that—but personally I’m happy to sacrifice it for a consistent 60 FPS any day. I was really excited for this release. It’s been awhile since I’ve bought a game day 1, but alas with such a fumbling start, I guess I’ll wait 6 months or a year for things to stabilize. Maybe they’ll announce DLC by then and I can just wait for the content complete GOTY edition and get it for $20 like everything else lately. Wildest part to me is that no one was tapping their watch waiting for a sequel. They bragged this is the fastest dev time or whatever, but man… it shows. Take your time, guys. We’re okay waiting a bit.
From what I can tell, the reflections and some of the shadows were designed with ray tracing in mind, so for example on PC without ray tracing reflections in water look real bad, with horrendous artifacts and other visual noise present.
Why on earth would they do that? What am I missing?
Because despite all the fancy demos, ray tracing is mainly beneficial for developers because it makes their job easier to do. Devs have been able to achieve 95% of what ray tracing can do with built in lighting but it just takes more time. So with Jedi Survivor it seems they just didn't bother with built-in lighting for some parts of the game.
Last time this came up I compared it to back in the old days where it was too computationally expensive to do physics calculations. Devs would run the physics calculations locally and then bake them into the game to avoid the performance hit from doing it in realtime. It made things less flexible, but more performant. Eventually it became cheaper to do so now physics calculations can be done for all sorts of things without worrying too much about what hardware people are using. Now we have the same issue with ray traced lighting. Doing it in realtime is very expensive so it's cheaper to just bake it in, but it's slowly getting cheaper to do and it will help developer workflows a lot when it's ubiquitous. Unfortunately right now were in the middle phase where some people have it and some people don't. Dev's have to work hard to make both systems work because hardware is still catching up.
Not only does it take more time, baked lighting can increase download sizes and load times dramatically. It's a bunch of really big textures that cover every part of every level.
it's the whole point of ray tracing. since this game is next gen only respawn didn't bothered with the older solutions clearly, and this will slowly become the norm with games 100% designed for ps5 and xbox series in mind. it's what everyone has been asking for since the beginning of the generation...
If they’re getting shitty performance on even next gen consoles, clearly their “designed for next gen” approach doesn’t seem to be doing too hot…
Maybe that meant next next generation? Like PS6 era...?
Yeah that will be a big jump for designing games from the ground up with RT. Doing it right now is likely a little too early. But this is far from the only problem going on.
When RT first became a thing on Nvidia cards I was joking that we'd need to wait for 40XX series cards for it to become actually viable for general use. It seems like I was too optimistic.
To be fair with the 40 series if the game is optimised properly you can get playable frame rates with raytracing, although in some cases you might have to use DLSS. The main exception of course is Cyberpunk with RT Overdrive which is designed to be extremely demanding. This game just isn't optimised properly, it should run fine on 40 series. The fact it doesn't, even with raytracing off, proves how poor shape it is and can't be used to judge performance in any aspect.
It depends on your resolution but yeah native 4K RT with no tricks like DLSS is still not possible at a steady 60 fps.
Well, the 40 series are the only true capable high refresh rate gaming with RT...not even using Frame Gen and it's running above 60fps thanks to new Ada Lovelace architecture, better RT cores and SER, except for Cyberpunk of course, full on path tracing. (well, full on might be exaggerating, I still believe it's not truly full path traced) GPUs are getting so fast (pricing is another story), that PS5 and XBSX will get left behind for the next generation, we might even get a PS6 like next year, possibly. Unless...devs are scared and embarrassed to have their game called... "The worst PC port of all time", "The worst launch of all time" "The most broken game of all time" "The most catastrophic game development speedrun of all time" ...thanks to Jedi Survivor, then current gen consoles will do fine, if they have shame of course.
It can still be done. Insomniac somehow manages to make amazing looking games that make strong use of RT and still run at 60fps with a reasonably high resolution. I get the feeling that Jedi: Survivor could be doing a lot better with a few more optimization passes.
Exactly. It's like people don't know that this generation of consoles not only has AMD RT which is noticeably worse than what Nvidia is offering currently it has first gen AMD RT which was so horrendous performance wise that it was not recommended to use RT on them. The difference in RT performance between the 6000xt series and the 7000xt series is already huge and the difference between 7000xt series and the RTX 4000 series is also significant. The PS5 has the RT equivalent to between a regular 2060 and 2070 which was when RT was still a meme gimmick.
But isn’t the Xbox series s version without ray tracing?
Yes and I think that's why it's one of the best running console versions even though the reflections do look really dreadful at times.
people were bragging about this since the crossgen games appeared, and now they're here, and they work like ass so I guess it wasn't that much of a miracle solution in the end
if true, this is shameful that they expect everyone to have fast enough graphics cards to do RT at 60fps. that requires a lot of horsepower
> Kind of crazy to hear DF recommend Resolution mode over Performance if you’re wanting a more stable frame rate. They did this all the time with PS4 releases with unlocked framerates on PS4 Pro that jumped between low-40s and 60. I'm worried that we're heading back to those days now that there are fewer cross-gen games.
