This is so true, I remember playing Doom Eternal in 2020 and my PC at the time struggled with modern titles at 1080p but doom ran and looked so freaking good at the same time Hopefully new Doom has the same situation
if you tried to play doom eternal on a gtx 680, an 8 year old gpu at the time, you would be struggling to maintain 30fps, now people are crying that indiana jones cant run on an 8 year old gpu, the optimization isnt worse, people just expect old hardware to run modern games perpetually for whatever reason, your gtx 1080 isnt top of the line anymore, its below current consoles
Xbox 360 had shared RAM. PS3 had 256 RAM and 256 VRAM, so that is even more impressive. Also the Blue ray drive was only capable of reading data @ 8.5 MB/s and somehow they managed to stream the world even when flying a jet fighter!
@@kmieciu4ever GTA5 doesn't read everything off the disc. What do you think the initial install was for on 360 and ps3? So the game could stream off the hdd ;3
Im sorry but please go to any Indiana Jones or Cyberpunk path ttacing showcase and try and say that. I get that it has its issues but your over blowing it.
@@spikytoaster Dude as a guy who went crazy over trying to make path tracing look good in cyberpunk, even the highest settings possible still dont fix the noise artifacts and ghosting present. The image looks great at first glance or on video sure, but as soon as I started playing and noticing small artifacts and visual bugs and it killed my immersion. Things like the characters blinking looking smeared, or real time lighting slowly updating or general PT noise just looks terrible. I'd rather devs find more ways to mimic real time lighting with raster tech and have a stable image, than this messy transition we are currently in.
he said "industries current mainstream", not mainstream aka. noboby is realistically playing with higher resolution and that it should be optimized to run well at the current "best"
Faking has limits, and we are reaching them. Programming is not magic but science. Sometimes you need a better approach to solving problems. Sure the transition if often hard, but in the long run it is the right choice. When you are getting at a dead end, you need to search for another path... or you can drill a granite wall forever. Both are hard but in different ways. Drilling granite means games will take forever to release. FInding another path means that your programmers will be digging in the dark with spoons until they aclimatize to the new environment and get better equipment. We are now in this phase where they are "digging in the dark" (need to learn new techniques), and they have weak equipment for this new job (GPUs that support RT are still in their infancy). In half a decade this should be in a better state hopefully. But you will need to buy a new GPU nevetheless :)
the biggest issue for games is development time, not hardware, faking it costs development time and most studios arent naughty dog or rockstar, ray tracing hardware is there and its only going to become more prevalent, theres no point having the hardware there doing nothing, path tracing will be the default within a console generation or two
At least Crysis is understandable. That game was visually peak, ahead of its time. Nowadays games look a bit better than like 5 years ago but since developers just rely on real time rendering of almost everything, system requirements skyrocketed. Little visual improvements, huge hardware requirements increase. Devs use tools like it's a one click solution instead of actually taking care of optimizing. Modern engines like UE5 is fantastic for developers, fast workflow is great. But the consequences are, on the gamers' side, it's a GPU hog mess.
in reality it's worse: some are being taught without optimization in mind so they ignore it as a result, and some are intentionally ignoring it and also trying to convince people that optimization is a total waste of time (I wish I was making this up)
@@sadge0to be honest yeah optimization is a waste of time that could've been used on working towards more features and getting the game out faster which is the only thing that matters for execs and most developers, cant really blame them not caring about their work in an industry where its a 50/50 you are getting fired after a release
I just saw a video where they showed code written by Gen Z programmer. And for doing something that will take 1 line of code, he was using AI or some shit that took 500 times as much time to run.
@ rimworld, zomboid, kenshi first if you never stepped outside of the AAA/visual-porn comfort zone then CDDA, caves of qud, dwarf fortress, unreal world there's also factorio and kerbal space program if you want to engineer stuff, aurora4x if you are crazy it's really not about being "retro" or "old-school" it's that these games simulate the world in a way that AAA doesn't even dream about not even in their wildest dreams can AAA simulate half of what some of these games simulate
@ if we scope out simulation heavy games: neoscavenger is hella of fun too total war warhammer 3 or crusader kings can be very good but only if you carefuly mod them a server of tibia where you play singleplayer is a hell of fun if you don't know the game ( you will turn xp rate up as you level up to avoid grind ) it may be the best RPG there is if you consider how giant the world is, the countless option you have, if you don't cheat as the server admin finally, maybe, xenonauts, darkest dungeon or battle brothers
Triple AAA Studio executives had an epiphany realising that they could save costs on optimising the game when they could offload the cost onto the consumers and blame their hardware.
@EggBasketUwU you know it. I would even say developers should start making games for PS2 again and ditch the modern consoles, since games are way too expensive
@@EggBasketUwU running games on steamdeck here, and I can see which game is badly optimized... Some games just runs like azzzz even on a lower resolution screen and even with FSR3.1 on.
Well, back when DLSS and FSR came out, there were a few smart people that said developers would use Frame Generation as an excuse to not optimize their games....... and here we are.
@@mechanicalmonk2020do you think before it was released there wasn't talk about the development? How do you know about GTA 6? It hasn't been released yet.
One thing that needs to happen....and always needed to happen but won't because greed....publishers need to stop rushing developers to get a product out to satisfy shareholders. If devs had the time to truly complete a game, i don't think this problem will be as widespread as it is.
Yeah. I think the developers often get the hate even though it's a management problem. Art and tech take time. Also these new technologies also have completely different downsides than the previous ones. Which makes people more shocked about something like ghosting while it wasn't always that much better back then. It's all these growing pains of such a young industry.
Stop kiss dog trash game developers ass lol. Sure a lot of them will get pressure to release the game fast but it's just pressure. There are plenty of studios who simply say no the game is not ready if you aren't happy we will go with someone else. And then you have trash studios who are like "yeah this game is not finished it runs like crap so lets just say use upscaling then we can sell the rest of the game with dlc ok release it!" So many morons have been giving talentless horrible game developers a free pass for years now kindly stfu and get a reality check. They are releasing games they are satisfied with because let's be real. Most game developers in this generation never even learnt to make a game. They watched a 15 minute unreal guide on youtube and then got hired to create a triple A game.
Was thinking about that also, optimization costs time, and the devs are always being squeezed like a lemon. So the obvious sacrificial goat is the optimization..
the developers are equally to blame..if they do less work and still get paid its a win for them..blame devs too...they are just as eveil or even more evil than the publishers
@@cedden people were chunking out quality games at half the time it takes modern devs to use 8 years to make a sloppy game..its not the time or publishers...developers got lazy
When i was a kid i always used to think that graphics card and cpu companies would pay game companies to purposely make pc ports unoptimized so we purposely buy their latest releases
No, it is just human nature to spend less to make more profit. And also the change from raster to tracing is a big change in skillset required to make good games. It will take a few generations of GPUs and years of training for game developers to make it good.
@@marsovac i think ray tracing is flawed, and you can get 90% of the way there with raster with 90% or more fps wile barley looking different let alone "better" it just takes more work, skill and creativity. None of witch AAA studios have anymore. so we get slop.
@@V3RAC1TY For one, which form of Ray tracing? Do you mean real time ray tracing? For two, here is an example: How do we properly make a dynamic lightning system that takes into account material properties and light bounce? For now, our rasterised solutions have been very lackluster in these specific scenarios, even games such as RDR2 have really poor indirect lightning.
Every time Steam releases their hardware survey, it blows my mind. Do game devs not understand that more than 50 or 60 percent of people play at 1080p? The average GPU also sits at 8gb of VRAM. It’s like they genuinely don’t understand that most people would rather play a game they CAN play, than a game that has realistically simulated butt hair.
I play at 1080p, not because I can't afford 1440p/4k, but because I just like it better. 1440p and higher gives me a migraine whereas 1080p doesn't. I'm tired of games being designed with 4k in mind and making it horribly optimized for everything below it.
@@NokoFace woah first time hearing of such an issue. Haven't tried 1440p and above myself. What would u say is the cause of your migraines from a higher resolution? Was considering getting 1440p and above in the future.
@@donothack a smaller monitor at a higher resolution can have smaller default text sizes that, if not adjustable in game settings, can cause problems with eyesight. I wouldn’t go so far as to never play in 1440/4k if I don’t have a display, but I can see why people might
@@harrylane4also playing games in 1080p make the game run better anyway. Even if my pc was capable of upscaling id honestly still keep it 1080 p just for the performance alone.
Another problem is GPU performance isn't going up much between generations while prices have increased a lot. If you still could buy high end cards like the 4090 for $700 like the 1080ti was then most of these issues wouldn't be real.
Exactly - if it looks realistic but runs at less than 100 fps, how is it "realistic"? And I mean 100 fps NATIVE should be the goal, not this frame generation DLSS crap. If they all aimed for 1080P - 100 fps, games would look and run better.
@@bigmichaeljack3851 Yeah,but look at the light work on zelda breath of the wild,it works on that shitty ahh old nintendo switch that has a hardware of a 15 yo pc,and zelda looks perfectly fine.
Good textures is so basic but so underused in games for some reason, they'll go crazy with the lighting but some areas like tree branches, desks and food will be like 144p texture quality lol
@@krak3n852 Zelda only needed to be able to run on the Switch and Wii U, two systems with very similar capabilities. Because Nintendo only had to account for two very specific comuptational configurations, they could optimize the game extremely well. Most developers have to account for an infinite number of computational configurations, because every PC is unique.
horizon zero dawn was badly optimized on pc and you needed a more powerful system than a ps4 by far. Then you got forbidden west that you need something with nearly twice the power. Then they remastered the first game and it barely looks any better but runs just as bad as forbidden west. Amazing, just amazing.
bo6 is just insanely unoptimized and horribly made on pc, it has so many issues from graphic fidelity to the live service. I bought bo6 to try it since I hadn't bought a new cod since bo4, but I am so glad I refunded it after I realized just how AWFUL it is. The story itself or mp or zm is no issue, just the horrific nightmare of getting it to work properly on PC.
Similar situation, able to play BF2042 on Ultra with 70-80 and drop to 40-35 in Helldivers 2 Before you reply, yes, I know its CPU heavy. Why is it CPU heavy? You guessed it - game engine is just deadass
Blame Nvidia for enabling game devs to be lazy. DLSS has caused this to get worse, and now FSR. Meanwhile they will make no adjustments to their next gen cards, except DLSS 5, 6, 7, and so on.
Why are you blaming nvidia and amd for offering solutions to increase performance. Blame publishers for not giving time for developers to optimize their games not nvidia or amd.
@@Pannikin_9 Nvidia purposefully cuts down on vram capacity, and bandwidth for next gen gpus. Essentially being a downgrade, but then upsell them features such as dlss which only encourages devs to not optimize their games. Take away dlss, and games would have to optimized.
I think it's even worse than that. They didn't *need* one they chose for it to be there anyway so they can get those shiny screenshots and still advertise higher framerates. It's not a new thing either. They advertised the PS3 as 1080p even though you're almost never playing a game at 1080p on a PS3, the same way they advertise performance mode and 4k support and all that now.
this is exactly why dlss is absolute dog shit why optimize video games when you can use AI would have been better if Nvidia used ai for an ai friend instead of performance enhancement for video game graphics as it makes game devs pathetically lazy now days
@ You realize that consoles have been using some sort of upscaling/checkerboard rending in nearly every game for over a decade? The difference now is that it actually looks much better because of AI. The problem isn't with upscaling, it's solely on the publishers and the people that support them by buying their games.
Modern AAA developers will NEVER fix the optimization issue for one simple reason: Optimization takes time and money, time can be spent making the next product, and money expenditure must be minimized, they're effectively outsourcing optimization onto the GPU manufacturers and Unreal for free. C-Suites and shareholders will NEVER allow money to be put back into optimization because it means bonuses and payouts will decrease.
@@simonrockstream I beg to differ. We do have skills. Problem is when we got some manchild manager that decides that slapping 4k megascan from workshop we got for free is good enough for production. We once had car model that had 100'000 triangles in fucking headlights beacouse model was made on booleans and poorly exported. Yet another example is complete lack of LODs in models, lack or poor setup of render settings, not using TSR for antyalias & so on. Also recently I see that games have bigger and bigger problems with VRAM and CPU usage. I blame huge materials using bazillion texture samplers, dogshit model quality and abuse of Lumen to compensate for all of above xD
@@rajzerfilip But it is true that New Game developers that are joining the industry don't know optimization or just never taught how to Optimise the games, there are multiple posts from Senior developers stating the same thing.
that's wild, world runs pretty well on laptop, it reaches 60fps above most of the time at the highest graphics without upscaling and AI frame generation, how do you even mess up optimization that bad to turn on upscaling and frame generation to reach 60 fps when the graphics look the same as world
The game ran horribly too, they say they've "fixed it" since the beta, but the screwiest part for me (not having a "new" computer by any measure) is that the performance was the same with or without DLSS of any kind on, because the game just had a giant CPU bottleneck, so it was really a matter of turning the graphics UP until my GPU was actually being utilized at all, and getting basically the same performance.....that being BAD performance, it's almost too sad to be funny.
And yet the game is still sold on pre-order for £59.99 (base) up to a ridiculous £89.99 and people will gobble it up without any problems. A lot of modern games run unacceptably slow even on top end hardware and when the difference between medium and high settings is 10 FPS you know it's been poorly optimised. But people still buy them then gush all over them, because they have no standards set - and when most of the gaming media is corrupt and/or incompetent then you can't have good standards set. Edit: had a look at recommended system settings, they list an RTX2070 then they write about framegen (which is not available unless you have a 40x0 series GPU), reads like this was written by a LLM: "This game is expected to run at 1080p / 60 fps (with Frame Generation enabled) under the "Medium" graphics setting." Just lol.
As someone who works in the industry and was trained at a high ranked university for game dev its blatantly obvious that the training of new entrants into the industry is the problem. I had an entire 6 month long module on optimising textures and models and how to spot an unoptimized game just from a graphics perspective without even knowing the hardware of the system. I was in the Game Design course and we rarely ever modelled or textured anything but all of our lecturers were ex-industry with some working on huge titles like the Gears of War series and GTA: San Andreas so they really pushed to make sure that every single one of the graduates would prioritise optimisation. This is really important cause at the end of the day your player base is limited by accessibility and that's not just colour-blindness or physical disability but more often than not its the systems they can afford to play the game; almost no-one has the cutting edge tech to run games that aren't optimized so if you really want a bigger player-base all you need to do is get the game running on as close to 2006 Toshiba laptop as you physically can.
AND guess what, Elon Musk will now make sure that THOUSANDS of these low skill entrants flood the market. Western Gaming has Fallen. BILLIONS must play boomer shooters
I just don't believe that is the source of the problem. It's much much much more likely that execs tie the developers' hands, not giving their teams enough time. Ofc they don't have time to optimise when they are already working over time and the studios push them over the limit just to shit out games as fast as possible. Just look at what nintendo is capable of doing on their shitty little tablet by optimising the shit out of their in house games. Clearly, there are talented devs out there, but they are not given the space nor time to actually do their job properly
The issue is primarily UE5. There are so many unoptimized aspects of that engine that I don’t even know where to start. Its at the point now where when a non-UE5 big budget game is announced I get excited, because I know there’s a good chance it will at least run better
And it gets worse when people start to claim it's not the engine but rather the laziness of game developers. Sure, many modern game devs are fairly lazy but when there is not a single well optimised UE5 title, it becomes apparent that the issue lies within the engine. Time for the incredibly well optimised Source 2 to become open so studios can take it and modify it to match the needs of their games, just like was done with the original Source.
The thing that's making me angry is that nowadays we got games with fully raytraced lumen super ultra shadows and lighting running on DLSS 3.5 with frame generation- but physics in these games is exact same as 15 years ago... Mechanics in these games are same as 15 years ago... Gameplaywise they are also the same as 15 years ago, and huge devs are call it progress?
@@lukegraf9365 And I sometimes do! Games from 7th gen of consoles are pure gold. I'm still periodically coming back to GTA 4's Liberty City, masterpiece.
I mean thats because theres not enough demand. Im working on a game and im actually trying to get physically based damage system and inventory system (hard tho)
What makes it worse are the types of people who defend the shite and say “just upgrade your parts, sheesh, I have a 4090, so you need to get with the times … quit being a poor and expecting devs to cater to your old potato PC specs that are 3 years too old for modern games because you need to have the latest and greatest for proper gaming” to completely dismiss the issue, like they don’t want to hear that even people with similar specs as them are having trouble running these new games, and that it doesn’t matter if the 5XXX series dropped tomorrow with cards and people rushed to buy the slop, they’re still going to have issues running the games because they’re not understanding that they are poorly optimized. Devs forget that when they’re making these games, they’re making them on the newest specs available and begin setting those as recommended specs. They don’t ever bother to check out what most average consumers are using in their builds to maybe get an idea on where they can be on average for max sales, but instead all they care about is getting in good with companies like NVIDIA for their games and pushing their hardware as a quid pro quo situation that most ignore for some reason. Tack on how the industry is hiring people en masse that can barely understand how to properly implement and work around TAA, they just throw everything into scenes and crank things up then throw upscaling on it to cover up their mess because they don’t know what they’re doing. No one wants to take the time to go over their code and properly optimize. So, instead, they blame the consumers and make them feel as if it’s their PC parts that aren’t good enough with the lousy “well, it’s a demanding game using new technology, you need better specs, and of course those specs are going to cost more because that’s what you have to pay for this stuff!” that I’ve actually seen people repeat that isn’t even remotely true. It’s just people trying to justify their purchase while repeating lines fed to them by the industry and companies themselves so they don’t feel like they’ve been rammed up the rear building a rig over $2k that can’t even get above 30-60fps in AAA modern games. We need more people calling this shite out and holding more devs accountable, especially when they charge over $60 for games nowadays when using UE5 and not even hiring people that know the basics to have the game run properly. One should be able to have specs from 3-5 years ago that can run the games we have now … it’s not a consumer issue with their cards, it’s an industry issue, and people have really got to stop defending the devs and companies that push this nonsense as being a standard.