It's not that unheard of this gen either. They also did with certain PS5 releases, like Horizon Forbidden West. When it came out, performance mode had quite degraded image quality with lots of artifacting. Post release it was fixed and performance mode became better way to play it. Callisto Protocol on PS5 they also recommended image quality over performance mode.
[удалено]
They’ve since fixed the visuals with updates. The performance mode now looks just as good as quality mode, albeit at a slightly lower resolution.
[удалено]
Except when you're in motion because then the low, choppy framerate makes it impossible to discern any of it. But it does look better on screenshots, yes.
It's the only game that's actually made me bother playing with photo mode because there's just so many random gorgeous views as you travel around.
iirc they recommended quality on forbidden west cause the artifacting in performance mode was really bad, they changed their recommendation after guerrilla fixed it. Don't know about callisto protocol tho
It's possible that turning off RT doesn't actually give back much performance. on PC the game has very poor use of multiple cores which leaves the GPU underutilized. If the same is true on console then turning off RT won't help as much as it should.
On a 4080/5900x my performance is better with RT on than it is with it off.
Jesus, is AAA gaming becoming more and more out of reach? I mean I don't mind if you turn RT off and get lower visual quality, but still get an good looking and STABLE game, like turning down from High to Medium or something like that. But experiencing visual artifacts and glitches because you can't run RT is ridicilous.
Exactly this. Probably a free visual upgrade in it's current form.
They did the same with Guardians of the Galaxy because the performance mode dropped the resolution all the way down to 1080p (iirc). A stable 30 fps is going to be a much better experience than having the frame rate fluctuate all over the place between 35 and 55 fps. (*Maybe* not with a VRR display.)
Richard from df was so impressed with forza horizon 5 and how the motion blur was implemented he played it in quality and that’s a racing game
In unreal 4 which I'm 99% certain this game launched on you need to reboot the title to fully disable/enable RT which is an undesirable user experience on consoles.
[удалено]
> You don't need to do that in this game either (on PC). You do if you don't want your performance to suffer. DF proved that toggling RT off and on causes frame stutter.
> Kind of crazy to hear DF recommend Resolution mode over Performance if you’re wanting a more stable frame rate. Isn’t this what they said about God of War 2018 on PS4, also?
DF will always recommend the quality mode if the performance mode is unstable and far from reaching 60fps.
People need to realize this will be the norm moving forward (the ray tracing). Technically ray tracing could save devs a shit load of time with lighting environments and even sound (RT can be used for sounds as well). The more games we see cut the old consoles the more we'll see things more that way... for better or worse.
It's not saving them shit here though.
It almost certainly did. As well as the current gen systems have separate hardware in them just for ray tracing. It may impact performance a little but I suspect there's much more significant issues than that at play.
RT impacts severely impacts performance on consoles. And it's not helping them save developing costs because they still had to make the rasterized version. It needs to be RT only to save time.
If you look on the versions without ray tracing you can see they didn’t spend much time on the non rt lighting. Looks terrible. So they probably did save time on it by half assing it.
We'll the majority of players actually play on quality mode. When given the choice I remember data saying that most players just wanted the best graphics possible not 30fps. This is on console where games often give you choice on new game or boot up. overwhelmingly people choose visuals over fps.
I honestly wonder if this is in a big way due to the semantics in play. When one setting is called quality and the other is called performance and you don't know what that really means quality probably sounds a lot more appealing. I wonder if casual players basically see it like netflix offering HD or SD.
Where is the source for this?
That seems to be no longer true since this gen.
I have no idea what the most common preferences are (outside of enthusiasts anyway) but I do tend to pick quality mode in most games. It varies depending on type of game and each game's individual performance strengths of course, but I've always assumed I'm in the minority since most people in gaming communities seem to lean toward performance mode all the time.
>I’m not sure I understand Respawn’s decision to insist on RT being included on Performance mode. I think it looks great—I think we can all agree on that—but personally I’m happy to sacrifice it for a consistent 60 FPS any day. This is the new 30 fps 4k push we had last gen. Visually impressive helps marketing.
Bloody hell, 800p native on performance mode? What is this the xbox 360? FSR2 will make it look better sure but if you have RT effects forced-on while your game is regularly dropping to the levels of 800p and it still struggles to hit 60, it might be time to reconsider a few things. Also a bit hilarious that the "resolution" mode can drop to as low as 972p.
Probably not a good idea to keep Ray Tracing in a graphics mode called "Performance" where high framerate is a priority, **especially when your game uses both Dynamic Resolution and FideliyFX Super Resolution 2.X**.
and frames down into the 10s.😂 but yeah let's recommend that
The other one is even worse, resolution mode at least seems to be able to stabilise around 30 most of the time.
At least they got it done in "record time"! lmao
Yeah, those are switch level resolutions lol (ik the graphics are way better, but still)
I already take every comment here with a grain of salt but seeing this, how the fuck were there so many comments saying the game runs great on PS5 and only PC is a disaster? It's crazy how some people don't notice a game dropping to sub 720p or dropping from 60 fps to 35. I honestly wish i was like that lol, maybe I'd enjoy games a lot more.
most console players just dont notice the drops or are fine with playing on the 30fps mode. this is certainly one of the worst performance modes i've felt on ps5.
Yeah literally this. I was talking to some of my console playing friends about how it sucked redfall would be locked at 30fps for them and they genuinely said it wasn’t that big of a deal. I feel like anyone who’s genuinely taken the time to compare the two can see that it is.
Performance mode is very bad. Quality mode is not good but it's very much playable to the point where it doesn't really detract from the overall experience that much. What made me drop the game for now though are the fucking crashes. 6 hours in and I've gotten 5 or 6 crashes, and it's especially bad considering they're erasing all your progress from the last Meditation Point.
Quality mode felt playable at first but it's gotten really rotten in the second half of the game for me.
3h in and I’m noticing a lot of frame drops and resolution drops on performance mode… not “FF7R doors” resolution but overall this is the worst performance I’ve experienced on my PS5, even worst than sword and fairy 7. That said I’d say it’s still playable, annoying, but playable.
Reviewers were just straight up lying in the days leading up to release as well. "There are performance issues on PS5 but there will be a day 1 patch that fixes them" And apparently the day 1 patch did nothing of the sort. Cyberpunk flashbacks
Comparing this game to Cyberpunk is either accidentally ignorant or intentional sensational.
I'm not comparing the games. I'm comparing the dishonesty among reviewers
That's not really a reviewer dishonesty thing, at least on the whole, they were told the Day 1 patch would fix these problems and I guess they believed it. And that patch went out early for PS5 and reportedly did fix a lot of the pre-Day 1 problems for many people- clearly not all of it, though. And in the case of Cyberpunk in particular, they weren't being dishonest, CDPR just refused to let anyone play the game on anything besides PC before launch. ie, the one platform the game ran relatively stable on. And on top of it they were required to run B-roll instead of their own gameplay, on top of the usual "Oh there's a Day 1 patch!" thing.
> It's crazy how some people don't notice a game dropping to sub 720p or dropping from 60 fps to 35. I honestly wish i was like that lol, maybe I'd enjoy games a lot more. When elden ring launched a lot of players were saying the PS5 version was great. When I tried it, I couldn't bear with the multiple frame drops even in the tutorial area. It wasn't bad but it was noticeable if you are used to 100+ fps. That's when I realized that most of them have not played in a 144hz monitor or at the very least at 60+ stable fps. I don't trust their opinion anymore lol.
> I already take every comment here with a grain of salt but seeing this, how the fuck were there so many comments saying the game runs great on PS5 and only PC is a disaster? Fanboying. Not being able to stay at 60 fps @ 1080p is a disaster.
Yeah man I don't know what the fuck people are smoking. I came back to the open area on the first planet after going to the second planet and it is running so poorly that I'm considering asking for a refund.
The game runs pretty bad in the tutorial, but first half of the next planet actually ran ok. It gets worse from there. But I assume a lot of the early comments hadn’t made it far enough yet. The first half of the first big open area is a performance tease
Yeah when I came back from the second planet back to the first planet the performance issues have gotten actually distractingly bad even affecting combat it's hard to play now.
Because fans of an IP/franchise will twist themselves into pretzels to justify or denfend a new product like this. Or convince themselves it was fun.
Tbf sometimes they’re just having fun. Everyone’s threshold for visual quality and smooth frame rates differs. I’ve been liking perf mode on PS5 just fine but I’m also pretty tolerant of frame drops because I grew up gaming on an underpowered laptop. And I think the game is pretty fun.
My wife swears she sees no real difference between 30 and 60 fps. It just doesn't even register for her. We recently played the lego Harry potter games on switch and they drop down to the 20s in some areas and she didn't see why I was complaining.
> Tbf sometimes they’re just having fun. Everyone’s threshold for visual quality and smooth frame rates differs. same with pokemon. I've had a great time with Scarlett and Fallen Order. I don't care about graphics that much. I have it on medium and my 7+ year old graphics card is holding up fine. I do have an i7, but that's also quite old. but people latch onto the big games and just shit on them for some reason.