It's the same when console players say "just buy a PS5"... like it doesn't work like that, everybody high end and low end is effected by this issue 100% agree with what you're saying
Nhaaa, you just need to lower your settings. If you have mid range hardware, you use mid range settings. Always been like that since the introduction of 3d accelerated cards.
@@mondodimotoriThe problem is that new games with reduced details often look significantly worse than old games with high settings and still run worse. So what's the point of playing new games?
@RudiRatte-v1p Exactly. Why would i care for UE5 slop graphics when i can run RDR2 maxxed out without any upscaling shit and it'll look BETTER than anything that's coming out recently? If i want eye candy the old games are still better than anything that have been coming out recently.
@@Mersak168 Right. I'm currently playing AC Origins and I'm impressed by the awesome graphics. Why doesn't anyone talk about it anymore? Because it's an "old" game. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just don't jump on every hype train, because that's what capitalism wants from you.
we have hundred thousand times more computing power in our homes than was used to take people to a fucking moon, but all this computing power goes into nothing because shitty devs don't know how to do their job. This sounds like a joke, honestly
Problem is there's no standard API to check how much memory is available to the current tab. Chrome implemented some performance.memory API that I'm sure will never be standardized due to fingerprinting. Your best recourse is to store the current state of the window in indexeddb and restore it from there if the tab crashes.
Problem is that the majority of hacking is memory leakage and memory related. Similarly many modern high level languages such as Rust, C#, Java and Python handles garbage collecting automatically. So there's an entire area of the process removed from programmer's conscious. You can do "unsafe" in C# with pointers just like C but this is often not recommended. Better to use span. Unless you're using an application that hasn't updated to the latest version of C# like Stride Engine -_-.
9:50 'It look's great in some scenes but most of the time, you don't have to enable it.' Star Wars Outlaws, Avatar Frontiers of Pandora & Indiana Jones and The Great Circle: Allow us to introduce ourselves.
I don't know about Avatar, but regarding SWO and Indy: their whole thing is that the games are lit almost exclusively with ray-tracing tech powered lights and reflections. None of that cheap and effective stuff like cubemap reflections. And that's already considered the future norm, since GTA 6 is alleged to also use path tracing based lighting. If you start REALLY nitpicking on the trailer you can see the blurs, like at 0:05 and 0:18 though 22. Very blink and miss, but you could. So all this forced RT is great for the console players, maybe great for the overall looks, sucks for the PC players though. But PC players are not THAT doomed, as they've shown with GTA 5 and RDR 2 (excluding Online components performance). Them being so well optimised that you could get away with pretty good graphics using just lower medium settings. Just look at the minimum system reqs for RDR2, they're basically mid-to-late PS3 era: single thread 4 core CPU, 2gb VRAM on a 2013 GPU.
@Medicopter_N7 I completely agree with your statements. But on the flip side, it took quite a while for both GTA 5 and RDR2 to be properly optimized for PC. Heck even RDR2's texture settings, arguably looks terrible on anything less than ultra settings till date... especially with it's dislike for 2GB Vram cards. My point is, as much as I'm impressed by the technological innovations in videogame graphics today, I still get wary thinking of how game devs won't really give two hoots about optimization for us PC players. Sure it's strenuous for them I admit, especially since they have to run it through a variety of rigs for testing but still, my fears on shitty optimization and needless push for realistic graphical fidelity that's (and hot take here) already reached a plateau, will only end up alienating most gamers in the PC gaming space.
Not true at all, there are many examples of new games that look good and are well optimized. For example God of War Ragnarok has really good graphics and runs better than its previous entry, that being GOW4.
Upscaling should be for the older and more budget cards to offer them a longer run and the consumer better performance at the lowest end not set the damn standard for high end graphic cards which should offer raw power in every game when trying to push the highest graphics
bro, FSR was literally made to support old low end cards to let them run modern games at higher frame rate. DLSS and FSR both were accessibility options for budget gamers and old hardware users. Now the AAA companies instead have started using them as a support crutch for their own badly developed games. I don't even want to call in the crowd that criticizes the awful gameplay and story/interaction modern games have now besides the above.
This is what I always thought too. Upscaling was a great feature for the PS4 Pro, Xbox One X, or currently - for the Steam Deck and handheld Pcs, and Switch 2 in proxy. Jensen Huang made this feature to upscale to 8k from 4k for high end hardware (remember the 8k ads when the 3090 was first made?), where it would look good, but devs made a complete mockery out of it and now it's used at resolutions as low as 1080p. Using upscaling for high-end cards is ridiculous. And it gets even more ridiculous if you add FG into it. I bought my 7900XT for a grand on launch (prices have since dropped much), I never use FSR and especially FG except the first time I tested it out. And before you tell me "FSR sucks, should have bought nVidia", I tested a RTX 4080 via Geforce Experience Ultimate for 20€ for a month to make a direct comparison before my purchase, which is something everybody being on the fence should do. I didn't like DLSS that much either and thought the XTs raster performance wasn't that much worse than the 4080 given the price at the time ( cheapest 4080 cost 1600€ here). Little trick you can use: Try playing a game that has MSAA such as RDR2, and compare DLSS Q @4k to 1440p MSAAx2. Native MSAAx2 looks way sharper than DLSSQ, while also running better, and MSAA is the most demanding type of AA. DLSS/FSR need TAA to even look remotely similar, and this is why I think MSAA has been phased out, so that DLSS/FSR don't look as bad compared to native, because native uses that horrible TAA. Even so, TAA still looks better than DLSS, but MSAA even lower resolutions is a blowout, MSAA at the same resolutions is like comparing PS5 to PS6 graphics lol.
Actually, that's the worst case scenario and is exactly what one of the biggest problems currently is with over-reliance on up-scaling. What it _should_ be used for is to make something that can already run comfortably at 1080p or 1440p at or preferably over 60fps run at an even higher resolution and frame rate. What it _shouldn't_ be used for is a crutch to make the game playable at 1080p/60fps when it should have been optimized to do that on mid-ish-range hardware to begin with. Both up-scaling and frame-generation are considerably worse when the algorithms have sub-optimal fps and resolution as a starting point to extrapolate something from.
I thought my pc was 'overkill' for basicly any game, but when i saw my cpu and gpu below the recommended ultra spec for indiana jones' new game it was shocking. I got an i9 12900k and rtx 3080ti. Sure, the game will most certainly run fine, but the industry is clearly pushing people to upgrade sooner and sooner, which seems pretty predatory to me.
I agree, 3080ti is a really good card and it's not your fault at all that the industry is pushing things forward without it in mind The whole exclusive 40 series card stuff is weird too
@@CrackedJust1n The game also obligates use of Ray tracing, Just as Just1n says in the video. Corporations Will force us to get the latest pieces of hardware yearly...
Honestly, the minimum requirement of ray tracing is the reason I didn't buy it, my card literally can't handle it. Looking at steam survey, there are allot of gamers that have older cards that don't support ray tracing.
Game devs don’t optimize PC games. Console? They *have to*. Sony will unveil AI frame generation for the PS5 Pro when GTA VI releases..it is the future of gaming. Period.
A while back, I saw a simple Threads post saying that game developers shouldn't be given access to any newer technology, forcing them to learn optimization in order to keep offering something new. At a glance, that seemed like kind of a wild imposition but I've honestly warmed up to it a lot. If every game was made with, say, 3-year-old technology, I'm pretty sure they'd all run smoothly at least on the top of the line stuff. If we're really lucky, we'll even get the kind of clever workarounds that add to the game, like original Silent Hill's fog.
@Damian-cilr2 This. Now since we have DLSS and FSR, devs just doesn't care to make good optimization games and relying fully to upscaling tech. I hope someday those GPU reviewers stop using upscaling tech at all as protests.
Most AAA games today are like 100gb, which is infathomable when games had to fit on DVDs under 15gb in the 2010's It's like all of the AAA game developers forgot about asset compression or something. Modern COD does not have enough in it to constitute taking up 200gb+ They were fitting most if not all of the features (and then some) onto DVD's in the 2010's
@@aaron6807aside from size downloads the other issue is the overall movement/physics have gotten worse splinter cell 2002 literally is ages ahead of ARMA reforger like HOWWW???!?!
As someone who is hired to optimize games: The core reason for all of this is games are very expensive to create. Games are big business now (4x the scale of the film industry) and the people at the top are business people. They want to cut corners. All of these blurry technologies just let them cut corners more easily. Every project I encounter is a mess, is filled with rushed strange decisions and is poorly optimized. I spend literally _years_ in some cases trying to clean it up and the features just keep rolling in that slow it down. In the end I just try to keep it from micro stuttering and praying that you guys won't be too mad. The game industry is in a really rough place, but it is not really developers fault. It is the publisher pressure and the fact that games cost hasn't really increased with inflation, platforms take massive cuts and marketing to float above the existing _ocean_ of other games is costly.
Someone needs to grow a set and make a stand. Set up a challenger brand that produces games to old school values of presentation and treating the customer with respect. Make smaller, tighter games that are less complex and time consuming to produce. Personally i would like to see a company that was capable of producing high quality arcade games that emphasize clean ( less detail) , high resolution graphics and can run on a potato. Make lots of smaller less demanding games instead of just one huge one.
@@MySamurai77 you're not wrong - the problem is: who is going to fund that studio as it starts? If you can solve that problem in a stable continuous way, then you could be the one to make that change.
Dude game prices were already way too inflated to begin with. There's a reason I don't pay for any game after I've tried it by download. It's because I want to make sure it doesn't suck ass. 95% of games I download I uninstall after 30 minutes of gameplay it's that disappointing. So really, those businessmen need to make better decision and understand that listening to customers = retention = more money. That's part of business. And no, I won't pay a single penny if games get more expensive, it's already too expensive.
@@nimkal voting with you wallet is certainly a valid strategy, go for it. The problem is, you and I are the minority. Publishers serve the top of the bell curve, which unfortunately has its ups and downs.
Its amazing what games they made work on the PS1,PS2 and PS3. A lot of games felt very impressive with the limited power they had. That impressive feeling has totally gone away in the last decade.
Technically, it's not a bad video, even though it's straightforward. But I would like to correct you on something as a developer: we don't set out to optimise games. The main issue is that corporations, AKA publishers, demand a certain amount of features in a shorter amount of time every time. Corporations are looking into AI to replace programmers, artists and designers. If you want this to stop, Don't buy the game. Developers do not get any royalty. We just get paid a flat fee during development, and that's it. The industry has mistreated us, and now there's no such thing as work security. So in other words, f*** publishers
You know what buddy absolutely and I'm sorry i didn't push this more in the video At the end of the day developers are just doing what they're told, devs can't be blamed for cyberpunks launch or the microtransactions in GTA 5 publishers set impossible deadlines that make it so the workers *need* to rush their set task so they don't lose their job Completely agree with you, Frick publishers
I'm sorry, but this is total copium. Yes, publishers can be bad and make dumb decisions. But so can developers. It is not ALWAYS the fault of a publisher. Sometimes, the devs are just incompetent. Starfield doesn't look great or run well. That's not Microsoft's fault. My understanding is they are very hands-off. They had all the time and money in the world, and they still failed.
LOOK AT SOURCE 2. Half life Alex runs like a dream on almost anything released after 2016, sure it’s still hard to run but it actually has very effective optimisation. Source 2 is the actual future of optimisation with realism
@@Fleetfoot source 2 use will come with time, at least s&box is showing us what can be made with it, i beta-tested s&box and developed with source 2 and its a damn good engine, and hammer with source 2 is a great tool. Its not as easy to come and start modding like with source 1, but it's going to get more used as time goes on
Battlefield 1 is a great example of a game that looks phenomenal while also being well optimised. There are countless singleplayer games that look worse and have a lot less going on yet run worse on my PC, sometimes i wish i stayed at 60fps because now i've been spoiled by 120+ it's painful to go back.
So is Dragon Age The Veilguard but you don't see anyone talking about it here. If games can launch optimized then what's the problem? Its obviously not DLSS or frame generation. Its the devs who want your money without a polished product.
If people get sub 60 fps on a 4090, then I’m fucked with a $300 laptop that gets sub 30 on unmodified Minecraft Java 💀 Edit: Guys I don’t play minecraft unmodified, I was just using it as an example, I use mods and get good framerates, but that wasn’t my point.
I mean Minecraft Java is so bad optimized without mods But thats not fault or anything that other games have, it was made that badly You surely can put on Sodium and will be somewhat fine
It actually makes me cringe so hard knowing the devs who remade Silent Hill 2 have missed the point of all the optimization techniques and visual effects of the original and what made it so highly praised from a performance standpoint. Still rendering stuff within the fog that you can't see is a huge joke, but that's what devs are doing nowadays, rendering all this pointless shit we can't see, you can't even just drop from Ultra to High in most cases, in my experience, High and Ultra have a negligible performance change on a 4090 at 4k, you gotta go to Medium which then butchers and lot of effects.
Yep. Unreal just doesn't scale like games used to. For example the new marvel rivals runs terrible whethever it's ultra or low. It seems they're designed for dlss to pickup the slack for lack of optimization
What they should've done is use more aggressive LOD. Basically swap out textures and objects for lower resolution and more jagged looking ones. About the fog though, that's just how it works. Rendering is done in a few different stages where the geometry (World, characters, ...) being rendered first and fog added later as a depth based or volumetric post-processing effect. This means that if there's fog in a game so dense you cannot see through, performance was wasted. Not sure about this, but just like most AAA studios nowadays, they might've just been given to little time to properly finish the game before release. Trust me on this, because I'd know: game devs are passionate about gaming and making games that are enjoyable and run well. Doing it as a job is from what I've heard extremely stressful and it has become very apparent that publishers keep setting more insane deadlines because of their investors. I mean just look at any newly release AAA game. Everything goes to shit once money's involved.
Yeah, Silent Hill wasn't even supposed to have fog. It was just a solution because of the limitations of draw distance on PS1 and it ended up making the game scarir and more atmospheric. It's so ironic for it not to be used this way, as it's the reason it even exists
13:00 thats just fxaa, msaa (the best kind) basically renders the edges of stuff at 2x quality, while dlaa (also pretty cool) is like dlss, but it starts at native resolution, essentially upscaling the image to downscale it, and it looks great!
@@ababafgatg true it wasn't intended to be used as a bandage by devs to add to their un-optimized games but i prefer if the tech never came out in the first place, it's doing more harm
Map developer here, I absolutely adore optimizing my craft - I sometimes spend hours going through trees, polygon by polygon deleting the nodes until im able to maintain the high fidelity and optimized balance - using textures to my advantage, creating depth with just a specular and normal map rather than more mesh detail. I love the "lowpoly" look but im not talking about PS1, im talking about mid 2000s GTA SA mod kind of lowpoly - where the models look great, but still videogamey. that's what I miss so much about videogames - the 7th generation (PS3 & XB360) was the BEST. optimized games, great graphics, yet the install is like 8gb, the target FPS was 30 back then, the same could be done now with 60-120fps if the same techniques were applied. I don't know about you, but I would be so happy with games looking visually a bit worse, if it meant they ran like 7th gen games on PC. EX L4D2, game is from 2009, looks stunning, runs amazing - i dont know why we strayed far away from that.
I'd first like to say thank you for making this comment, I love to see somebody who's experienced such as yourself sharing what they think on the matter (also I too am a huge fan of the low poly style) Games like GTA 3, although outdated, have a certain charm to them and I love the way the models move in cutscenes It's just so animated lmfao
totally agree with you, the ps3 games were just on the sweet spot in term of performance and look...feel after RDR1 and GTA 5 that was all we needed for game graphics and my god the games sizes are unreasonable nowadays and I am afraid it's not stopping anytime soon, Sparking Zero is like a shinning hope for me with it 29 Gbs size and it shows it can be done in UE5 if the devs given more time and cared.
@@CrackedJust1n I'm glad to chime in :) I know the topic of my comment is a bit different than the video, but I feel like everything from bad 3d models, cheap upscaling/AA, bad GUI design (souless 8th gen style... thanks Last of Us) is working in unison to provide the end-user with a worse experience nowadays when it comes to games. Back in the day, the most you had to work with when it comes to rendering assistance was anti-aliasing, and primitive anti-aliasing at that. It sounds pretty backwards, but I feel as though devs should use the absolute worst systems they can for when it comes time to optimize assets or rendering - this is what I did. used a 896mb video card, 3gb of ddr2 ram, and a duo core from 2005 up until 2020, made the most optimized maps of my life during that era. If my PC would run it, any can. I also used to make some mods for GTA SA during that time, including graphics mods and overhauls, which again received great ratings since I developed them on such terrible hardware, if I could run it, anyone could. That was the one benefit to bad hardware, knowing that I was the worst case scenario lol. A lot of devs nowadays also just don't know how oldheads did it, which is a gigantic issue - depending on modern PC hardware to do the heavy lifting is the main reason we're in this mess. I also notice nowadays that culling isn't as common - if you used a freecam mod for say PS3/XB360 era games, you'll notice you can't go far at all without the map despawning or the skybox turning black, something to that effect - games nowadays are largely more open world /less linear and use... chunks (not the right terms but I'm blanking) less and less - badly made LODs (usually made with cheap add-ons that generate LODs instead of handmade) are the standard, but are also more resource heavy than just culling. There are so many methods that can be done to improve game performance, I'm only a map artist and not a full on game developer, so I'm only saying what I know in my field, I'm not saying I could do better than a AAA studio when it comes to map design, but I definitely could beat most of them when it comes to getting maps playable and smooth xD I will give credit and say that open world is the hardest to develop maps for, I am a racing game map maker, so I get to cheap out on detail. 2d trees and tree walls near the edge of the track, low quality textured distant objects, etc... whereas an open world game needs 3d trees everywhere in the playable area and can't afford to have "low quality" assets that a player will be able to see... at 8k, 240hz, with a full HD capture card or OBS to nitpick and poke fun at online xD, map devs have it rough. I always love watching videos on the downfall of modern gaming, it's something I've been preaching for years. It's also what got me I to GUI design, I noticed the games I associate nostalgia or fond memories with, usually have a cozy GUI that is absent from modern games. Bo1, MW2, old gen GTA 5 come to mind- people really don't associate this with why modern games suck (and of course, your video brings up more important topics like... actually rendering the game itself) but it's these little details of games that add up and overall contribute to why modern games are just... meh. Bad upscaling, soulless GUI, bland maps, it all snowballs. Earned a sub from the video, thanks for taking the time to reply as well - hopefully youtube doesn't block this half an hour in the works comment for no reason lol
@@omerosman1280nail on the head. PS3 GTA5 always will hold a special place in my heart - the old gen map, sharp, contrasty, bloomy graphics were so fitting for the game.... could've done with more than a like 25fps average, but that's an impressive game to get running on a PS3 lol. feels like the next gen port stripped away some of those artistic touches for a more bland game. black and white UI, less visual world style in favor of "HD", imo GTA5 on PC holds up today... but the performance is meh, and it doesn't have the same charm as old gen... actually pretty hard to describe now that I'm trying to lol - swear it's not just the nostalgia talking
As someone who loves programming, it really disheartens me to see so many big game companies just completely skip any and all optimization phases and just use whatever half-baked soluition Unreal has so that people who only ever use non-realtime rendering programs don't have to adjust anything.