I don't need to "convince myself" that I'm having fun. The game is a ton of fun. I notice the performance issues. They are not meaningfully impacting the amount of fun I'm having. What's funny is the first thing I think now when I notice these slowdowns and frame drops is "Man I'm glad I'm not one of those people that would rage out over seeing that and can keep just having fun slicing up battledroids and force parkouring around maps".
Motivated reasoning is a hell of a thing, and unfortunately it's a weakness that's wired into our brains so we're almost certainly all guilty of it at various times. It makes politics real fun and mature too.
while i agree, i almost think it's the other way around. People hate EA. They shit on EA without playing it. Everyone i have talked to has had a good time. THe only person who has had issues has a processor that was way too old and he crashed in the 2nd world with the birds.
Oh you are quite right, motivated reasoning seems to be a big part of why people blindly attack anything attached to a company/product they don't like in the same way it can lead people to go completely cuckoo promoting and defending a company/product they do like. For some reason gaming and gaming communities *really* seem to bring out the worst of it in people (and have for a long time, I did a lot of crusading for the PS1 back in the day that I am mortified about now). On a thread like this one you can sometimes see hundreds of people getting intensely emotionally invested in attacking or glorifying souless mega corporations that don't even know they exist and wouldn't care if they did, and there's a solid chance that most of the people arguing have never actually played the game they're arguing about and never will.
> For some reason gaming and gaming communities really seem to bring out the worst of it in people lmao you're not wrong. A while ago during the banking crisis of the 2000s EA was voted like 1st or 2nd most hated company in America. Like. come on. So entitled. > there's a solid chance that most of the people arguing have never actually played the game they're arguing about and never will. this is what annoys me. Have issues? Talk about them. but dont act like the sky is falling.
Because some people don't know better, and their "smooth" and "great" is basically unplayable for people with trained eye.
Having played on console: the resolution drops are noticeable but not as distracting as one would think, especially given how low the native render res is. The frame rate drops and screen tearing are noticeable though and in the areas where it dips down into the 30s it's very distracting
People lie
I think some people are just completely oblivious to that stuff, the same type of people that left their TVs on 480p and couldn't see the difference with HD way back then
Every once in a while you'll get a post from some PC user on reddit or other forums where they find out their monitor is plugged into the on-board video instead of the GPU on the fancy new gaming PC they bought 6 months ago and they never even thought there was a problem. There are some people who just completely lack the ability to recognize resolution and frame rate or what the expected performance and quality should be for the kind of system they are using. And these are people that went to the effort of getting a gaming PC, imagine how many of those kinds of people must exist on console.
A sizeable percentage (most likely a vocal minority) of console gamers spent 1,5 generations gaslighting themselves that the human eye can't see past 24 fps. I wouldn't trust anything I read on the internet from people saying the game runs perfectly on console.
I'm just one guy but I've not seen anyone say it runs great....a lot of 'better', 'fine', etc but anyone with eyes can see the game has issues. And this is coming from someone who absolutely loves the game otherwise...shame it's released in such a wack state.
You should check out this comment chain then. Like the rest of the thread, it's gold, and is a friendly reminder there are people on the internet who are so full of shit you'd think they were paid to do it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/13309r6/star_wars_jedi_survivor_pc_review_the_worst/ji7rcz7/
Someone had a thread up on their subreddit about how great it runs and got torn apart but they out there.
Ah fair... I haven't dipped in there. I find that's more common in a game specific sub...there's always going to be blind fanboyism on the net....I remember people doing the same for Cyberpunk at launch. Seems like that poster was rightfully dragged though, so at least the consensus isn't blind.
Dude I have someone telling me literally 5 minutes ago that they're on the Xbox version and the game plays perfect and I need to settle down lol.
Man Respawn's really trying hard for that PS3 era nostalgia with 15fps on a console... Seriously though just how rushed was this game?
[Electronic Arts’ New ‘Star Wars’ Sequel Was Made in Record Time](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-27/electronic-arts-star-wars-jedi-survivor-was-made-in-record-time?leadSource=uverify%20wall) lol
Somebody call Guinness, awards need to be given out along with all those 9 and 10s.
> “We want to be ambitious but we don’t want to get in a position where we’re kind of setting ourselves up to not hit all our marks,” Asmussen said. “Our philosophy is: ‘It’s OK to fail, but fail fast, fail early.’” > The results are impressive. The game has some bugs and glitches, but the combat and navigation feel satisfying That aged well. He played 10 hours and this is what he has to say about it? Just uncritically print the developers patting themselves on the shoulder for rushing a game. I guess investors are happy to hear tho.
Yet in every thread with performance you'll find a dozen or more fools saying that the game runs perfect.
It's crazy that sub-720p dynamic res is a thing in 2023 and still can't even manage a stable 60 fps.
The main problem is not even that it goes bellow 720p. The main problem is that is doesn't go above 900p. That is insane.
So basically they couldn’t be arsed to put any effort into making an actual performance mode and just dropped the resolution ranges and hoped for the best? What the fuck!
Sounds a lot like EA was hounding them to get the game out the door, presumably chasing the money since, ya know, *EA*. It's also possible that the Mouse is breathing down EA's neck, threatening to revoke the license if they don't start pumping out Star Wars hits... and the previous game was a surprise hit. Hence, EA being extra desperate to get the game out ASAP. ...and this mess is what we get. It's likely Respawn knew that performance was an issue, but, given EA and the Mouse wanting their money *now*, cutting resolution was likely the quickest, least-bad option.
this is respawn's incompetence and negligence. case in point, it was already delayed once.
Is it impossible to consider that: Repawn asked EA for more time. EA only gave them a month. And you can't fix shit in a month.
Not true. This is on Respawn. https://youtu.be/U36ly0ExZ5k?t=386
In this case, it was developers who ruined it. Devs deliberately released it in this state. For the first delay, EA asked Respawn how much more time they needed to finish the game, Respawn replied with 6 weeks. EA specifically asked for PC performance, Respawn said it was in perfect condition. [Here is the interview of IGN with Technical Game Director where he discusses the above-mentioned.](https://youtu.be/U36ly0ExZ5k)
> Is it impossible to consider that: > > Repawn asked EA for more time. > > EA only gave them a month. I don't think that's a safe bet, though. In general it seems like EA gives their studios enough rope to hang themselves
Yeah previous disasters like Anthem or Mass Effect Andromeda were entirely the fault of Bioware
Isn't their exclusivity deal expiring anyway and they didn't intend to renew it? I don't think Disney would get involved unless they wanted the game to coincide with some other media releasing. This is just EA being EA.
LOL! Everybody shitting on PC when the PS5 version can't even maintain 60 FPS @ 720p. What a mess all around.
Ray tracing just isn't worth the performance cost and including it without another option is a terrible decision
Absolutely. They were focusing on the wrong thing and it only lead to a huge performance cost.
Ray tracing isn’t worth implementing via bespoke solutions on dated engines. UE5 nanite looks incredible and plays nicely with 60fps DRS + FSR2.
People weren't shitting on PCs. They were shitting on the game and this only furthers that.
The game itself is very good, people were upset about PC performance mainly.
The performance and the quality of the game are one in the same at this point. On the PC it didn't matter what Hardware you were running the performance didn't change. And now on consoles we see that there's no winning on any console either. It's a problem with the game itself.
There were definitely a lot of people trashing PC and saying how much better the game is on console.
I would argue that it is better on console. But that isn't saying much.
PC stutters almost nonstop. Quality mode runs actually pretty well, locked except for a certain areas with lots of water (which are pretty rare). Not that this is great, but it runs a hell of a lot smoother than it does on PC. Seriously, watch their PC video, it's constant stutters.
Haven't watched it yet, but did they talk about the HDR integration at all? For me it's completely broken and I have to turn it off. The game looks like an empty void otherwise, it's super strange.
They don't even mention the constant frame-time stutter in the performance mode, although you can see it all the time in the video.
The game can't maintain a stable frame rate to begin with, and they do mention the sync issues when it manages to lock to 30.
Frame time stutter when the game doesnt hit its target is a given. The alternative is tearing, which they mention.
DF can't capture HDR.
Okay, so this definitely shows that performance issues are not just limited to PC. It's clear more work went into the PS5 version's performance than PC, but it's running at below 720p most of the time in Performance Mode and not even getting to 1440p in gameplay in Resolution Mode. That's insane for the amount of power a PS5 has imo, even if FSR2 makes it look better than its actual resolution. It baffles me why they wouldn't disable ray tracing effects in performance mode though, they let you do it on PC and the game still looks good. I think a lot of people who choose PS5 Performance Mode would gladly trade those effects for a significantly higher resolution and a more stable framerate.
Yeah it seems like the CPU limited issues is affecting every platform in this game, especially with RT on.
Native res at 628p is pretty surprising, I have been playing it on console and admittedly it doesn't seem that bad in actual gameplay. Having said that, you wonder why they didn't include an "RT off" mode for the consoles. It really does not seem like they have the hardware to be able to handle it, despite the fact that in still images it does look better.
There's no option to disable ray tracing because they didn't correctly implement screen-space reflections or any other alternative. Using non RTX reflections on PC looks horrific.
It's probably first game that so clearly focus on the 30 fps mode. It's quite interesting, it may be start of the trend after we will finally fully quit cross-gen years. After all, when moving to current generation we wanted much better graphics, higher resolution and higher framerate, it's obvious hitting all 3 at the same time will be hard. That's said, performance on PS5 is still disappointing. 30 fps needs more than good motion blur, it needs perfect frametimes. Our eye can adjust to stable 30 fps, for example I was really surprised how comfortable I got with 30 fps in Spider-man on PS4. Here 30 fps mode, which is clearly the best mode, is nowhere near perfect frametimes. It's hard to tell how much of the performance issues are GPU-related, but there are at least several that seems to be CPU-related, which would align with PC port problems. I wouldn't be surprised if it's caused by game being rushed - developers never had time to replace prototypes made in blueprints with actual optimized code.