Im currently learning game development, and im like surprised to notice how many many developers aren't optimizing. (I barely get any chances of playing video games so myself havent even noticed for like a while) Ive learn how to optimized in my courses and my teacher specifed its a big deal to do this since it will help bring a bigger audience, more accessibility, etc because not only it bring "more money" but also show that you're going beyond which brings trust with your audience.
@@jeonbunnykookie9515 *Revelation 3:20* Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless. *Revelation 22:12-14* And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
It is such a basic principle of Supply and Demand. If a game cannot run well on CURRENT GEN hardware, consumers will simply buy something else instead. I don't know what's the deal with Devs nowadays, TAA/RT/FG/PT Killed ingenuity and innovation.
The era where you could slot a 1050 Ti into an off-lease, i7 2600k Dell Optiplex and play games with your friends with $2000+ pcs was crazy. Also, this whole thing is a repeat of when the PS3 and 360 allowed for online updates: For what started as ‘great tech for gamers’ that would be able to get new content, it was later just abused to rush out broken games and then give them ‘day 1 patches’. You hit the nail on the head with this entire video.
That was literally my first gaming PC lmfao, I was 12 years old when I got a 1050ti slapped in my office PC that I bought off paper route money, I remember feeling on top of the world like I could run anything
I'm literally gaming with 1050ti slapped to an old office PC (though I've swapped out the ancient core 2 duo to i5 4690k when it was current). Still works really well for my needs
I have a PC with a 1050ti for 8 years and still working well. Didn't play much games recently because of life and the insane storage requirements for modern games. Tbh, I just want to play games for fun and there's retro & indie games that pretty much satisfy my needs.
These new framegen and upscale technologies would be considered good if the devs were aiming at 120fps+, but they're literally depending on them to reach 60fps like consistent 60fps+ at 1080p would make PC gaming just perfect for everyone, it should be the bare minimum to be able to enjoy a game. Anyone that says 30fps is enough, is a mouth breather
As a guy with a RTX 3050, I was genuinely amazed with how well RDR2 ran on it. Extremely playable framerates, even with some reshades and no DLSS. The 3050 is actually pretty decent. It can run quite a lot of games pretty well. But if we go to the newer games.... like... assassins creed mirage. Yeah, you can really see how badly games are optimized nowadays.
That's why I hate when people tell me "oh it's time to upgrade!" No. No it isn't. There's no reason why older games and even Resident Evil 4 remake (a game from last year) should run fine on my 3050 but a game from this year can't
@@Neros_light there is a very obvious reason, re4 remake ran on ps4, its memory management was designed to target lower memory, like it or not but consoles are the target spec, and 8gb of vram is under the target spec for current gen consoles, even series s
@@Frisbie147 all I hear is that devs are becoming lazy because the technology of today allows them to even if it fucks over most of the average players
For me the biggest issue with RT is that the visual difference with it on and off is like going from high settings to very high settings, which is usually a very small difference, but the performance gap is like going from 1080p to 4K, or even worse. Most of the time the visual difference is so minute that without a direct comparison you can't even tell what is raytraced and what isn't, so I can't really see any decent reason to sacrifice half of my FPS for some lighting that I won't even be able to appreciate
Okay but that RDR2 critique is an absolute blunder. It is one of the best looking and optimized games of the decade. My old RX570 and Ryzen 3 can run it at 50-60FPS on high.
You know optimization is bad when the best GPU and CPU in the market currently can't run most modern games in highest settings in stable 1080p 60fps. What a complete utter joke. Edit : I'm seeing most people in the comment below misunderstood my message, I'm saying most modern games unable to maintain a STABLE 1080p 60fps at max settings with the best CPU and GPU in the current market, not unable to achieve. GZW : Tiger Bay area drop to 40+ fps on 1080p, Hogwarts Legacy, main assembly area drop between 50-70fps on 1080p, TLOU dropped to 30fps+ on chapter 4-6, Stalker 2 dropped to 40+ fps on town areas with a lot of NPC, NMRIH 2 dropped to 40+fps when reaching generator area, these are just some of the many examples.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about....the best cpu and gpu can run most modern games at the highest settings at 4k60. Maybe not all with PT, but certainly most and definitely any game that came out prior to the last 2 years.
@@MDxGano"Certainly most" ?Are you joking?Like we are talking best of best it should able to run every single game in highest setting without an issue. Thats isnt even what they should be aspiring they should aspiring to work properly in average hardware.
@MundaneCat that's not true though, optimization is bad, but we don't have to make up wild untrue stuff to make it worse than it is, it's bad enough in reality.
@MDxGano that is also not true in a vast majority of cases. If you are using DLSS or framegen to achieve """"4k 60fps"""" then you aren't actually playing the game AT 4k or 60fps, you are using a marketing gimmick to get a fake 4k and 60fps, this is part of the problem, publishers and hardware manufacurers want to have the "4k" on the box without actually being able to truly produce those results, which only emboldens them to be lazy about optimization because why bother if """"4k*"""" is seen as the same as 4k.
A 2060 shouldn't be the target for a full 1080p render resolution at this point, are you mad? I say that as someone who has a 2060 Super. That's just wasteful. A 2060 should be tested at 1080p DLSS Quality or even Balanced at this point in its life.
My 3060ti runs HZD as quiet as a whisper, but oh boy you load up anything not properly optimized (even old EA/Ubi games from last gen) and boom, bomber jet. When minimum settings XCom2 is giving it fits loading in the _entire_ roster at once, but Hitman can splurge on over a hundred NPC models in a single level with no sweat, you gotta wonder wtf kinda rigs the devs are using to not spot these glaring issues. Or maybe it's deliberate, idk.
Just finished HZD on my 3070ti and I didn’t hear it at all except when my open-case GPU caught a bag of pretzels my dumbass left on the shelf. That game was so fucking good wish I knew remastered existed before I just finished it last week.
I have been a youtube user since like 20 years ago and this is like the 4th time i genuenly like a video i watch, i never comment or anything but i really liked this video, your wayr of talking and overall everything, great content
2018 was a special breakthrough year for gaming. So many of the titles that came out 6 years ago like Detroit Become Human, God of War, RDR2, could all come out today and look next gen.
Yeah no they couldn't... If you can't tell the difference between a 2024 title and a 2018 title you just know nothing about computer graphics and need to have your eyes checked too. All due respect for those great games but you can't do much to seem like you came out later than you did. Even RDR2 has clear signs of its age.
@@albert2006xpi wonder why you think rdr2 is showing its age, hec it's seems to still very much ve the go to comparison anyone makes whenever a game trying to be "the best looking" comes out.
I remember my 560ti that CAME OUT BEFORE BATTLEFIELD 3 ran Battlefield 3 on ULTRA 60FPS. It's unthinkable to run a brand new AAA graphic-intensive game on a 60 series card in 2024 at ultra. The gaming industry has grown 20x since 2011 and all this money is just causing them to pump and dump games on the market with no optimization
14:39 the unfortunate reality is that developers cannot slow down, due to various constraints like impossible deadlines, already overworked staff and unpaid overtime, all of which are 200% the fault of the publisher and/or its shareholders, as far as my knowledge goes
I wouldn't go that far. If it was used to get a little extra performance out of an aging system that would be fine. But now games seem to be almost unplayable without some form of upscaling even on top-of-the-line PCs and that's just silly.
Honestly that’s an overstatement upscaling in of itself is really amazing when you think about and can be really cool it’s more just that developers have ruined and defeated the purpose of it
STUTTERS! TRAVERSAL STUTTERS now in every second game. Especially if we are talking about UE5 gaming on PC. It is killing the whole experience. I have two high-end PC's based on Intel and AMD with top hardware, but now I'm feeling that I have two buckets of potatoes. TREAVERSAL STUTTERS must be solved this sh**t can't be normal. Witcher 4 is on UE5. So I think it will be another stuttering mess on the PC. P.S. Cool F*cking Song! Banger!
Really hate the switch to UE5 for witcher 4. I mean if its better for development and the final release i get it, but cdprojekts engine for cp2077 is so fucking good at this point and i know were going to have to make concessions to deal with UE5’s issues. Any time a game comes out on UE5 I just know i have to deal with traversal stutters and nothing can be done. Every fucking game
2018 gamedev: Let's put rain only around player camera, so it will optimized and still gave the same effect. 2024 gamedev: Global physics based rain that affect realtime global illumination system, lets goo
as someone with a 7800x3d 64gb ram (cl30 6000mhz) 4080 super it is insane how little FPS I will still get at 1440p. youd think that on the complete minimum settings, with ULTRA performance DLSS enabled, id be getting like 500 fps on Fortnite or bo6. but no, im rarely cracking 300 on bo6 and will rarely max out my refresh rate on Fortnite. dont get me wrong, being able to cap out a game at 360hz is crazy, and its a great experience in terms of smoothness, but I shouldnt have to have my settings on the literal lowest possible combination to do that, especially when I have the second fastest graphics card on the planet. the worst part is that it has genuinely made me consider a 5090 on jan 30 when it comes out. am I being a little irresponsible with money? sure, but I shouldn't have to be buying the literal fastest components on the market just to fill the frames on a relatively normal monitor when youre talking about modern OLEDs. hell, theres been 4k 240Hz panels out for YEARS, and a 750hz monitor just was showcased the other day. im unsure the resolution (likely 1080) but thats crazy. obviously nobody is expecting silent hill 2 to get to 240fps at 4k, but id be surprised if people can even get cs2 to hit 700fps. point being, its crazy how monitors, GPUs, and new AAA games seem to be in this weird dynamic where the monitors get faster, the GPUs get gigantic (excluding 50 series FE cards) and powerful, but the AAA games just get even worse optimization and can barely be run over 90 fps on mid settings with PCs that cost a down payment on a car. im fortunate enough that I work a job and work hard enough to be able to buy the components that I do, and since my current setup is my first PC, it frustrates me to know how most people, with things like a 3060 or 3070, must be feeling when they see a new game and try to boot it up only to have their VRAM max out instantly and the game runs at 15 fps.
I remember using SMAA for Anti-Aliasing and it was relatively sharp while mostly eliminating jaggy edges, ompared to TAA being a blurry mess. Now everything is TAA and alternatives are not even in the game apart from DLSS/FSR :(
I never cared for photorealism because it's a goal that is virtually unattainable. Unless you're a boomer who hasn't touched a game in your life, not even the recent Indiana Jones game is gonna fool you into thinking it's reality. Stuff like stencil shadows from F.E.A.R. make far more of an impression on me than the amount of hairs being simulated in Arthur Morgan's beard. That and the fact that if devs optimized their slop these games would often run on hardware from a decade ago (a bold claim but I stand by it).
To be fair, aiming for the unattainable is how you reach greatness. In this context : photorealism is the most expensive form of graphics. If you can make/run photorealism, you can make/run anything. I definitely agree it should not be the main goal of the industry and definitely not the customers'.
@Dante02d12 Sure the search for higher fidelity has pushed tech forward, but I don't believe any game designer's dreams for gameplay/mechanics have been hampered by tech since atleast 2012. All tech increases have been in the name of visuals. Everything in terms of gameplay and mechanics in a game like Elden Ring could've been done in 2008.
Honestly, this is one of the main reasons I don’t play AAA games anymore. Not only are they ludicrously expensive and often poorly made, I can barely even run the ones that overcome these problems…
Spatial AA methods do not simply "blur the screen", since you could just do that with something like a Gaussian filter. Instead, they specifically target the removal of jagged edges in the image.
Game studios these days seem to think it’s all about flashy graphics, but they’re missing the point. Look at those low-graphics or pixelated games-they have way more dedicated players than most AAA titles. Why? Because they remember what gaming is really about. A game isn’t supposed to just mimic real life with ultra-realistic visuals; it’s supposed to be fun, engaging, and feel like an actual game-not some life simulation
Especially Ubisoft’s so-called "quadruple A" projects-they hyped them up so much, but they just ended up being a disaster. It’s like they poured all their focus into making things look good, but forgot about making them play good. At the end of the day, it’s the gameplay and experience that keep players hooked, not just the shiny graphics.
homie reads the opening paragraph of a few wiki pages and says "thing bad, me no like", there are so many people like this who go online and claim games are unoptimized without any inside knowledge on how software is made or think they know more then they do, I doubt they could name a single optimization or reason why things like TAA or most temporal effects are now common, I would of liked for them to take time and look into why things are the way they are instead of calling everyone in an industry "lazy", maybe reach out to people with knowledge on the topic and get actual answers instead of making another clickbait video being overly negative
You mean TAA: I'm about to solve the anti-aliasing problem and pave the way for better ways to do it like DLSS. It's a bit blurry because it stops the flicker and noise pixels have in movement, it runs much faster than supersampling and you can just solve the blurriness with something like DLDSR that sharpens it, getting your anti-aliased stable image at a sharp level.
@@albert2006xp mfw: ID's TSSAA for games like Doom Eternal is superior to most implementations of TAA, I've seen. Near perfect AA and amazing performance.
@@albert2006xpTAA looks like utter trash no matter what you do to it. Makes the whole screen just slur together like an oil painting being shook while it’s still wet.
@@SpartanAltair15 The alternative is the entire screen flickering madly and distractingly from bad AA since you're not clamping the pixel changes (what causes the "blur" effect). Just use a sharpening pass like everyone else, genius.
THANK YOU. I’ve been feeling like this for ages. Hardware limitations are what made developers more creative and resourceful. They learned to fake what they’re now doing in real time (at great processing cost), yeeeears ago. So the jump in quality isn’t even that huge in most cases because by and large, we’ve seen it all before. Obviously some exceptions to that, but as a general thing. There are times when I’m playing a game and it’s max’d out and running like shit and I literally cannot even tell why cos it just doesn’t even look impressive. Starfield, looking at you.
6:36 4k is NOT the industry mainstream resolution. only 5% of steam users play in 4k, and most console games either dont run 4k natively or run it at 30 fps.
Then why does every current console release target for 4k or 4k upscaled? Oh wait, because most TV's are 4k, you know, the industry standard for TV's at the moment.
@@grimtarotThe statement was in reference to PC. Also just doing some research it seems that while it is more common for people to have 4K televisions, most still have 1080p/i displays. Probably just because we’ve been on 1080 displays for what feels like 10+ years, trying to topple them is going to take a while.
I'm happy that people are talking more and more about these issues. Forced TAA is horrible and now we get forced upscaling in games like Alan Wake 2 or with TSR always enabled by default in the case of UE5 games like Hellblade 2 and Wukong. It's crazy that I have to edit an ini file to turn the bluriness off, and sometimes that's not even possible. Dithering and the reliance on post processing to solve it is so lame. Dragon Age Veilguard of all things has better hair tech than most of these games without dithering.
@@nooux1966so do I lol, I bought a new rig and was like oh my card can run 1440p at a stable FR. Hell yeah lemme try 1440p lol. Yeah now when anything is on 1080p I have an aneurysm 😂
I do agree with most of your points, but I feel like the biggest one is engines like Unreal utilise GUI systems for their coding, which is great for new developers starting out, but it's resulting in a generation of devs who don't REALLY understand the code that they are compiling, and therefore can't efficiently optimise it and are therefore resorting to shortcuts like TAA and upscaling to make up for this. Another result of this is that there seem to be less and less devs that are actually capable of creating their own engine, all they know how to do is manipulate the UI of one that's been packaged up for them, meaning there is going to be less and less competition for companies like Unreal, and disincentivises Epic from optimising their systems to be more performant and competitive because everyone is going to be forced to use their engine anyway.
No you are wrong. There is no point in making your own engine unless you want to learn how they work or your game can't be made with currently available tech. Using visual scripting is a great way to boost development times, and it doesn't have an impact on performance I don't know where you heard that.
@@user-ne9sd4ow1o holy shit, I think that's an excellent way to put it. Instead of people making their own stuff, they just use other peoples tech, thus not really innovating, and allowing the flaws of the old tech.
@@TheCommunistRabbit does it really have zero impact on performance? Surely it has a tiny bit, if only because then the dev can't then optimise at as much as possibly even to perfection), since its auto generated in the background, right? I thought the whole drawback of visual scripting was that it was less performant (even if only slightly), but easier to do than writing the code manually. Like coding a GUI (easier to maintain and customise to your liking, including optimisations, but harder to initially create) vs using a drag and drop editor (easier to initially create, but harder to maintain and customise, including optimisations).
@@CentreMetrethe difference in performance is so small it's not even worth mentioning. We're talking nanosecond for the same function in c++ vs blueprint. It may cause some fps impact at around 300+ fps but before then there's really no noticable difference.
Its so funny when companies market a game as a "competitive shooter", but it doesnt event have an option to turn off upscaling / antialiasing and runs at 60-144 frames on a modern rig.
i love my competitive shooters where the game is too blurry when i move my mouse to see anything in my peripheral vision! I love being forced to use settings that ive had disabled for years because of rushed development!