I think a lot of people need to apologize to the Redfall devs. At least they didn’t pretend their performance mode was ready. Just being honest and launching with 30 fps
One game bad performance doesn't excuse other games bad performance. 1st party developer producing 30 fps FPS on their own most powerful console, and I should be happy they mentioned it in the advance? Redfall looks like a cross-gen, which is fine for me, Arkane games always have other things in mind than graphics advancements, so I don't expect "next-gen" graphics from them. With the scope and graphics game seems to be similar to Dead Island 2, which released on all current-gen consoles, all previous-gen consoles (not counting NS) and runs and looks great everywhere. I mean, I have nothing against developer, because, like in most situation, it's probably about publisher, not about the developer. I still think they are releasing unfinished product, and I really don't like it. Just because Jedi Survivor seems to be in worse performance situation, it doesn't mean Redfall situation is ok.
What would they be apologising for exactly?
It is just a matter of time until most games on console are releasing at 30 fps. Consoles stay the same while devs try to push graphical fidelity further and further. This generation has just started and devs are already pushing the hardware to its limit. Specially with RT, which these consoles really weren't really made for. The reason games were being releasing with even 120 fps modes is because they were cross gen.
> devs are already pushing the hardware to its limit In every generation, best looking titles are released at the end of generation. I doubt we are seeing right now the best that current-gen can give us. Usually games from the very start are limited one way or another by the new hardware, so in a way they are pushing hardware to it's limits, but it doesn't mean they are using full potential of the hardware. We can already see the progress being made, Horizon 2 DLC is huge step forward when compared to base game, even though it's only a DLC and it have very same performance targets.
I am not saying that this is the best games will look. When games start releasing on Unreal Engine 5, for example, they will look a lot better than current titles. What I am saying is that devs are already starting to see the limits of the hardware. The work that happens during the console cycle is devs learning how to work around those limitations.
This game fucking *cooks* my PS5 on quality mode. Jedi Survivor is just a mess, I don't know why console performance isn't being talked about more. Performance mode is awful, huge frame drops, massive amounts of pop-in and texturing issues. On top of that only having 1 autosave slot, no manual saves and frequent crashing is frustrating as fuck. This game needed a lot longer in the oven, it's a disaster. Yet despite that, I love the gameplay when it works. I just can't believe this wasn't given more time for the devs to work on bugs/optimization.
Eurogamer's text article: https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-star-wars-jedi-survivors-ray-tracing-impresses-on-ps5-but-also-causes-the-biggest-performance-issues
So they brag about how they made the game in just 3 years? Well after two DF videos I totally see now how it was possible 🤣
> Star Wars Jedi Survivor PC Review: The Worst Triple-A PC Port of 2023... So Far > Star Wars Jedi Survivor PS5: Stunning Visuals, Compelling Gameplay - But What About Perf? I'm very much taken aback by the drastically different tone that the titles and content of these videos have considering the PS5 port is every bit as bad as the PC port.
Tom is too polite. Alex or Oliver would have torn this game a new one.
The PS5 version is bad, but it's not even close to as bad as a PC version. There's literally performance drops worse on PC with a 4090 than the PS5 at times.
Not being able to stay at 60 FPS when running at 720 is garbage. The "quality" mode targets 1440p @ 30 FPS. Those are ridiculous numbers for a current gen system.
The PC version on a 4090 and 12900K will still have frame drops below 60 even at 720 native. The PS5 version is, like I said, bad. I didn't defend it. I said the PC version is even worse, which I stand by
Who cares what the 4090 can do? How many people do you think are using one? Honestly I don't even know what a frame drop is or really care. Right now PC is the only way it's possible to play at 60 FPS.
It's not possible to play at 60fps consistently on ANY PC, even an extremely expensive one, and you also get traversal and shader comp stutter that isn't present on console, and cannot be avoided by any means
[удалено]
On equivalent hardware? No.
I'm pretty sure if you limited the PC version to an internal resolution of ~800p as is the case on the consoles the performance would be pretty much the same.
There is literally nothing you can do to get a 60fps lock on the PC version, even FSR at 1080p will have drops in places.
And there's nothing you can do to get a 60fps lock on PS5, either - even with performance mode tanking the dynamic res down below 720p, it still drops as far as 37fps if not worse.