Rivals is so dumb, they don't even let you pick low GI when you press "LOW" preset option. You have to manually select lowest option. These people actually think everyone should run maxed out raytraced builds of MP games. I guarantee most of these new devs are console players or mobile "gamers" who have no idea how PC gaming works.
I miss when games actually had the visuals to back up their hardware requirements like in crysis or battlefield 4. Those games still look modern and actually run well now. The visual peak had been reached back in 2013. Unless you're assassins creed. I still have nightmares about that face glitch haha.
if every game was optimized like half life 2,we would have unique artstyles,it does not matter if it was intended to be realistic but ends up looking cartoony at the same time,it looks cool and its better for your pc to not sound like a jet engine within 30 seconds of opening a game
Half-Life 2 was fairly heavy on hardware when it was released, it running well has less to do with it being amazingly optimized and more to do with it being almost 20 years old at this point.
@@yellowblanka6058 not every old game runs good, tho. GTA 4 is an.... example. Historically one of the worst ports in gaming history, but still, old is never a guarantee that it'll run good, it truly DOES come down to how the games are optimized - every game when it's new will push the system, that's how we as developers innovate games, seeing how far we can push relatively common consumer hardware at the time. Also let's not forget, old games aren't even a guarantee to run on modern hardware, or if they do, it has countless bugs that require community patches - old Source games are far from perfect on modern hardware (hence the "never tab out of source games" meme exists), but their credit is well earned.
Not really, hl2 has bad graphics since i have glasses now but still better than most game at it's time And many PCs at the time plus the original Xbox struggled at running them because of the source engine physics
@@lmcgregoruk Half-life 2 on original Xbox didn't look as good as PC version, lots of levels were modified to minimize rendering distance, and frame rate wasn't very stable either.
9:38 what always confuses me is when developers want to make games look better than pixar movies when they took days to render a single frame, their trying to impliment the same effect in real time without any optimisations
Absolutely not. Ray-tracing comes with a ton of optimizations compared to a movie. For instance, basically all real-time RT is rendered at a grainy resolution and then cleaned by a denoiser. In addition, there are things like skipping the AO pass, not enabling reflections within reflections etc...
@@disrupt94okay, its still undeniably more taxing to render that in real time than a pre rendered scene for a movie. And even the highest end consumer hardware struggles with it at 60fps.
@@disrupt94 The denoisers arent doing shit. Shadows and reflections look more garbled and grainy than rasterized version since they are stomping the resolution so low trying to make it run on 4090 1080p. We need much much more powerful gpu's before raytracing is viable.
It has become quite common for most triple A games to be extremely blurry even with every upscaling option off In fact, some games have it so the only way to remove blur is to *use* upscaling
@@CrackedJust1n it's mostly because of TAA. The shitty industry standard anti aliasing algorithm. Modern games mostly comes with TAA as only option or even without option to disable it. Funny enough the only way to get rid of it is DLSS
If you have to use FSR at this point it's your own fault. It's not like years ago where DLSS was only in new Nvidia GPUs. You can probably get a DLSS capable card for real cheap nowadays.
Nice video. I personally have always preferred to " Down - Scale " from a Higher resolution to a Lower Resolution , which allows the downscaled image to be better then otherwise it could be. How much better would it be - if Down-Scaling was the more used and preferred option. The capabilities of the hardware we have now would be so much better and maybe be more afforable then what they are now.
What's sad about the Silent Hill 2 performance is that the fog was initially created to hide the short draw distance possible on the PS1. Now the fog is costly to performance, and hides already-rendered level geometry. How have devs forgotten such a basic rule of optimization? The answer is because of how advanced Unreal Engine is, they think they can just enable the latest untested features, make high-quality models and animations, place tons of light sources, and the engine will handle the rest. Edit: Also I think 6:07 might be wrong. I might be mistaken, but I think it's using Nanite (a new feature in UE5) to continuously generate lower poly versions of distant objects to reduce quad overlap. Nanite is very performance intensive compared to normal LOD's, but it's a shortcut. You can put an extremely high-poly model into the game and the engine will automatically make low-poly versions while the game runs and the loss in visual fidelity is minimal.
One point to make about wireless controllers, including mice and keyboards, the wireless technology in them has gotten so good and efficient that the latency is the exact same as their wired counterpart, and in some cases even faster.
Wireless controller/mouse latency is so low these days as to be pretty much identical to wired. Or at least fast enough to not be noticeable at all. Now frame gen.... that will get you feeling latency. And it's not like you don't feel bad latency on a controller. It's awful. I understand upscaling. It's great tech other than the overarching problem of being a crutch for big games. I generally don't dislike it existing. I do dislike frame generation existing. HATE that crap. To get it looking and feeling semi-decent, it's strongly recommended to have a real base fps of 60 at least. Yet a few games have been using or recommending using frame gen to get from 30 to 60. What. The. Crap. That's gotta stop right now 😂
Mice, yes, seems image sensor has its own coprocessor and MUCs of mice don't have much thing to do. Keyboard, no, matrix scan is quite expensive than you think. there are still few keyboards performs as good as wired one. but most of games don't need the high performance of keyboards.(8K, there are only few genres have benefit from it.) Controllers...... first-party is OK, but latency is still issue with third-party controllers. but first-party controllers, they will all have drift, unless you mod it.
Yeah, a friend of mine also thought wireless meant a ton of input lag. Not the case anymore. The USB interface can actually add more lag than just using something wirelessly in some cases.
I was surprised when i looked at wireless mouse latency recently. 1ms, which is apparently lower than my 7ms mouse, which I was surprised it was that high
What I never understood was why developers decided to use TAA when you could use FXAA with 2x MSAA and get the same effect with less of a performance loss
most engines today use a defered renderer. defered renderers are alot better at rendering dynamic lights and other complex shader effects than the old forward renderers where, however defered's biggest issue is the inability to use multi sample anti aliasing techniques due to the staged buffer based rendering pipeline that defered renderers use
@@foxden908 deferred can do MSAA (RDR2 and GTA 5 aswell Max Payne 3 for example which uses deferred renderer but has MSAA), however it's run worse on deferred, harder to implement on deferred compared to forward rendering, and finally, not as effective as MSAA on forward renderer.
you stated that ray tracing is just an option and you don't have to have it turned on but you can't turn it off in games like stalker 2, Indiana Jones and star wars outlaws
@@omelette_official You're right, it's a massive generalization but there is a reason most of the best indie games are 2D and stylized, it allows for a smaller development team. If you like that then sure but I think that the genres AAA games target (and therefore the fans of that genre) are unfortunately most often exclusive to the large companies that can afford all of the costs involved.
I work in the gaming industry, but need to stay anonymous for the safety of my work. I'm Gen Z, and this is what I've seen since joining the industry in 2020. The lack of optimization in many modern games can be traced to a combination of systemic issues. Developers often lack the funding and time needed to properly optimize their games, as many projects fall into development hell or face rushed production schedules. This is largely driven by stakeholders prioritizing quick profits over quality, making decisions that force developers to release unfinished products. These rushed games, while they might have had the potential to be great, are poorly optimized and heavily reliant on post-launch updates or hardware advancements to function properly. I've noticed several senior game developers point out that many newcomers to the industry lack knowledge about optimization. Some are even educated without considering optimization, leading them to disregard it entirely. To make matters worse, there are those who purposely overlook optimization and attempt to persuade others that it's entirely pointless (I wish I could say I’m exaggerating). There needs to be an investment from studios to teach proper optimization techniques and allow time for teams to apply these optimizations. This isn't the developers' fault, and consumers need to be more empathetic toward developers. It's the stakeholders and their lackluster care for the gaming industry. This issue is compounded by the current economic uncertainty the world is facing. Many wealthy stakeholders are focused on maximizing short-term profits to protect their financial interests, leading to an environment where cutting corners and rushing products is the norm. In this dynamic, hardware manufacturers like Nvidia and AMD benefit significantly. Poorly optimized games create an artificial demand for newer, more powerful hardware, which consumers are compelled to purchase to overcome performance issues that could have been addressed with proper optimization. TLDR: This cycle benefits both stakeholders and hardware manufacturers, while consumers and developers bear the cost of incomplete and unoptimized products. It’s a system where the drive for profit perpetuates dependency on new hardware, reinforcing the financial interests of the already wealthy.
I disagree with your take that this is a "economic uncertainty" that i's driving financial capitalism: It's no "uncertainty". It always has been this way by it's mere nature, only that nowadays it has gotten so bad and shameless that people are starting to notice it. Financial capitalism is figuratively and literally cancer. Glad brave folks like Luigi Mangione are trying to send a message.
@ Valid tbh, I think both perspectives can coexist: Yes, economic uncertainty and pandemic/post-pandemic pressures can push stakeholders to demand quicker returns, which hurts developers and optimization efforts. But also, this profit-driven mindset isn’t entirely new. It has arguably been part of financial capitalism all along-it’s just that the pace and boldness of cost-cutting measures are accelerating. It’s frustrating because it means developers often get caught in the crossfire... But having conversations like this is how people notice and, hopefully, push for change-whether that’s calling for more respect for developers’ work, better education in optimization, or rethinking how we view hardware cycles.
Now when you try to buy a pc, you get paranoid from the “is it future proof?” Due the the extremely poor optimisations in most games, unlike Doom or CSGO
I make scratch games, and one of my biggest project is to make teardown in 2D in Scratch, ofc i had to make it all blocks instead of voxels. But my game can run on a Chromebook, with boundary pushing features. Mainly such as decent audio, that sounds somewhat realistic. Rain sounds different when outside vs inside, but how I make this happen automatically makes this even more reactive, I mainly work on school Chromebook, and I have done nearly every optimization my game can do without fully-fully rewriting the entire game
If all games were optimized like Doom Eternal our PCs would last at least 10 years
For now we're doomed
Real
This is so true, I remember playing Doom Eternal in 2020 and my PC at the time struggled with modern titles at 1080p but doom ran and looked so freaking good at the same time
Hopefully new Doom has the same situation
my 970 did its dead now tho
if you tried to play doom eternal on a gtx 680, an 8 year old gpu at the time, you would be struggling to maintain 30fps, now people are crying that indiana jones cant run on an 8 year old gpu, the optimization isnt worse, people just expect old hardware to run modern games perpetually for whatever reason, your gtx 1080 isnt top of the line anymore, its below current consoles
GTA 5 running on 512MB of shared RAM in the PS3 seems so much more insane today
And also it got very good frame rate than Bayonetta
GTA 5 was an absolute achievement on 7th gen
Xbox 360 had shared RAM. PS3 had 256 RAM and 256 VRAM, so that is even more impressive. Also the Blue ray drive was only capable of reading data @ 8.5 MB/s and somehow they managed to stream the world even when flying a jet fighter!
@@kmieciu4ever GTA5 doesn't read everything off the disc. What do you think the initial install was for on 360 and ps3? So the game could stream off the hdd ;3
@@TokyoFool2 It streams simultaneously from HDD & Blueray. And it has to decrypt the HDD data on the fly, because PS3 HDD is encrypted.
Modern Gaming:
Ray tracing = Noisy
Resolution = Blurry
Frame rate = Fake
Im sorry but please go to any Indiana Jones or Cyberpunk path ttacing showcase and try and say that. I get that it has its issues but your over blowing it.
@@spikytoasterI would rather have what Valve is doing. Instead of blurry mess of new games.
@@spikytoasterpath tracing sucks in Indy
@@spikytoaster I don't give two fk about it.
@@spikytoaster Dude as a guy who went crazy over trying to make path tracing look good in cyberpunk, even the highest settings possible still dont fix the noise artifacts and ghosting present. The image looks great at first glance or on video sure, but as soon as I started playing and noticing small artifacts and visual bugs and it killed my immersion. Things like the characters blinking looking smeared, or real time lighting slowly updating or general PT noise just looks terrible. I'd rather devs find more ways to mimic real time lighting with raster tech and have a stable image, than this messy transition we are currently in.
6:36 saying 4k is a mainstream resolution is crazy. 4k is currently used by only 4.21% of the userbase according to steam hardware survey.
Yeah this is why its so hard to take youtubers serious. Just saying stuff that isnt true. In what world is 4k mainstream.
@@RMJ1984 4k would be mainstream if the developers optimized the fucking games
Yeah, what about 1440p then?
he said "industries current mainstream", not mainstream aka. noboby is realistically playing with higher resolution and that it should be optimized to run well at the current "best"
@@quizent8386 just because the screen supports the resolution doesn't mean the game runs at it.
I miss the days when developers would fake graphics techniques instead of wanting to do everything in real time.
PREACH!!!
Faking has limits, and we are reaching them. Programming is not magic but science. Sometimes you need a better approach to solving problems. Sure the transition if often hard, but in the long run it is the right choice. When you are getting at a dead end, you need to search for another path... or you can drill a granite wall forever. Both are hard but in different ways.
Drilling granite means games will take forever to release. FInding another path means that your programmers will be digging in the dark with spoons until they aclimatize to the new environment and get better equipment.
We are now in this phase where they are "digging in the dark" (need to learn new techniques), and they have weak equipment for this new job (GPUs that support RT are still in their infancy).
In half a decade this should be in a better state hopefully.
But you will need to buy a new GPU nevetheless :)
the biggest issue for games is development time, not hardware, faking it costs development time and most studios arent naughty dog or rockstar, ray tracing hardware is there and its only going to become more prevalent, theres no point having the hardware there doing nothing, path tracing will be the default within a console generation or two
@@marsovac Hot take: only effect that RT has that is objectively better than previous solution is reflection, Doom Eternal using this technique.
@@dqskatt Global Illumination is a billion times better and shadows are too
truly a "can it run Crisis?" moment.
BUT with every single new game
We had no idea what was to come back then
@ fr, I heard crisis was shamed for its lack of optimization, but now the whole industry be following its tracks
you know, it'll be a miracle if crysis 4 - because that is in the pipe - comes out and brings an actually good engine with it.
@@K1X_7274 At least it wasnt blurry
At least Crysis is understandable. That game was visually peak, ahead of its time. Nowadays games look a bit better than like 5 years ago but since developers just rely on real time rendering of almost everything, system requirements skyrocketed. Little visual improvements, huge hardware requirements increase. Devs use tools like it's a one click solution instead of actually taking care of optimizing. Modern engines like UE5 is fantastic for developers, fast workflow is great. But the consequences are, on the gamers' side, it's a GPU hog mess.
Some senior game developers have already said that many people who just entered the game industry don’t know jack sh*t about optimization.
in reality it's worse: some are being taught without optimization in mind so they ignore it as a result, and some are intentionally ignoring it and also trying to convince people that optimization is a total waste of time (I wish I was making this up)
they also dont know what the f LOD is! tf man
@@sadge0to be honest yeah optimization is a waste of time that could've been used on working towards more features and getting the game out faster which is the only thing that matters for execs and most developers, cant really blame them not caring about their work in an industry where its a 50/50 you are getting fired after a release
@rustyclark2356 also those vet devs refuse to teach the new generation how to optimize
I just saw a video where they showed code written by Gen Z programmer. And for doing something that will take 1 line of code, he was using AI or some shit that took 500 times as much time to run.
I don’t give a crap about ray tracing when game design stagnated 15 years ago
Same
AAA have never even simulated a single fucking bullet, or even blood volume, I feel sad for AAA gamers
Maybe stop playing GTA V from 2013 and you'll see there's good games out there.
@ you have any recommendations? Haven’t played anything in a while. Subnautica and hitman are the only recent games I’ve loved
@ rimworld, zomboid, kenshi first if you never stepped outside of the AAA/visual-porn comfort zone
then CDDA, caves of qud, dwarf fortress, unreal world
there's also factorio and kerbal space program if you want to engineer stuff, aurora4x if you are crazy
it's really not about being "retro" or "old-school"
it's that these games simulate the world in a way that AAA doesn't even dream about
not even in their wildest dreams can AAA simulate half of what some of these games simulate
@
if we scope out simulation heavy games:
neoscavenger is hella of fun too
total war warhammer 3 or crusader kings can be very good but only if you carefuly mod them
a server of tibia where you play singleplayer is a hell of fun if you don't know the game ( you will turn xp rate up as you level up to avoid grind )
it may be the best RPG there is if you consider how giant the world is, the countless option you have, if you don't cheat as the server admin
finally, maybe, xenonauts, darkest dungeon or battle brothers
Triple AAA Studio executives had an epiphany realising that they could save costs on optimising the game when they could offload the cost onto the consumers and blame their hardware.
Saying AAA is enough. Triple AAA is weird 😂.
AAAAAAAAA studio
@@tidedetergentyummy 3x triple AAA studio
Triple Triple A Studio
Your 3070 can't play this new game on medium settings? Guess you just need a new PC bro
-Activision
i think every modern developer should be asked to make a gamecube game so they can learn optimization.
ps3
@EggBasketUwU you know it. I would even say developers should start making games for PS2 again and ditch the modern consoles, since games are way too expensive
Wind Waker was peak
Also look at smash Bros and Breath of the Wild on an outdated switch.
Compare that to badly optimized Scarlet/Violet.
@@EggBasketUwU running games on steamdeck here, and I can see which game is badly optimized... Some games just runs like azzzz even on a lower resolution screen and even with FSR3.1 on.
Well, back when DLSS and FSR came out, there were a few smart people that said developers would use Frame Generation as an excuse to not optimize their games....... and here we are.
Those very smart people also knew about frame gen 4 years before it was released apparently
@@mechanicalmonk2020frame gen has been around for a long time before dlss and fsr
Devs want to be lazy and not optimize. Who knew?
@@mechanicalmonk2020do you think before it was released there wasn't talk about the development? How do you know about GTA 6? It hasn't been released yet.
More and more are becoming lazy in optimizing their games. I refuse to play most games with DLSS or FSR because of eye strain.
One thing that needs to happen....and always needed to happen but won't because greed....publishers need to stop rushing developers to get a product out to satisfy shareholders. If devs had the time to truly complete a game, i don't think this problem will be as widespread as it is.
Yeah. I think the developers often get the hate even though it's a management problem. Art and tech take time. Also these new technologies also have completely different downsides than the previous ones. Which makes people more shocked about something like ghosting while it wasn't always that much better back then. It's all these growing pains of such a young industry.