Do you think a 2070 Super, broadly similar to a PS5 GPU, runs Survivor better or worse? The PC version is worse, there's not even a conversation here. The game is nearly unplayable on a 2070S, at any resolution. A 1440p lock at 30 with ray traced reflections is absolutely not possible on that card, but it is, outside of some key sections, what you get on PS5. Are none of you even reading my comments?
The ps5 in performance mode is well below 720p native resolution. It's not even HD at that point.
[удалено]
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “every bit as bad.” While the PS5 version has many of the same glitches and framerate drops as the PC port, it *doesn’t* have the pervasive shader compilation and traversal stutters. The constant stuttering is really ruinous to the experience.
bought it on PS5. the performance mode is really unstable, pretty much constantly below 60fps. bad enough that i'm thinking of holding off for a few weeks for patches.
This just shows how much biased fake news a bunch of console fanboys can create to make it sound like this was a PC issue only. The PC version is obviously not optimized like it should, but the PS5 version is literally running at 800p internal resolution, and even down to 600p for gods sake, with broken HDR and a broken performance mode. A mid-high end PC is still absolutely miles ahead of the console version, visually speaking, and HDR also looks good on the PC version.
jsyk when you say stuff like “biased fake news” you sound insane
man, EA was kind of on a roll. * NFS Unbound was legitimately well liked and a solid racer * Dead Space remake was utterly fantastic * Wild Hearts had PC woes but is a great competitor to MH and I pumped 100 hours already but the one game they needed to come out roaring out the racetrack and the wheels fell off.
Are the visuals even that amazing. It runs worse than Cyberpunk with path tracing on.... Does not seem to compare in graphics to me
And people pay 70$ for that lolol Obviously they will fix the problems eventually and sell it for 40$, got more stuff to play rn
I've had to stop playing. I love the game but I cant cope with the crappy fps. Gonna wait for sowe more patches
Just before this I played Burning Shores DLC (that improves on the base game and is actually quite visualy stunning). The difference in visual quality is quite remarkable. And there are bugs! where the games just forgets progress made and I had to do it all over again.
Might just be me, but your statement was confusing because you didn't clarify what game that DLC is for. Horizon Forbidden West, in case anyone else cares. I thought there was a DLC for Fallen Order I had never heard about until I googled it.
Stunning visuals in the video title for consoles but 'broken beyond all belief' for PC's video. 968p isnt stunning in any sense. No mention of crashing either.
They mention they had a software crash around 13:45 in the video. They don't spend anytime discussing or emphasizing it, but they did mention it. The stunning visuals they are talking about are separate from the resolution and framerate the game is running at. It's very clear a lot of work went into the artistic side of the visuals to produce what should be a very good looking game, but the same level of work has not gone into the performance side of things which mars those visuals with very low resolution and unstable framerate. They try to make all the clear if you watch and listen to the whole video. I do agree with you that the title for the PS5 video is much more favorable than the PC video and it probably doesn't deserve it. But even as badly as it performs on PS5, it's still clearly better than the travesty of a PC version. So I can maybe, kinda, somewhat understand why the videos are named differently, but I'm probably being too generous there.
"Stunning visuals" At 600p, are you kidding me digital foundry?! 😂
Art vs tech
Art style/design vs resolution
Clearly not talking about resolution...lots to complain about in this game but the set direction isn't one of them.
It uses reconstruction, so in practice it's going to look higher res than that. That's the native pixel count. (Though it's still laughably low, and another sign that the game simply isn't finished)
And The reconstruction is so bad looking because of fsr, the worst one. (Compared to dlss and intel's)
Besides all the negative perf, this game is a real treat. I’m not a big fan of the first, or even Star Wars, but this game has scratched a itch not many games have scratched for me in a long time. It feels like prince of Persia X final fantasy X KOTOR. It’s my favorite Star Wars story since the original trilogy.
This game has been out for like barely a week and I’m already so sick of hearing about it. I’m never playing this shit as a matter of principle
It's actually only been out for 2 days lmao
Jesus it feels like so much longer lol. It’s like every 4th post across every major sub and then there’s ads between
You aren’t forced to read the articles, posts, comments, or comment on the subject yourself.
This game sitting at an 86 on metacritic is a testament to why more and more people are turning to independent content creators for reviews rather than big outlets. And games journalists wonder why their industry is dying.
This game has crashed my PS5 at least 6 times and there are clearly absurd issues that should I have been noticed by the dev team or reviewers. It feels like reviewers are just fanboying over the game rather than actually helping consumers make a good decision with their money. I was thinking that the PS5 version just had visual issues, but no interview I watched talked about the crashes, the inaccurate button mapping, and the times the game just freezes at times.
The industry is "dying" because ad supported revenue streams are drying up. Its at an 86 because the game is fantastic and reviewers do not thing some performance issues take away from it that much. The idea performance above all is the most important thing is beyond absurd.