Stop kiss dog trash game developers ass lol. Sure a lot of them will get pressure to release the game fast but it's just pressure. There are plenty of studios who simply say no the game is not ready if you aren't happy we will go with someone else. And then you have trash studios who are like "yeah this game is not finished it runs like crap so lets just say use upscaling then we can sell the rest of the game with dlc ok release it!"
So many morons have been giving talentless horrible game developers a free pass for years now kindly stfu and get a reality check. They are releasing games they are satisfied with because let's be real. Most game developers in this generation never even learnt to make a game. They watched a 15 minute unreal guide on youtube and then got hired to create a triple A game.
Was thinking about that also, optimization costs time, and the devs are always being squeezed like a lemon. So the obvious sacrificial goat is the optimization..
the developers are equally to blame..if they do less work and still get paid its a win for them..blame devs too...they are just as eveil or even more evil than the publishers
@@cedden people were chunking out quality games at half the time it takes modern devs to use 8 years to make a sloppy game..its not the time or publishers...developers got lazy
When i was a kid i always used to think that graphics card and cpu companies would pay game companies to purposely make pc ports unoptimized so we purposely buy their latest releases
No, it is just human nature to spend less to make more profit. And also the change from raster to tracing is a big change in skillset required to make good games. It will take a few generations of GPUs and years of training for game developers to make it good.
Me too, turns out we were right but its the engine that does it.
@@marsovac i think ray tracing is flawed, and you can get 90% of the way there with raster with 90% or more fps wile barley looking different let alone "better" it just takes more work, skill and creativity. None of witch AAA studios have anymore. so we get slop.
@@V3RAC1TY
For one, which form of Ray tracing? Do you mean real time ray tracing?
For two, here is an example:
How do we properly make a dynamic lightning system that takes into account material properties and light bounce?
For now, our rasterised solutions have been very lackluster in these specific scenarios, even games such as RDR2 have really poor indirect lightning.
@@flowerthencrranger3854 martys mods RTGI and MXAO does that so if modder can do it, so can AAA company
Every time Steam releases their hardware survey, it blows my mind. Do game devs not understand that more than 50 or 60 percent of people play at 1080p? The average GPU also sits at 8gb of VRAM. It’s like they genuinely don’t understand that most people would rather play a game they CAN play, than a game that has realistically simulated butt hair.
r/brandnewsentence
I play at 1080p, not because I can't afford 1440p/4k, but because I just like it better. 1440p and higher gives me a migraine whereas 1080p doesn't. I'm tired of games being designed with 4k in mind and making it horribly optimized for everything below it.
@@NokoFace woah first time hearing of such an issue. Haven't tried 1440p and above myself. What would u say is the cause of your migraines from a higher resolution? Was considering getting 1440p and above in the future.
@@donothack a smaller monitor at a higher resolution can have smaller default text sizes that, if not adjustable in game settings, can cause problems with eyesight. I wouldn’t go so far as to never play in 1440/4k if I don’t have a display, but I can see why people might
@@harrylane4also playing games in 1080p make the game run better anyway.
Even if my pc was capable of upscaling id honestly still keep it 1080 p just for the performance alone.
what kills me is that the ps5 box has a "4k 120fps" image on it, and there are like, no games that run at that. It feels like we're being lied to...
I think they removed it now, but some games do run 120FPS
@@vale_reccayea at like 1080
@@lx-touchigaming3597 so what? It still 120fps
@@maybebutwhatever it said 4k
@@splldcoke155 an there are a few 4k120fps games. But obviously not everything can run at 4k120
Another problem is GPU performance isn't going up much between generations while prices have increased a lot. If you still could buy high end cards like the 4090 for $700 like the 1080ti was then most of these issues wouldn't be real.
Yeah, the 8800 Ultra was around 700 on release, as was the GTX 280, the GTX 480, 580, 680, 780 Ti, 980, 1080 Ti.....
@@HappyBeezerStudios but you need to account for inflation
@@ZheH4ribo I mean, sure, I know inflation was about 40% in 2023, but that Sutton bend in the cost curve happened much earlier.
Just buy AMD
Considering inflation, it's cheaper every gen... 1080 is more expensive than 2080... which costed more then 3080 and yes costed more than 4080
Four things are important in graphics for me:
No popping
Good textures
Good resolution
Good FPS
Relax with the shadows, reflections, etc.
Exactly - if it looks realistic but runs at less than 100 fps, how is it "realistic"?
And I mean 100 fps NATIVE should be the goal, not this frame generation DLSS crap.
If they all aimed for 1080P - 100 fps, games would look and run better.
Imo lighting is very important for graphics too
@@bigmichaeljack3851 Yeah,but look at the light work on zelda breath of the wild,it works on that shitty ahh old nintendo switch that has a hardware of a 15 yo pc,and zelda looks perfectly fine.
Good textures is so basic but so underused in games for some reason, they'll go crazy with the lighting but some areas like tree branches, desks and food will be like 144p texture quality lol
@@krak3n852 Zelda only needed to be able to run on the Switch and Wii U, two systems with very similar capabilities. Because Nintendo only had to account for two very specific comuptational configurations, they could optimize the game extremely well. Most developers have to account for an infinite number of computational configurations, because every PC is unique.
"Western game dev has been here."
"How can you tell?"
"105 GB."
Call of Duty being 200+ gigs is crazy
@@CrackedJust1n the stanley parable's april fools post is almost true loll
"Japanese game dev has been here."
"How can you tell?"
"99% CPU load."
this doesnt man anything tho. more textures equals to larger size.
@Fekxyz-gr8hc ok but then explain to me why they use so many different textures at high resolution instead of making a good rendering system
What’s crazy to me is I get more fps on rdr2 with almost max settings then on bo6 with the lowest possible settings
horizon zero dawn was badly optimized on pc and you needed a more powerful system than a ps4 by far. Then you got forbidden west that you need something with nearly twice the power. Then they remastered the first game and it barely looks any better but runs just as bad as forbidden west. Amazing, just amazing.
bo6 is just insanely unoptimized and horribly made on pc, it has so many issues from graphic fidelity to the live service. I bought bo6 to try it since I hadn't bought a new cod since bo4, but I am so glad I refunded it after I realized just how AWFUL it is. The story itself or mp or zm is no issue, just the horrific nightmare of getting it to work properly on PC.
Is it the steam version of bo6
Similar situation, able to play BF2042 on Ultra with 70-80 and drop to 40-35 in Helldivers 2
Before you reply, yes, I know its CPU heavy. Why is it CPU heavy?
You guessed it - game engine is just deadass
The people at rockstar do some serious computer wizardry with their PC ports (eventually) when it comes to optimization
RDR2 can run on anything lol
Blame Nvidia for enabling game devs to be lazy. DLSS has caused this to get worse, and now FSR. Meanwhile they will make no adjustments to their next gen cards, except DLSS 5, 6, 7, and so on.
Why are you blaming nvidia and amd for offering solutions to increase performance. Blame publishers for not giving time for developers to optimize their games not nvidia or amd.
@@Pannikin_9 Nvidia purposefully cuts down on vram capacity, and bandwidth for next gen gpus. Essentially being a downgrade, but then upsell them features such as dlss which only encourages devs to not optimize their games. Take away dlss, and games would have to optimized.
The fact companies didnt have enough self awareness to be asking why a CONSOLE game needs a performance mode is astounding.
I think it's even worse than that. They didn't *need* one they chose for it to be there anyway so they can get those shiny screenshots and still advertise higher framerates. It's not a new thing either. They advertised the PS3 as 1080p even though you're almost never playing a game at 1080p on a PS3, the same way they advertise performance mode and 4k support and all that now.
this is exactly why dlss is absolute dog shit why optimize video games when you can use AI would have been better if Nvidia used ai for an ai friend instead of performance enhancement for video game graphics as it makes game devs pathetically lazy now days
because some people prefer performance (60+ fps)
and other people prefer visuals (30 fps)
giving the option isn't a problem.
@ but they don't optimize game graphics anymore or we wouldn't need ai enhancement
@ You realize that consoles have been using some sort of upscaling/checkerboard rending in nearly every game for over a decade? The difference now is that it actually looks much better because of AI.
The problem isn't with upscaling, it's solely on the publishers and the people that support them by buying their games.
Modern AAA developers will NEVER fix the optimization issue for one simple reason: Optimization takes time and money, time can be spent making the next product, and money expenditure must be minimized, they're effectively outsourcing optimization onto the GPU manufacturers and Unreal for free. C-Suites and shareholders will NEVER allow money to be put back into optimization because it means bonuses and payouts will decrease.
Straight on the point
It takes skill, they dont have any. Its not about money or time. Its talent.
@@simonrockstream I beg to differ.
We do have skills. Problem is when we got some manchild manager that decides that slapping 4k megascan from workshop we got for free is good enough for production.
We once had car model that had 100'000 triangles in fucking headlights beacouse model was made on booleans and poorly exported.
Yet another example is complete lack of LODs in models, lack or poor setup of render settings, not using TSR for antyalias & so on.
Also recently I see that games have bigger and bigger problems with VRAM and CPU usage. I blame huge materials using bazillion texture samplers, dogshit model quality and abuse of Lumen to compensate for all of above xD
sucks that greed drains us but improves those who already have all of it
@@rajzerfilip But it is true that New Game developers that are joining the industry don't know optimization or just never taught how to Optimise the games, there are multiple posts from Senior developers stating the same thing.
In monster hunter wilds the recommended settings require upscaling AND frame generation to hit 60fps and 1080. That is fucking insane.
That is unbelievable!!
that's wild, world runs pretty well on laptop, it reaches 60fps above most of the time at the highest graphics without upscaling and AI frame generation, how do you even mess up optimization that bad to turn on upscaling and frame generation to reach 60 fps when the graphics look the same as world
This lmao
The game ran horribly too, they say they've "fixed it" since the beta, but the screwiest part for me (not having a "new" computer by any measure) is that the performance was the same with or without DLSS of any kind on, because the game just had a giant CPU bottleneck, so it was really a matter of turning the graphics UP until my GPU was actually being utilized at all, and getting basically the same performance.....that being BAD performance, it's almost too sad to be funny.
And yet the game is still sold on pre-order for £59.99 (base) up to a ridiculous £89.99 and people will gobble it up without any problems. A lot of modern games run unacceptably slow even on top end hardware and when the difference between medium and high settings is 10 FPS you know it's been poorly optimised. But people still buy them then gush all over them, because they have no standards set - and when most of the gaming media is corrupt and/or incompetent then you can't have good standards set.
Edit: had a look at recommended system settings, they list an RTX2070 then they write about framegen (which is not available unless you have a 40x0 series GPU), reads like this was written by a LLM: "This game is expected to run at 1080p / 60 fps (with Frame Generation enabled) under the "Medium" graphics setting."
Just lol.
that ending u got a subscriber, keep up the good work man
Thank you friend!
Remember when a GTX 1060 was enough for 1080p gaming?
I do bro I do!
Very true, sadly not anymore and it forced me to upgrade into a RTX 3070
@@kev1589i have 3070 on my rig.. recently i think 8gb vram maybe not enough to run gta 6 on high settings soon
I still have a 1060, and I've actually fixed the issue of having low fps in modern titles. The solution is to just not play them
@@ChillTime211 I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, homie. I don't wanna upgrade 😂
As someone who works in the industry and was trained at a high ranked university for game dev its blatantly obvious that the training of new entrants into the industry is the problem.
I had an entire 6 month long module on optimising textures and models and how to spot an unoptimized game just from a graphics perspective without even knowing the hardware of the system. I was in the Game Design course and we rarely ever modelled or textured anything but all of our lecturers were ex-industry with some working on huge titles like the Gears of War series and GTA: San Andreas so they really pushed to make sure that every single one of the graduates would prioritise optimisation.
This is really important cause at the end of the day your player base is limited by accessibility and that's not just colour-blindness or physical disability but more often than not its the systems they can afford to play the game; almost no-one has the cutting edge tech to run games that aren't optimized so if you really want a bigger player-base all you need to do is get the game running on as close to 2006 Toshiba laptop as you physically can.
Hey, do you know if there is a way to access that course online?
AND guess what, Elon Musk will now make sure that THOUSANDS of these low skill entrants flood the market. Western Gaming has Fallen. BILLIONS must play boomer shooters
I'd also be interested what courses you took part of more specifically. Really really interested in them.
I just don't believe that is the source of the problem. It's much much much more likely that execs tie the developers' hands, not giving their teams enough time. Ofc they don't have time to optimise when they are already working over time and the studios push them over the limit just to shit out games as fast as possible. Just look at what nintendo is capable of doing on their shitty little tablet by optimising the shit out of their in house games. Clearly, there are talented devs out there, but they are not given the space nor time to actually do their job properly
Contact the devs or the publishers and tell them you won't buy the game unless it's optimized .
The issue is primarily UE5. There are so many unoptimized aspects of that engine that I don’t even know where to start. Its at the point now where when a non-UE5 big budget game is announced I get excited, because I know there’s a good chance it will at least run better
You mean Stutter Engine 5?
Unoptimized Everything 5
And it gets worse when people start to claim it's not the engine but rather the laziness of game developers. Sure, many modern game devs are fairly lazy but when there is not a single well optimised UE5 title, it becomes apparent that the issue lies within the engine. Time for the incredibly well optimised Source 2 to become open so studios can take it and modify it to match the needs of their games, just like was done with the original Source.
Its literally not the engine being unoptimized, at least the overwhelming most of it is devs doing awful work
Braindead idiots will say "pHoToReAliSm"
great video !! the gag at the end was cool af, good voice .
The thing that's making me angry is that nowadays we got games with fully raytraced lumen super ultra shadows and lighting running on DLSS 3.5 with frame generation- but physics in these games is exact same as 15 years ago... Mechanics in these games are same as 15 years ago... Gameplaywise they are also the same as 15 years ago, and huge devs are call it progress?
So just play games from 15 years ago.
@@lukegraf9365 And I sometimes do! Games from 7th gen of consoles are pure gold. I'm still periodically coming back to GTA 4's Liberty City, masterpiece.
I mean thats because theres not enough demand. Im working on a game and im actually trying to get physically based damage system and inventory system (hard tho)
@@michuXYZ Steam released the Steam Replay and like 15% of people played games from the current year, most played games almost 10 years old lol.
@@dr_diddyMine said I played 0% new releases.
What makes it worse are the types of people who defend the shite and say “just upgrade your parts, sheesh, I have a 4090, so you need to get with the times … quit being a poor and expecting devs to cater to your old potato PC specs that are 3 years too old for modern games because you need to have the latest and greatest for proper gaming” to completely dismiss the issue, like they don’t want to hear that even people with similar specs as them are having trouble running these new games, and that it doesn’t matter if the 5XXX series dropped tomorrow with cards and people rushed to buy the slop, they’re still going to have issues running the games because they’re not understanding that they are poorly optimized.
Devs forget that when they’re making these games, they’re making them on the newest specs available and begin setting those as recommended specs. They don’t ever bother to check out what most average consumers are using in their builds to maybe get an idea on where they can be on average for max sales, but instead all they care about is getting in good with companies like NVIDIA for their games and pushing their hardware as a quid pro quo situation that most ignore for some reason.
Tack on how the industry is hiring people en masse that can barely understand how to properly implement and work around TAA, they just throw everything into scenes and crank things up then throw upscaling on it to cover up their mess because they don’t know what they’re doing. No one wants to take the time to go over their code and properly optimize.
So, instead, they blame the consumers and make them feel as if it’s their PC parts that aren’t good enough with the lousy “well, it’s a demanding game using new technology, you need better specs, and of course those specs are going to cost more because that’s what you have to pay for this stuff!” that I’ve actually seen people repeat that isn’t even remotely true. It’s just people trying to justify their purchase while repeating lines fed to them by the industry and companies themselves so they don’t feel like they’ve been rammed up the rear building a rig over $2k that can’t even get above 30-60fps in AAA modern games.
We need more people calling this shite out and holding more devs accountable, especially when they charge over $60 for games nowadays when using UE5 and not even hiring people that know the basics to have the game run properly. One should be able to have specs from 3-5 years ago that can run the games we have now … it’s not a consumer issue with their cards, it’s an industry issue, and people have really got to stop defending the devs and companies that push this nonsense as being a standard.
It's the same when console players say "just buy a PS5"... like it doesn't work like that, everybody high end and low end is effected by this issue
100% agree with what you're saying
Nhaaa, you just need to lower your settings. If you have mid range hardware, you use mid range settings.
Always been like that since the introduction of 3d accelerated cards.
@@mondodimotoriThe problem is that new games with reduced details often look significantly worse than old games with high settings and still run worse. So what's the point of playing new games?
@RudiRatte-v1p Exactly. Why would i care for UE5 slop graphics when i can run RDR2 maxxed out without any upscaling shit and it'll look BETTER than anything that's coming out recently?
If i want eye candy the old games are still better than anything that have been coming out recently.
@@Mersak168 Right. I'm currently playing AC Origins and I'm impressed by the awesome graphics. Why doesn't anyone talk about it anymore? Because it's an "old" game. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Just don't jump on every hype train, because that's what capitalism wants from you.
Real programming starts when there is no more memory. Some of the Devs have probably forgotten this Mantra.
Edit:
690 likes nice 👍
we have hundred thousand times more computing power in our homes than was used to take people to a fucking moon, but all this computing power goes into nothing because shitty devs don't know how to do their job. This sounds like a joke, honestly
"What's memory?"
~ JS Devs, probably
As someone who has programmed a photo editor in JS, you do need to be memory conscious.
Problem is there's no standard API to check how much memory is available to the current tab. Chrome implemented some performance.memory API that I'm sure will never be standardized due to fingerprinting. Your best recourse is to store the current state of the window in indexeddb and restore it from there if the tab crashes.
Problem is that the majority of hacking is memory leakage and memory related.
Similarly many modern high level languages such as Rust, C#, Java and Python handles garbage collecting automatically.
So there's an entire area of the process removed from programmer's conscious. You can do "unsafe" in C# with pointers just like C but this is often not recommended. Better to use span. Unless you're using an application that hasn't updated to the latest version of C# like Stride Engine -_-.
9:50 'It look's great in some scenes but most of the time, you don't have to enable it.'
Star Wars Outlaws, Avatar Frontiers of Pandora & Indiana Jones and The Great Circle: Allow us to introduce ourselves.
I don't know about Avatar, but regarding SWO and Indy: their whole thing is that the games are lit almost exclusively with ray-tracing tech powered lights and reflections. None of that cheap and effective stuff like cubemap reflections. And that's already considered the future norm, since GTA 6 is alleged to also use path tracing based lighting. If you start REALLY nitpicking on the trailer you can see the blurs, like at 0:05 and 0:18 though 22. Very blink and miss, but you could.
So all this forced RT is great for the console players, maybe great for the overall looks, sucks for the PC players though. But PC players are not THAT doomed, as they've shown with GTA 5 and RDR 2 (excluding Online components performance). Them being so well optimised that you could get away with pretty good graphics using just lower medium settings. Just look at the minimum system reqs for RDR2, they're basically mid-to-late PS3 era: single thread 4 core CPU, 2gb VRAM on a 2013 GPU.
@Medicopter_N7 I completely agree with your statements.
But on the flip side, it took quite a while for both GTA 5 and RDR2 to be properly optimized for PC. Heck even RDR2's texture settings, arguably looks terrible on anything less than ultra settings till date... especially with it's dislike for 2GB Vram cards.
My point is, as much as I'm impressed by the technological innovations in videogame graphics today, I still get wary thinking of how game devs won't really give two hoots about optimization for us PC players.
Sure it's strenuous for them I admit, especially since they have to run it through a variety of rigs for testing but still, my fears on shitty optimization and needless push for realistic graphical fidelity that's (and hot take here) already reached a plateau, will only end up alienating most gamers in the PC gaming space.
Graphics peaked in 2016. Every game since then doesn't look any better but runs worse.
Cyberpunk 2077 and Hellblade II would like to disagree...
2018
And rdr2 @@PaintsAreOp
But in most he is true
Not true at all, there are many examples of new games that look good and are well optimized. For example God of War Ragnarok has really good graphics and runs better than its previous entry, that being GOW4.
@@PaintsAreOp again, runs worse.....
Upscaling should be for the older and more budget cards to offer them a longer run and the consumer better performance at the lowest end not set the damn standard for high end graphic cards which should offer raw power in every game when trying to push the highest graphics
PREACH! I never even considered this but this is such a grand idea
bro, FSR was literally made to support old low end cards to let them run modern games at higher frame rate.
DLSS and FSR both were accessibility options for budget gamers and old hardware users.
Now the AAA companies instead have started using them as a support crutch for their own badly developed games.
I don't even want to call in the crowd that criticizes the awful gameplay and story/interaction modern games have now besides the above.
THEY WANTO SELL GRAPHIC CARDS.....
This is what I always thought too. Upscaling was a great feature for the PS4 Pro, Xbox One X, or currently - for the Steam Deck and handheld Pcs, and Switch 2 in proxy. Jensen Huang made this feature to upscale to 8k from 4k for high end hardware (remember the 8k ads when the 3090 was first made?), where it would look good, but devs made a complete mockery out of it and now it's used at resolutions as low as 1080p.
Using upscaling for high-end cards is ridiculous. And it gets even more ridiculous if you add FG into it. I bought my 7900XT for a grand on launch (prices have since dropped much), I never use FSR and especially FG except the first time I tested it out.
And before you tell me "FSR sucks, should have bought nVidia", I tested a RTX 4080 via Geforce Experience Ultimate for 20€ for a month to make a direct comparison before my purchase, which is something everybody being on the fence should do. I didn't like DLSS that much either and thought the XTs raster performance wasn't that much worse than the 4080 given the price at the time ( cheapest 4080 cost 1600€ here).
Little trick you can use: Try playing a game that has MSAA such as RDR2, and compare DLSS Q @4k to 1440p MSAAx2. Native MSAAx2 looks way sharper than DLSSQ, while also running better, and MSAA is the most demanding type of AA. DLSS/FSR need TAA to even look remotely similar, and this is why I think MSAA has been phased out, so that DLSS/FSR don't look as bad compared to native, because native uses that horrible TAA. Even so, TAA still looks better than DLSS, but MSAA even lower resolutions is a blowout, MSAA at the same resolutions is like comparing PS5 to PS6 graphics lol.
Actually, that's the worst case scenario and is exactly what one of the biggest problems currently is with over-reliance on up-scaling. What it _should_ be used for is to make something that can already run comfortably at 1080p or 1440p at or preferably over 60fps run at an even higher resolution and frame rate. What it _shouldn't_ be used for is a crutch to make the game playable at 1080p/60fps when it should have been optimized to do that on mid-ish-range hardware to begin with. Both up-scaling and frame-generation are considerably worse when the algorithms have sub-optimal fps and resolution as a starting point to extrapolate something from.
I thought my pc was 'overkill' for basicly any game, but when i saw my cpu and gpu below the recommended ultra spec for indiana jones' new game it was shocking. I got an i9 12900k and rtx 3080ti. Sure, the game will most certainly run fine, but the industry is clearly pushing people to upgrade sooner and sooner, which seems pretty predatory to me.
I agree, 3080ti is a really good card and it's not your fault at all that the industry is pushing things forward without it in mind
The whole exclusive 40 series card stuff is weird too
@@CrackedJust1n The game also obligates use of Ray tracing, Just as Just1n says in the video. Corporations Will force us to get the latest pieces of hardware yearly...
Well, I mean, how else are Nvidia and Intel going to make money. Have to push those 90 cards and top of the line CPUs from Intel.
Honestly, the minimum requirement of ray tracing is the reason I didn't buy it, my card literally can't handle it. Looking at steam survey, there are allot of gamers that have older cards that don't support ray tracing.
Game devs don’t optimize PC games. Console? They *have to*. Sony will unveil AI frame generation for the PS5 Pro when GTA VI releases..it is the future of gaming. Period.
A while back, I saw a simple Threads post saying that game developers shouldn't be given access to any newer technology, forcing them to learn optimization in order to keep offering something new. At a glance, that seemed like kind of a wild imposition but I've honestly warmed up to it a lot. If every game was made with, say, 3-year-old technology, I'm pretty sure they'd all run smoothly at least on the top of the line stuff.
If we're really lucky, we'll even get the kind of clever workarounds that add to the game, like original Silent Hill's fog.
It all started with rtx 2000 series and the introduction of Ray tracing.
Long live the gtx1080ti !!
And partially,dlss
@Damian-cilr2 This. Now since we have DLSS and FSR, devs just doesn't care to make good optimization games and relying fully to upscaling tech. I hope someday those GPU reviewers stop using upscaling tech at all as protests.
It's happening ever since PhysX
@Damian-cilr2TAA and all the temporal crap as well.
Most AAA games today are like 100gb, which is infathomable when games had to fit on DVDs under 15gb in the 2010's
It's like all of the AAA game developers forgot about asset compression or something. Modern COD does not have enough in it to constitute taking up 200gb+
They were fitting most if not all of the features (and then some) onto DVD's in the 2010's
I think it's an absolute insult for call of duty to be 200+gb when RDR2 is 115. Clearly one of them is more decluttered
Hell, The Witcher 3 with both dlcs is 20gb on download
Stellar Blade is 30 GB and it is the best looking game this year XD. What happens when Asia enters the chat
@@aaron6807aside from size downloads the other issue is the overall movement/physics have gotten worse splinter cell 2002 literally is ages ahead of ARMA reforger like HOWWW???!?!
Yes! I was recently looking at Mortal Kombat 1 and that game is almost 200 Gb in total, which is just ridiculous for a fighting game!
games back then : make it run on many hardware as possible
games now : make it run on very less hardware as possible
So that way everybody has to buy the new Nvidia gpu so the game will look good 😈
@@CrackedJust1n and after some years what will happen is people will start to sell gpus like drgs
I want to bring that back somehow.
@@darkzeroprojects4245 all of us do man....
"back then"
When exactly? Do yall remember Crysis? It was 2007.
As someone who is hired to optimize games: The core reason for all of this is games are very expensive to create. Games are big business now (4x the scale of the film industry) and the people at the top are business people. They want to cut corners. All of these blurry technologies just let them cut corners more easily. Every project I encounter is a mess, is filled with rushed strange decisions and is poorly optimized. I spend literally _years_ in some cases trying to clean it up and the features just keep rolling in that slow it down. In the end I just try to keep it from micro stuttering and praying that you guys won't be too mad. The game industry is in a really rough place, but it is not really developers fault. It is the publisher pressure and the fact that games cost hasn't really increased with inflation, platforms take massive cuts and marketing to float above the existing _ocean_ of other games is costly.
Someone needs to grow a set and make a stand. Set up a challenger brand that produces games to old school values of presentation and treating the customer with respect. Make smaller, tighter games that are less complex and time consuming to produce. Personally i would like to see a company that was capable of producing high quality arcade games that emphasize clean ( less detail) , high resolution graphics and can run on a potato. Make lots of smaller less demanding games instead of just one huge one.
@@MySamurai77 you're not wrong - the problem is: who is going to fund that studio as it starts? If you can solve that problem in a stable continuous way, then you could be the one to make that change.
Dude game prices were already way too inflated to begin with. There's a reason I don't pay for any game after I've tried it by download. It's because I want to make sure it doesn't suck ass. 95% of games I download I uninstall after 30 minutes of gameplay it's that disappointing. So really, those businessmen need to make better decision and understand that listening to customers = retention = more money. That's part of business. And no, I won't pay a single penny if games get more expensive, it's already too expensive.
@@nimkal voting with you wallet is certainly a valid strategy, go for it. The problem is, you and I are the minority. Publishers serve the top of the bell curve, which unfortunately has its ups and downs.
@@MySamurai77 bruh that already exists, you just described indie games
Its amazing what games they made work on the PS1,PS2 and PS3. A lot of games felt very impressive with the limited power they had. That impressive feeling has totally gone away in the last decade.
Think about how they managed to compress RE2 onto a 512 mbit N64 cartridge!
Technically, it's not a bad video, even though it's straightforward.
But I would like to correct you on something as a developer: we don't set out to optimise games. The main issue is that corporations, AKA publishers, demand a certain amount of features in a shorter amount of time every time. Corporations are looking into AI to replace programmers, artists and designers.
If you want this to stop, Don't buy the game. Developers do not get any royalty. We just get paid a flat fee during development, and that's it. The industry has mistreated us, and now there's no such thing as work security. So in other words, f*** publishers
You know what buddy absolutely and I'm sorry i didn't push this more in the video
At the end of the day developers are just doing what they're told, devs can't be blamed for cyberpunks launch or the microtransactions in GTA 5
publishers set impossible deadlines that make it so the workers *need* to rush their set task so they don't lose their job
Completely agree with you, Frick publishers
"erm actually it's dei!!"
-some dumbass
I'm sorry, but this is total copium. Yes, publishers can be bad and make dumb decisions. But so can developers. It is not ALWAYS the fault of a publisher. Sometimes, the devs are just incompetent. Starfield doesn't look great or run well. That's not Microsoft's fault. My understanding is they are very hands-off. They had all the time and money in the world, and they still failed.
Lol you can tell none of these sweaty nerds have ever worked in a corporate environment or been responsible for delivering products
But also
.. If you want that to stop, don't work for them 🤷🏻♂️
LOOK AT SOURCE 2. Half life Alex runs like a dream on almost anything released after 2016, sure it’s still hard to run but it actually has very effective optimisation. Source 2 is the actual future of optimisation with realism
I'd genuinely play a mod that's called Half-Life: Alex
Sadly nobody is using Source 2, not even VALVe themselves since they don't do games any more :
@@Fleetfoot they're in the middle of making Deadlock tf you on about
@@Fleetfoot source 2 use will come with time, at least s&box is showing us what can be made with it, i beta-tested s&box and developed with source 2 and its a damn good engine, and hammer with source 2 is a great tool. Its not as easy to come and start modding like with source 1, but it's going to get more used as time goes on
@@alt1763and half life 3 (hopefully)
Wow bro really put up a song even and a funny pc divorce clip. This vids got it all.
Cool video, love you man❤
Battlefield 1 is a great example of a game that looks phenomenal while also being well optimised. There are countless singleplayer games that look worse and have a lot less going on yet run worse on my PC, sometimes i wish i stayed at 60fps because now i've been spoiled by 120+ it's painful to go back.
So is Dragon Age The Veilguard but you don't see anyone talking about it here. If games can launch optimized then what's the problem? Its obviously not DLSS or frame generation. Its the devs who want your money without a polished product.
GTX 1080 at 1440p over 100 frames easily. STILL
To be fair, the frostbite engine looks amazing and is well optimized.
If people get sub 60 fps on a 4090, then I’m fucked with a $300 laptop that gets sub 30 on unmodified Minecraft Java 💀
Edit: Guys I don’t play minecraft unmodified, I was just using it as an example, I use mods and get good framerates, but that wasn’t my point.
Yeah ☠️
OG Java Minecraft is still best Minecraft.
@@KRAFTWERK2K6 i agree, it just sucks that it runs at a quarter of the framerate of modern java minecraft
I mean
Minecraft Java is so bad optimized without mods
But thats not fault or anything that other games have, it was made that badly
You surely can put on Sodium and will be somewhat fine
@@KrixeyX21 Yeah I have to use like 50 mods to run at 60 fps
It actually makes me cringe so hard knowing the devs who remade Silent Hill 2 have missed the point of all the optimization techniques and visual effects of the original and what made it so highly praised from a performance standpoint. Still rendering stuff within the fog that you can't see is a huge joke, but that's what devs are doing nowadays, rendering all this pointless shit we can't see, you can't even just drop from Ultra to High in most cases, in my experience, High and Ultra have a negligible performance change on a 4090 at 4k, you gotta go to Medium which then butchers and lot of effects.
Yep. Unreal just doesn't scale like games used to. For example the new marvel rivals runs terrible whethever it's ultra or low. It seems they're designed for dlss to pickup the slack for lack of optimization
What they should've done is use more aggressive LOD. Basically swap out textures and objects for lower resolution and more jagged looking ones. About the fog though, that's just how it works. Rendering is done in a few different stages where the geometry (World, characters, ...) being rendered first and fog added later as a depth based or volumetric post-processing effect. This means that if there's fog in a game so dense you cannot see through, performance was wasted.
Not sure about this, but just like most AAA studios nowadays, they might've just been given to little time to properly finish the game before release. Trust me on this, because I'd know: game devs are passionate about gaming and making games that are enjoyable and run well. Doing it as a job is from what I've heard extremely stressful and it has become very apparent that publishers keep setting more insane deadlines because of their investors. I mean just look at any newly release AAA game.
Everything goes to shit once money's involved.
At least you got that Resident Evil combat the series is known for. Even got the ugly characters that are popular these days.
@@GFClockedthats sad especially considering that its a competitive shooter
Yeah, Silent Hill wasn't even supposed to have fog. It was just a solution because of the limitations of draw distance on PS1 and it ended up making the game scarir and more atmospheric. It's so ironic for it not to be used this way, as it's the reason it even exists
13:00 thats just fxaa, msaa (the best kind) basically renders the edges of stuff at 2x quality, while dlaa (also pretty cool) is like dlss, but it starts at native resolution, essentially upscaling the image to downscale it, and it looks great!
TAA and Frame Gen/AI Upscaling are cancer on modern video games
i fw them so its not now
i agree with the frame gen but dlss looks almost same as native most of the time sometimes it even looks better than native
No it’s lazy developers. If you actually have a well optimized game and then put dlss/fg on top of that, then it’s a godsend.
@@ababafgatg true it wasn't intended to be used as a bandage by devs to add to their un-optimized games but i prefer if the tech never came out in the first place, it's doing more harm
rest in peace good graphics without anti aliasing
6:36 saying 4k is the mainstream resolution is insane. we're barely hopping on 1440p much less 4k
Map developer here, I absolutely adore optimizing my craft - I sometimes spend hours going through trees, polygon by polygon deleting the nodes until im able to maintain the high fidelity and optimized balance - using textures to my advantage, creating depth with just a specular and normal map rather than more mesh detail. I love the "lowpoly" look but im not talking about PS1, im talking about mid 2000s GTA SA mod kind of lowpoly - where the models look great, but still videogamey. that's what I miss so much about videogames - the 7th generation (PS3 & XB360) was the BEST. optimized games, great graphics, yet the install is like 8gb, the target FPS was 30 back then, the same could be done now with 60-120fps if the same techniques were applied.
I don't know about you, but I would be so happy with games looking visually a bit worse, if it meant they ran like 7th gen games on PC. EX L4D2, game is from 2009, looks stunning, runs amazing - i dont know why we strayed far away from that.
No one cares who you are, you place trees on a hill, thats not impressive
I'd first like to say thank you for making this comment, I love to see somebody who's experienced such as yourself sharing what they think on the matter (also I too am a huge fan of the low poly style)
Games like GTA 3, although outdated, have a certain charm to them and I love the way the models move in cutscenes
It's just so animated lmfao
totally agree with you, the ps3 games were just on the sweet spot in term of performance and look...feel after RDR1 and GTA 5 that was all we needed for game graphics and my god the games sizes are unreasonable nowadays and I am afraid it's not stopping anytime soon, Sparking Zero is like a shinning hope for me with it 29 Gbs size and it shows it can be done in UE5 if the devs given more time and cared.
@@CrackedJust1n I'm glad to chime in :) I know the topic of my comment is a bit different than the video, but I feel like everything from bad 3d models, cheap upscaling/AA, bad GUI design (souless 8th gen style... thanks Last of Us) is working in unison to provide the end-user with a worse experience nowadays when it comes to games. Back in the day, the most you had to work with when it comes to rendering assistance was anti-aliasing, and primitive anti-aliasing at that. It sounds pretty backwards, but I feel as though devs should use the absolute worst systems they can for when it comes time to optimize assets or rendering - this is what I did. used a 896mb video card, 3gb of ddr2 ram, and a duo core from 2005 up until 2020, made the most optimized maps of my life during that era. If my PC would run it, any can. I also used to make some mods for GTA SA during that time, including graphics mods and overhauls, which again received great ratings since I developed them on such terrible hardware, if I could run it, anyone could. That was the one benefit to bad hardware, knowing that I was the worst case scenario lol.