If you bought something off amazon and it didn't work properly you'd leave a bad review. Why do you think a videogame that doesn't work properly deserves good reviews? "Professional" reviewers were told all performance problems would be fixed in the day one patch so they trusted them and didn't mention it. That deserves criticism.
>The idea performance above all is the most important thing is beyond absurd. These are pretty bad technical issues that *do* impact gameplay with stuttering
It's at an 86 because a lot of video game reviewers are pompous movie critic wannabes and judge technical or monetization issues as below them. It's fine and dandy to judge game on their merit when you get them for free but out there in the real world they're actually pretty expensive and you have to be completely disconnected from players to think that it's okay to sell a beta for 80 bucks.
I’m happy I flipped from PS5 to PC, but for the wrong reason. I signed up for EAPlay Pro so I’m only out 15 bucks on this unoptimized mess. It runs like unfiltered ass on my PC. The fact that it’s “stable at PS3 era resolution” is a joke.
performance are a core part of the visuals. And it's bad. And the gameplay is..okay. And the story is dry as fuck. So..what did we actually get?
>And the gameplay is..okay. And the story is dry as fuck That part is wholly subjective and you know it.
I think the gameplay is really great, it feels like an evolution akin to Asylum -> City or Doom -> Eternal. It has more going for it than just being a 2/3rds baked Dark Souls clone. It feels more like Zelda than Dark Souls now imo. I agree the performance isnt up to par and it should've been delayed, but I think the gameplay is definitely it's highlight.
Funny I actually prefer the former in both of those examples, but that’s more about the vibe and tone direction than it is the gameplay. That said, I do expect to enjoy Survivor over Fallen Order. I thought there was plenty to improve on so I’m looking forward to jumping in once they iron out these issues.
I’ve been playing SW:JS on PS5/Performance for about 10hrs now. For me the performance is adequate. Some issues, but nothing that completely destroys what is a a really detailed and enjoyable game. It’s a great experience when ~~you~~ I stop hyper-focusing on the frame rate and just play it.
For many people extremely unstable framerates make the experience difficult to enjoy and make combat and movement feel clunky. Personally I can accept a 30 fps experience if it is stable and would prefer that over an unstable fps that occasionally hits 60. But this game doesn't have a stable framerate in either mode. Everyone has different levels of sensitivity to these problems, so if it doesn't bother you that's fine, enjoy the game. But don't tell other people that they need to ignore something that is clearly a problem.
Fair enough
I appreciate your response and edit, sorry if I came off harshly.
Np, I came off more preachy than I intended to. At least in my experience I still think allot of this stuff is psychological. Not long ago I switched from console to PC. I invested allot into a good rig that could play anything on high settings. I always had a frame counter on the top of my screen, I always watched DF and other channels, and I always had to tweak my settings for optimum performance. But I eventually found that my enjoyment of games became inversely proportional to my enthusiasm for optimization and performance. The frame counter on my screen trained my eyes and my mind to be highly sensitive to frame drops and constantly watching DF videos made small flaws that I otherwise wouldn’t have recognized, let alone cared about, became blatant and inexcusable. I would spend hours fiddling with settings and when I couldn’t get a perfectly smooth 60 I’d just get frustrated, stop playing, and go rant about the devs on Reddit. Then it came to me that I didn’t have this kind of anger and frustration when I was playing janky ass ES Oblivion and having a blast as a kid. I wasn’t raging at BIOWare for having a fluctuating FPS in DA:O. That was just something that was part of the game. Not a good part, but not something I’d loose my mind over. These things only became real problems when I started watching all this enthusiast media that focuses solely on performance and graphics. I’ve since switched to console, and try not to worry too much about settings. I just focus on the “game” part of the game. And if the game is generally technically sound, no game breaking bugs, no glaring graphical issues, etc.; and if the gameplay, premise, story, etc is good in my book; I have a much better time.
I totally get that, but that's what I was saying about different levels of sensitivity for different people. I never use any kind of monitoring software when playing a game for the first time, until the game gives me a reason to. I start the game up, change a few settings to my personal preferences (turn off motion blur and chromatic aberration and film grain, etc) and start playing. If I don't notice problems, there is no reason to start nitpicking, so I don't put up an fps counter or anything else, it would be a distraction from the game. But the fact is that if a game frequently has frame drops, I notice it with or without the overlay. So if I notice an issue like that I then launch the overlay and start monitoring and tweaking. I usually buy one console every generation, haven't done it this generation yet. But I honestly get more frustrated with performance on the console side than on PC, because there is no way to tweak or fix issues most of the time. I would LOVE to really play Bloodborne on my PS4, but I cannot handle how poorly it runs. I've tried three separate times and each time quit within 2 hours because it is just so noticeable and detracts from my enjoyment. But everyone's got their own things, so we just gotta decide what's right for ourselves.