A lot of devs nowadays also just don't know how oldheads did it, which is a gigantic issue - depending on modern PC hardware to do the heavy lifting is the main reason we're in this mess. I also notice nowadays that culling isn't as common - if you used a freecam mod for say PS3/XB360 era games, you'll notice you can't go far at all without the map despawning or the skybox turning black, something to that effect - games nowadays are largely more open world /less linear and use... chunks (not the right terms but I'm blanking) less and less - badly made LODs (usually made with cheap add-ons that generate LODs instead of handmade) are the standard, but are also more resource heavy than just culling.
There are so many methods that can be done to improve game performance, I'm only a map artist and not a full on game developer, so I'm only saying what I know in my field, I'm not saying I could do better than a AAA studio when it comes to map design, but I definitely could beat most of them when it comes to getting maps playable and smooth xD
I will give credit and say that open world is the hardest to develop maps for, I am a racing game map maker, so I get to cheap out on detail. 2d trees and tree walls near the edge of the track, low quality textured distant objects, etc... whereas an open world game needs 3d trees everywhere in the playable area and can't afford to have "low quality" assets that a player will be able to see... at 8k, 240hz, with a full HD capture card or OBS to nitpick and poke fun at online xD, map devs have it rough.
I always love watching videos on the downfall of modern gaming, it's something I've been preaching for years. It's also what got me I to GUI design, I noticed the games I associate nostalgia or fond memories with, usually have a cozy GUI that is absent from modern games. Bo1, MW2, old gen GTA 5 come to mind- people really don't associate this with why modern games suck (and of course, your video brings up more important topics like... actually rendering the game itself) but it's these little details of games that add up and overall contribute to why modern games are just... meh. Bad upscaling, soulless GUI, bland maps, it all snowballs.
Earned a sub from the video, thanks for taking the time to reply as well - hopefully youtube doesn't block this half an hour in the works comment for no reason lol
@@omerosman1280nail on the head. PS3 GTA5 always will hold a special place in my heart - the old gen map, sharp, contrasty, bloomy graphics were so fitting for the game.... could've done with more than a like 25fps average, but that's an impressive game to get running on a PS3 lol.
feels like the next gen port stripped away some of those artistic touches for a more bland game. black and white UI, less visual world style in favor of "HD", imo GTA5 on PC holds up today... but the performance is meh, and it doesn't have the same charm as old gen... actually pretty hard to describe now that I'm trying to lol - swear it's not just the nostalgia talking
As someone who loves programming, it really disheartens me to see so many big game companies just completely skip any and all optimization phases and just use whatever half-baked soluition Unreal has so that people who only ever use non-realtime rendering programs don't have to adjust anything.
Im currently learning game development, and im like surprised to notice how many many developers aren't optimizing. (I barely get any chances of playing video games so myself havent even noticed for like a while) Ive learn how to optimized in my courses and my teacher specifed its a big deal to do this since it will help bring a bigger audience, more accessibility, etc because not only it bring "more money" but also show that you're going beyond which brings trust with your audience.
More audience means more money, no??
If only the corporate executives at game publishers could get this through their thick skulls.
Employees do what they are told
If its up to devs they would make the best thing possible but thats not how jobs work
You get a task and a timeframe
@@jeonbunnykookie9515
*Revelation 3:20*
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless.
*Revelation 22:12-14*
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
It is such a basic principle of Supply and Demand. If a game cannot run well on CURRENT GEN hardware, consumers will simply buy something else instead. I don't know what's the deal with Devs nowadays, TAA/RT/FG/PT Killed ingenuity and innovation.
The era where you could slot a 1050 Ti into an off-lease, i7 2600k Dell Optiplex and play games with your friends with $2000+ pcs was crazy.
Also, this whole thing is a repeat of when the PS3 and 360 allowed for online updates:
For what started as ‘great tech for gamers’ that would be able to get new content, it was later just abused to rush out broken games and then give them ‘day 1 patches’.
You hit the nail on the head with this entire video.
That was literally my first gaming PC lmfao, I was 12 years old when I got a 1050ti slapped in my office PC that I bought off paper route money, I remember feeling on top of the world like I could run anything
I'm literally gaming with 1050ti slapped to an old office PC (though I've swapped out the ancient core 2 duo to i5 4690k when it was current). Still works really well for my needs
I have a PC with a 1050ti for 8 years and still working well. Didn't play much games recently because of life and the insane storage requirements for modern games. Tbh, I just want to play games for fun and there's retro & indie games that pretty much satisfy my needs.
Me playing The Finals on 1050ti: 😅 I ain't upgrading until I need to
Me playing marvel rivals on a 1050ti
it's running on 45fps, the card is crying but still fighting
These new framegen and upscale technologies would be considered good if the devs were aiming at 120fps+, but they're literally depending on them to reach 60fps
like consistent 60fps+ at 1080p would make PC gaming just perfect for everyone, it should be the bare minimum to be able to enjoy a game.
Anyone that says 30fps is enough, is a mouth breather
30fps is enough... for very slow-paced games.
For games that don't need quick camera movements 30 is fine, anything with quick camera movements is nauseating though.
I can live with 30, but that's because I never "flick" my mouse when aiming or looking around.
FG is quite literally intended to be used above 60 FPS. If you're using it to reach 60 FPS, you're using it wrong.
Frame gen also causes lots of input lag, and both cause smearing
I just found your channel dude, keep it up¡¡¡
0:45 Yes, it's a real game. Available on Steam for $0.69.
How do you know‽
Obviously it is, who even doubted it?
I have a question: How do you know about that game?
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3welcome to steam, your one toggle away from seeing hentai every time you go on it
What region? Mine says $8
As a guy with a RTX 3050, I was genuinely amazed with how well RDR2 ran on it. Extremely playable framerates, even with some reshades and no DLSS. The 3050 is actually pretty decent. It can run quite a lot of games pretty well. But if we go to the newer games.... like... assassins creed mirage. Yeah, you can really see how badly games are optimized nowadays.
That's why I hate when people tell me "oh it's time to upgrade!" No. No it isn't. There's no reason why older games and even Resident Evil 4 remake (a game from last year) should run fine on my 3050 but a game from this year can't
@@Neros_light there is a very obvious reason, re4 remake ran on ps4, its memory management was designed to target lower memory, like it or not but consoles are the target spec, and 8gb of vram is under the target spec for current gen consoles, even series s
@@Frisbie147 all I hear is that devs are becoming lazy because the technology of today allows them to even if it fucks over most of the average players
@@ChloeLovelocks it takes more effort to author higher fidelity textures dude, maybe you need to check your hearing
I had the rtx3050 and I hated that gpu it was horrible, I finally got a rtx4070ti super like a few months ago and I love it
For me the biggest issue with RT is that the visual difference with it on and off is like going from high settings to very high settings, which is usually a very small difference, but the performance gap is like going from 1080p to 4K, or even worse.
Most of the time the visual difference is so minute that without a direct comparison you can't even tell what is raytraced and what isn't, so I can't really see any decent reason to sacrifice half of my FPS for some lighting that I won't even be able to appreciate
Okay but that RDR2 critique is an absolute blunder. It is one of the best looking and optimized games of the decade. My old RX570 and Ryzen 3 can run it at 50-60FPS on high.
You know optimization is bad when the best GPU and CPU in the market currently can't run most modern games in highest settings in stable 1080p 60fps. What a complete utter joke.
Edit : I'm seeing most people in the comment below misunderstood my message, I'm saying most modern games unable to maintain a STABLE 1080p 60fps at max settings with the best CPU and GPU in the current market, not unable to achieve. GZW : Tiger Bay area drop to 40+ fps on 1080p, Hogwarts Legacy, main assembly area drop between 50-70fps on 1080p, TLOU dropped to 30fps+ on chapter 4-6, Stalker 2 dropped to 40+ fps on town areas with a lot of NPC, NMRIH 2 dropped to 40+fps when reaching generator area, these are just some of the many examples.
I want whatever you're on
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about....the best cpu and gpu can run most modern games at the highest settings at 4k60. Maybe not all with PT, but certainly most and definitely any game that came out prior to the last 2 years.
@@MDxGano"Certainly most" ?Are you joking?Like we are talking best of best it should able to run every single game in highest setting without an issue. Thats isnt even what they should be aspiring they should aspiring to work properly in average hardware.
@MundaneCat that's not true though, optimization is bad, but we don't have to make up wild untrue stuff to make it worse than it is, it's bad enough in reality.
@MDxGano that is also not true in a vast majority of cases. If you are using DLSS or framegen to achieve """"4k 60fps"""" then you aren't actually playing the game AT 4k or 60fps, you are using a marketing gimmick to get a fake 4k and 60fps, this is part of the problem, publishers and hardware manufacurers want to have the "4k" on the box without actually being able to truly produce those results, which only emboldens them to be lazy about optimization because why bother if """"4k*"""" is seen as the same as 4k.
15:10 just dont test games with dlss/fsr, fg enabled and test it on rtx 2060
many developers do exactly this. for example gta6 from the leaks was being tested on a gtx 1080 which is quite old
@GoCinq5well its also been in development since before the 1080 came out 😂
RTX 2060 gang
Exactly, I won't even run a game with DLSS on, it looks horrible. People that say "but it looks the same as 4k" need to invest in eye surgery.
A 2060 shouldn't be the target for a full 1080p render resolution at this point, are you mad? I say that as someone who has a 2060 Super. That's just wasteful. A 2060 should be tested at 1080p DLSS Quality or even Balanced at this point in its life.
My 3060ti runs HZD as quiet as a whisper, but oh boy you load up anything not properly optimized (even old EA/Ubi games from last gen) and boom, bomber jet. When minimum settings XCom2 is giving it fits loading in the _entire_ roster at once, but Hitman can splurge on over a hundred NPC models in a single level with no sweat, you gotta wonder wtf kinda rigs the devs are using to not spot these glaring issues. Or maybe it's deliberate, idk.
XCOM 2 developers also made Marvel Midnight Suns and that was one of the first games that my 1080ti was like not happening buddy
Just finished HZD on my 3070ti and I didn’t hear it at all except when my open-case GPU caught a bag of pretzels my dumbass left on the shelf.
That game was so fucking good wish I knew remastered existed before I just finished it last week.
@@ptrkmr given the state of things, I kinda doubt the remaster would be as optimized
I have been a youtube user since like 20 years ago and this is like the 4th time i genuenly like a video i watch, i never comment or anything but i really liked this video, your wayr of talking and overall everything, great content
That`s what i thought too ;)
Thx for this Video !
2018 was a special breakthrough year for gaming. So many of the titles that came out 6 years ago like Detroit Become Human, God of War, RDR2, could all come out today and look next gen.
Hopefully 2025 is the next Golden year, 2018 was insane for gaming
And none of those game use Unreal Engine, they both look better and run better.
Yeah no they couldn't... If you can't tell the difference between a 2024 title and a 2018 title you just know nothing about computer graphics and need to have your eyes checked too. All due respect for those great games but you can't do much to seem like you came out later than you did. Even RDR2 has clear signs of its age.
@@albert2006xpi wonder why you think rdr2 is showing its age, hec it's seems to still very much ve the go to comparison anyone makes whenever a game trying to be "the best looking" comes out.
I remember my 560ti that CAME OUT BEFORE BATTLEFIELD 3 ran Battlefield 3 on ULTRA 60FPS.
It's unthinkable to run a brand new AAA graphic-intensive game on a 60 series card in 2024 at ultra. The gaming industry has grown 20x since 2011 and all this money is just causing them to pump and dump games on the market with no optimization
14:39 the unfortunate reality is that developers cannot slow down, due to various constraints like impossible deadlines, already overworked staff and unpaid overtime, all of which are 200% the fault of the publisher and/or its shareholders, as far as my knowledge goes
That is true, I'm sure for almost all cases of this happening, it's just developers doing what they're told to do.
false
The song is awesome!
thank you for the very well made, informative and entertaining video
Upscaling should be considered a crime against humanity
Why did they not condemn this when the bible was written
At least when not labelled as upscaling. DLSS quality looks better than running 1080p on a 1440p screen.
I wouldn't go that far. If it was used to get a little extra performance out of an aging system that would be fine. But now games seem to be almost unplayable without some form of upscaling even on top-of-the-line PCs and that's just silly.
Using upscaling to determine hardware requirements*
Honestly that’s an overstatement upscaling in of itself is really amazing when you think about and can be really cool it’s more just that developers have ruined and defeated the purpose of it
STUTTERS! TRAVERSAL STUTTERS now in every second game. Especially if we are talking about UE5 gaming on PC. It is killing the whole experience. I have two high-end PC's based on Intel and AMD with top hardware, but now I'm feeling that I have two buckets of potatoes. TREAVERSAL STUTTERS must be solved this sh**t can't be normal. Witcher 4 is on UE5. So I think it will be another stuttering mess on the PC.
P.S. Cool F*cking Song! Banger!
Really hate the switch to UE5 for witcher 4. I mean if its better for development and the final release i get it, but cdprojekts engine for cp2077 is so fucking good at this point and i know were going to have to make concessions to deal with UE5’s issues. Any time a game comes out on UE5 I just know i have to deal with traversal stutters and nothing can be done. Every fucking game
Stutter Engine 5
Don't say this on a Steam forum because people will still insist that your PC is bad and THEY don't have stuttering so it doesn't exist.
Fr
@Texelion fr too
2018 gamedev: Let's put rain only around player camera, so it will optimized and still gave the same effect.
2024 gamedev: Global physics based rain that affect realtime global illumination system, lets goo
You need global rain for the ray tracing. Ray tracing was an idea that was defeated by the death of Moore's Law.
2004 gamedev: let's make rain just a flat texture that is rotated towards the player.
as someone with a
7800x3d
64gb ram (cl30 6000mhz)
4080 super
it is insane how little FPS I will still get at 1440p. youd think that on the complete minimum settings, with ULTRA performance DLSS enabled, id be getting like 500 fps on Fortnite or bo6. but no, im rarely cracking 300 on bo6 and will rarely max out my refresh rate on Fortnite. dont get me wrong, being able to cap out a game at 360hz is crazy, and its a great experience in terms of smoothness, but I shouldnt have to have my settings on the literal lowest possible combination to do that, especially when I have the second fastest graphics card on the planet.
the worst part is that it has genuinely made me consider a 5090 on jan 30 when it comes out. am I being a little irresponsible with money? sure, but I shouldn't have to be buying the literal fastest components on the market just to fill the frames on a relatively normal monitor when youre talking about modern OLEDs. hell, theres been 4k 240Hz panels out for YEARS, and a 750hz monitor just was showcased the other day. im unsure the resolution (likely 1080) but thats crazy. obviously nobody is expecting silent hill 2 to get to 240fps at 4k, but id be surprised if people can even get cs2 to hit 700fps.
point being, its crazy how monitors, GPUs, and new AAA games seem to be in this weird dynamic where the monitors get faster, the GPUs get gigantic (excluding 50 series FE cards) and powerful, but the AAA games just get even worse optimization and can barely be run over 90 fps on mid settings with PCs that cost a down payment on a car.
im fortunate enough that I work a job and work hard enough to be able to buy the components that I do, and since my current setup is my first PC, it frustrates me to know how most people, with things like a 3060 or 3070, must be feeling when they see a new game and try to boot it up only to have their VRAM max out instantly and the game runs at 15 fps.
I remember using SMAA for Anti-Aliasing and it was relatively sharp while mostly eliminating jaggy edges, ompared to TAA being a blurry mess. Now everything is TAA and alternatives are not even in the game apart from DLSS/FSR :(
The illusion of choice
@@CrackedJust1none of my fav staind albums
SMAA can not deal with shimmering issues though, and those become more and more common as games use more and more advanced shaders.
SMAA was crap.
Do you know what AA Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal use?
I never cared for photorealism because it's a goal that is virtually unattainable. Unless you're a boomer who hasn't touched a game in your life, not even the recent Indiana Jones game is gonna fool you into thinking it's reality.
Stuff like stencil shadows from F.E.A.R. make far more of an impression on me than the amount of hairs being simulated in Arthur Morgan's beard.
That and the fact that if devs optimized their slop these games would often run on hardware from a decade ago (a bold claim but I stand by it).
Half Life 2 is still an amazing looking game, and thats from 2004, it still looks so clear and sharp
Whose life?
Rdr2 is really a bad to get in this discussion as that game actually runs on a box from 2013
To be fair, aiming for the unattainable is how you reach greatness.
In this context : photorealism is the most expensive form of graphics. If you can make/run photorealism, you can make/run anything.
I definitely agree it should not be the main goal of the industry and definitely not the customers'.
@Dante02d12 Sure the search for higher fidelity has pushed tech forward, but I don't believe any game designer's dreams for gameplay/mechanics have been hampered by tech since atleast 2012. All tech increases have been in the name of visuals.
Everything in terms of gameplay and mechanics in a game like Elden Ring could've been done in 2008.
Honestly, this is one of the main reasons I don’t play AAA games anymore. Not only are they ludicrously expensive and often poorly made, I can barely even run the ones that overcome these problems…
Same
not to mention they have less gameplay than older AAA games
i just play what my pc can handle lmao
Spatial AA methods do not simply "blur the screen", since you could just do that with something like a Gaussian filter. Instead, they specifically target the removal of jagged edges in the image.
Game studios these days seem to think it’s all about flashy graphics, but they’re missing the point. Look at those low-graphics or pixelated games-they have way more dedicated players than most AAA titles. Why? Because they remember what gaming is really about. A game isn’t supposed to just mimic real life with ultra-realistic visuals; it’s supposed to be fun, engaging, and feel like an actual game-not some life simulation
Especially Ubisoft’s so-called "quadruple A" projects-they hyped them up so much, but they just ended up being a disaster. It’s like they poured all their focus into making things look good, but forgot about making them play good. At the end of the day, it’s the gameplay and experience that keep players hooked, not just the shiny graphics.
EXACTLY THIS!
I agree so much you have no idea
This is so refreshing to listen to someone with a brain once in a while. Keep it up, Justin! Your channel deserves much more views and subs!
Thanks for the supporting words! Although I'm not too sure I have a brain either there's quite a bit of crickets up there
@@CrackedJust1n me too man, don't worry, we've all been there xD
Actually the opposite, lack of brain.
homie reads the opening paragraph of a few wiki pages and says "thing bad, me no like", there are so many people like this who go online and claim games are unoptimized without any inside knowledge on how software is made or think they know more then they do, I doubt they could name a single optimization or reason why things like TAA or most temporal effects are now common, I would of liked for them to take time and look into why things are the way they are instead of calling everyone in an industry "lazy", maybe reach out to people with knowledge on the topic and get actual answers instead of making another clickbait video being overly negative
@@WEBB99 bro I ain't reading that crap, take a chill pill
TAA: imma bout to blur this man’s whole career
You mean TAA: I'm about to solve the anti-aliasing problem and pave the way for better ways to do it like DLSS. It's a bit blurry because it stops the flicker and noise pixels have in movement, it runs much faster than supersampling and you can just solve the blurriness with something like DLDSR that sharpens it, getting your anti-aliased stable image at a sharp level.
@@albert2006xp mfw: ID's TSSAA for games like Doom Eternal is superior to most implementations of TAA, I've seen. Near perfect AA and amazing performance.
@@albert2006xpTAA looks like utter trash no matter what you do to it. Makes the whole screen just slur together like an oil painting being shook while it’s still wet.
Hey... I'm gonna make 4k look worse than 1080.
Also, I'll make sure 1080 looks like 540.
(These GPU tea-whats forgot what effective resolution is)
@@SpartanAltair15 The alternative is the entire screen flickering madly and distractingly from bad AA since you're not clamping the pixel changes (what causes the "blur" effect). Just use a sharpening pass like everyone else, genius.
THANK YOU. I’ve been feeling like this for ages. Hardware limitations are what made developers more creative and resourceful. They learned to fake what they’re now doing in real time (at great processing cost), yeeeears ago. So the jump in quality isn’t even that huge in most cases because by and large, we’ve seen it all before. Obviously some exceptions to that, but as a general thing. There are times when I’m playing a game and it’s max’d out and running like shit and I literally cannot even tell why cos it just doesn’t even look impressive. Starfield, looking at you.
6:36 4k is NOT the industry mainstream resolution. only 5% of steam users play in 4k, and most console games either dont run 4k natively or run it at 30 fps.
the guy who made the video is clueless he only made the video to regurjitate a topic that has been circling the online gaming community...
Then why does every current console release target for 4k or 4k upscaled? Oh wait, because most TV's are 4k, you know, the industry standard for TV's at the moment.
@@grimtarotThe statement was in reference to PC. Also just doing some research it seems that while it is more common for people to have 4K televisions, most still have 1080p/i displays. Probably just because we’ve been on 1080 displays for what feels like 10+ years, trying to topple them is going to take a while.
Industry standard on the industry's end, not the user's end.
Totally 1440p is the sweet spot right now and 4k is still a few gens away
Bro cooked with end song
Thanks homie ❤️
also is it me? or does upscaling look horrendous? all these little pixels piss me off
THATS WHAT IM SAYING
Looks fine to me
Yeah native rendering always looks better. I hate upscaling.
I'm happy that people are talking more and more about these issues. Forced TAA is horrible and now we get forced upscaling in games like Alan Wake 2 or with TSR always enabled by default in the case of UE5 games like Hellblade 2 and Wukong. It's crazy that I have to edit an ini file to turn the bluriness off, and sometimes that's not even possible.
Dithering and the reliance on post processing to solve it is so lame. Dragon Age Veilguard of all things has better hair tech than most of these games without dithering.
I rarely have issues with 1080p, and I'm happy to use 1080p for decades to come.
Never upgrade to a higher resolution, now I can't play any game without 1440p, lmfao.
personally, i’ve considered 1440p, but that’s mostly because i have difficulty looking for a 1080p monitor that meets my other criteria
I grew up with 480p, and I will probably never have a problem with it.
480p is love, 480p is life
@@POSSUM_chowg yeah so did I but i'm not a caveman..
@@nooux1966so do I lol, I bought a new rig and was like oh my card can run 1440p at a stable FR. Hell yeah lemme try 1440p lol. Yeah now when anything is on 1080p I have an aneurysm 😂
I do agree with most of your points, but I feel like the biggest one is engines like Unreal utilise GUI systems for their coding, which is great for new developers starting out, but it's resulting in a generation of devs who don't REALLY understand the code that they are compiling, and therefore can't efficiently optimise it and are therefore resorting to shortcuts like TAA and upscaling to make up for this.
Another result of this is that there seem to be less and less devs that are actually capable of creating their own engine, all they know how to do is manipulate the UI of one that's been packaged up for them, meaning there is going to be less and less competition for companies like Unreal, and disincentivises Epic from optimising their systems to be more performant and competitive because everyone is going to be forced to use their engine anyway.
No you are wrong. There is no point in making your own engine unless you want to learn how they work or your game can't be made with currently available tech.
Using visual scripting is a great way to boost development times, and it doesn't have an impact on performance I don't know where you heard that.
Devs used to be engineers, now their mechanics 😅
@@user-ne9sd4ow1o holy shit, I think that's an excellent way to put it. Instead of people making their own stuff, they just use other peoples tech, thus not really innovating, and allowing the flaws of the old tech.
@@TheCommunistRabbit does it really have zero impact on performance? Surely it has a tiny bit, if only because then the dev can't then optimise at as much as possibly even to perfection), since its auto generated in the background, right?
I thought the whole drawback of visual scripting was that it was less performant (even if only slightly), but easier to do than writing the code manually. Like coding a GUI (easier to maintain and customise to your liking, including optimisations, but harder to initially create) vs using a drag and drop editor (easier to initially create, but harder to maintain and customise, including optimisations).
@@CentreMetrethe difference in performance is so small it's not even worth mentioning. We're talking nanosecond for the same function in c++ vs blueprint.
It may cause some fps impact at around 300+ fps but before then there's really no noticable difference.
Its so funny when companies market a game as a "competitive shooter", but it doesnt event have an option to turn off upscaling / antialiasing and runs at 60-144 frames on a modern rig.
i love my competitive shooters where the game is too blurry when i move my mouse to see anything in my peripheral vision! I love being forced to use settings that ive had disabled for years because of rushed development!
Yeah I hear Marvel Rivals has some pretty atrocious optimization
Rivals is so dumb, they don't even let you pick low GI when you press "LOW" preset option.
You have to manually select lowest option. These people actually think everyone should run maxed out raytraced builds of MP games. I guarantee most of these new devs are console players or mobile "gamers" who have no idea how PC gaming works.
Rivals is also a boring game
Fancy seeing you here bhop man, the world is small after all
I miss when games actually had the visuals to back up their hardware requirements like in crysis or battlefield 4. Those games still look modern and actually run well now. The visual peak had been reached back in 2013. Unless you're assassins creed. I still have nightmares about that face glitch haha.
if every game was optimized like half life 2,we would have unique artstyles,it does not matter if it was intended to be realistic but ends up looking cartoony at the same time,it looks cool and its better for your pc to not sound like a jet engine within 30 seconds of opening a game
Half-Life 2 was fairly heavy on hardware when it was released, it running well has less to do with it being amazingly optimized and more to do with it being almost 20 years old at this point.
@@yellowblanka6058 not every old game runs good, tho. GTA 4 is an.... example. Historically one of the worst ports in gaming history, but still, old is never a guarantee that it'll run good, it truly DOES come down to how the games are optimized - every game when it's new will push the system, that's how we as developers innovate games, seeing how far we can push relatively common consumer hardware at the time.
Also let's not forget, old games aren't even a guarantee to run on modern hardware, or if they do, it has countless bugs that require community patches - old Source games are far from perfect on modern hardware (hence the "never tab out of source games" meme exists), but their credit is well earned.
Not really, hl2 has bad graphics since i have glasses now but still better than most game at it's time
And many PCs at the time plus the original Xbox struggled at running them because of the source engine physics
@tarekcat1 Doom 3 and Half Life 2 even running on the original Xbox was impressive though. As was Tomb Raider 2013 supporting Windows XP
@@lmcgregoruk Half-life 2 on original Xbox didn't look as good as PC version, lots of levels were modified to minimize rendering distance, and frame rate wasn't very stable either.
9:38 what always confuses me is when developers want to make games look better than pixar movies when they took days to render a single frame, their trying to impliment the same effect in real time without any optimisations
Absolutely not. Ray-tracing comes with a ton of optimizations compared to a movie. For instance, basically all real-time RT is rendered at a grainy resolution and then cleaned by a denoiser. In addition, there are things like skipping the AO pass, not enabling reflections within reflections etc...
@@disrupt94okay, its still undeniably more taxing to render that in real time than a pre rendered scene for a movie. And even the highest end consumer hardware struggles with it at 60fps.
@@disrupt94 The denoisers arent doing shit. Shadows and reflections look more garbled and grainy than rasterized version since they are stomping the resolution so low trying to make it run on 4090 1080p. We need much much more powerful gpu's before raytracing is viable.
@@imrileth6618 denoisers aren't doing shit huh. Guess who has never seen an image before it was denoised.
@@SimonVaIe Ive done 3d rendering so i do know. Why are the reflections and shadows unstable and shimmering then with raytracing enabled.
The absolute worst part about modern games is the fsr they use because the sheer about of static in every single modern game hurts my eyes
It has become quite common for most triple A games to be extremely blurry even with every upscaling option off
In fact, some games have it so the only way to remove blur is to *use* upscaling
The fact Portal 2 a game from 2011 looks clearer than most games released is insane.
@@CrackedJust1n it's mostly because of TAA. The shitty industry standard anti aliasing algorithm. Modern games mostly comes with TAA as only option or even without option to disable it. Funny enough the only way to get rid of it is DLSS
If you have to use FSR at this point it's your own fault. It's not like years ago where DLSS was only in new Nvidia GPUs. You can probably get a DLSS capable card for real cheap nowadays.
@albert2006xp dlss is dog shit as well, looks horrible. Anyone that says you cant see the difference needs their eyes checked
Nice video. I personally have always preferred to " Down - Scale " from a Higher resolution to a Lower Resolution , which allows the downscaled image to be better then otherwise it could be. How much better would it be - if Down-Scaling was the more used and preferred option. The capabilities of the hardware we have now would be so much better and maybe be more afforable then what they are now.
What's sad about the Silent Hill 2 performance is that the fog was initially created to hide the short draw distance possible on the PS1. Now the fog is costly to performance, and hides already-rendered level geometry. How have devs forgotten such a basic rule of optimization? The answer is because of how advanced Unreal Engine is, they think they can just enable the latest untested features, make high-quality models and animations, place tons of light sources, and the engine will handle the rest.
Edit: Also I think 6:07 might be wrong. I might be mistaken, but I think it's using Nanite (a new feature in UE5) to continuously generate lower poly versions of distant objects to reduce quad overlap. Nanite is very performance intensive compared to normal LOD's, but it's a shortcut. You can put an extremely high-poly model into the game and the engine will automatically make low-poly versions while the game runs and the loss in visual fidelity is minimal.
literally just repeating exactly what he said in the video. fuck off.
One point to make about wireless controllers, including mice and keyboards, the wireless technology in them has gotten so good and efficient that the latency is the exact same as their wired counterpart, and in some cases even faster.
Wireless controller/mouse latency is so low these days as to be pretty much identical to wired.
Or at least fast enough to not be noticeable at all.
Now frame gen.... that will get you feeling latency.
And it's not like you don't feel bad latency on a controller. It's awful.
I understand upscaling. It's great tech other than the overarching problem of being a crutch for big games. I generally don't dislike it existing.
I do dislike frame generation existing. HATE that crap.
To get it looking and feeling semi-decent, it's strongly recommended to have a real base fps of 60 at least.
Yet a few games have been using or recommending using frame gen to get from 30 to 60.
What. The. Crap. That's gotta stop right now 😂
Mice, yes, seems image sensor has its own coprocessor and MUCs of mice don't have much thing to do.
Keyboard, no, matrix scan is quite expensive than you think. there are still few keyboards performs as good as wired one. but most of games don't need the high performance of keyboards.(8K, there are only few genres have benefit from it.)
Controllers...... first-party is OK, but latency is still issue with third-party controllers. but first-party controllers, they will all have drift, unless you mod it.
@@sawdust8691Why is this comment structured like a poem?
Yeah, a friend of mine also thought wireless meant a ton of input lag. Not the case anymore. The USB interface can actually add more lag than just using something wirelessly in some cases.
I was surprised when i looked at wireless mouse latency recently. 1ms, which is apparently lower than my 7ms mouse, which I was surprised it was that high
What I never understood was why developers decided to use TAA when you could use FXAA with 2x MSAA and get the same effect with less of a performance loss
I run that on every game possible and yeah, works like a charm idk why they’re trying to reinvent the wheel
I think TAA allows them to use half assed effects to use more lights and blur the f***ed effects so they look right.
most engines today use a defered renderer. defered renderers are alot better at rendering dynamic lights and other complex shader effects than the old forward renderers where, however defered's biggest issue is the inability to use multi sample anti aliasing techniques due to the staged buffer based rendering pipeline that defered renderers use
@@foxden908 Ahh so that's why some people say to use forward rendering in UE5
@@foxden908 deferred can do MSAA (RDR2 and GTA 5 aswell Max Payne 3 for example which uses deferred renderer but has MSAA), however it's run worse on deferred, harder to implement on deferred compared to forward rendering, and finally, not as effective as MSAA on forward renderer.
you stated that ray tracing is just an option and you don't have to have it turned on but you can't turn it off in games like stalker 2, Indiana Jones and star wars outlaws
we should all just swap to indie devs at this point 😭
Yep, and watch how an yellow circle chase a red square.
If you like untextured low polygon models, VHS/PS1 shaders and the game lasting 30 minutes
@@SomeRandomPiggo what indie games are you playing
@@omelette_official You're right, it's a massive generalization but there is a reason most of the best indie games are 2D and stylized, it allows for a smaller development team. If you like that then sure but I think that the genres AAA games target (and therefore the fans of that genre) are unfortunately most often exclusive to the large companies that can afford all of the costs involved.
VotV being the most laggy and simpy-graphics game is here for u
I work in the gaming industry, but need to stay anonymous for the safety of my work. I'm Gen Z, and this is what I've seen since joining the industry in 2020.
The lack of optimization in many modern games can be traced to a combination of systemic issues. Developers often lack the funding and time needed to properly optimize their games, as many projects fall into development hell or face rushed production schedules. This is largely driven by stakeholders prioritizing quick profits over quality, making decisions that force developers to release unfinished products. These rushed games, while they might have had the potential to be great, are poorly optimized and heavily reliant on post-launch updates or hardware advancements to function properly.
I've noticed several senior game developers point out that many newcomers to the industry lack knowledge about optimization. Some are even educated without considering optimization, leading them to disregard it entirely. To make matters worse, there are those who purposely overlook optimization and attempt to persuade others that it's entirely pointless (I wish I could say I’m exaggerating). There needs to be an investment from studios to teach proper optimization techniques and allow time for teams to apply these optimizations. This isn't the developers' fault, and consumers need to be more empathetic toward developers. It's the stakeholders and their lackluster care for the gaming industry.
This issue is compounded by the current economic uncertainty the world is facing. Many wealthy stakeholders are focused on maximizing short-term profits to protect their financial interests, leading to an environment where cutting corners and rushing products is the norm. In this dynamic, hardware manufacturers like Nvidia and AMD benefit significantly. Poorly optimized games create an artificial demand for newer, more powerful hardware, which consumers are compelled to purchase to overcome performance issues that could have been addressed with proper optimization.
TLDR: This cycle benefits both stakeholders and hardware manufacturers, while consumers and developers bear the cost of incomplete and unoptimized products. It’s a system where the drive for profit perpetuates dependency on new hardware, reinforcing the financial interests of the already wealthy.
thanks for the context, i know you gotta stay anonymous but this was a super helpful perspective
I disagree with your take that this is a "economic uncertainty" that i's driving financial capitalism: It's no "uncertainty". It always has been this way by it's mere nature, only that nowadays it has gotten so bad and shameless that people are starting to notice it.
Financial capitalism is figuratively and literally cancer. Glad brave folks like Luigi Mangione are trying to send a message.
@ Valid tbh, I think both perspectives can coexist:
Yes, economic uncertainty and pandemic/post-pandemic pressures can push stakeholders to demand quicker returns, which hurts developers and optimization efforts.
But also, this profit-driven mindset isn’t entirely new. It has arguably been part of financial capitalism all along-it’s just that the pace and boldness of cost-cutting measures are accelerating.
It’s frustrating because it means developers often get caught in the crossfire... But having conversations like this is how people notice and, hopefully, push for change-whether that’s calling for more respect for developers’ work, better education in optimization, or rethinking how we view hardware cycles.
Now when you try to buy a pc, you get paranoid from the “is it future proof?” Due the the extremely poor optimisations in most games, unlike Doom or CSGO
PCs were never future proof, it's an oxymoron
No such thing as future proof
@slaydog5102 I mean yea technically with how game devs the 4090 will probably be considered absolete by the next generation.
Doom 2016 puts up crazy FPS on my 1060 with an i5 7th gen… not at all times, but highly playable.
@@_Mutt_my gt610 ass could never
I make scratch games, and one of my biggest project is to make teardown in 2D in Scratch, ofc i had to make it all blocks instead of voxels. But my game can run on a Chromebook, with boundary pushing features. Mainly such as decent audio, that sounds somewhat realistic. Rain sounds different when outside vs inside, but how I make this happen automatically makes this even more reactive, I mainly work on school Chromebook, and I have done nearly every optimization my game can do without fully-fully rewriting the entire game