@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat That's how they "advertised" it. Lumen and Nanite, revolutionary low cost methods that would let you push graphical boundaries at good performance. That did not work out at all huh.
The reason why we have this problem, is that the development studios got rid of all or most of the staff who knew how the proprietary engines worked, so they thought it easier and cost effective to just switch to UE instead of training new people to work with their engine.
@@goncalolopes5818 yup, Xray did a great job gameplay wise but is an absolutal clusterfuck behind the scenes. Anomaly and Gamma are the result of thousands of people squeezing every inch of performance out of the engine yet these mods barely hold together. Noone would bother to make a 2024 game on Xray
At this point they need general optimization within the engine, this is bullshit across the board how low FPS youre getting per dollar on these games @@xbm41
@xbm41 Just wrong. Soo many use amd. Better price performance. Nvidia is like 300mph bike. Its nice but expensive, yet you can get a 280mph bike for half the price
i dont want photo realistic games if hardware cant run anything. Graphics needs to stop going "futher" it needs to optimise and let hardware catch up before we go futher
How do developers then explain why their modern games look worse than their previous titles to the average consumer? Production cost and time will drastically increase as well in an industry where development costs are already out of control.
@@penumbrum3135 the "average consumer" wants a fun game.. they really don't care about graphics. Take Nintendo's games and sales.. they beat Sony's games and sales on lesser hardware and they don't get PC ports.
@@penumbrum3135 You don't chase after graphics.. Nintendo does quite fine without having to make their games "photo realistic" Nintendo's games typically outsell "photo realistic" big budget games as well or make more money using less resources
Maybe I'm looking too deep but I feel like everything is becoming more superficial. It's all about what's on the tin anymore. I am hopeful that this game in particular will get better but games these days are hype fest disappointments.
the only way we are going to get better hardware is if there is a reason for companies to create it, if there aren't demanding games like stalker 2 pushing hardware limits then hardware companies are just gonna get lazy
I remember when the splash screen "Made in Unity" was making people say the same thing haha. Its probably a more of a skill issue than which tool the developer chooses. But making games is incredibly hard so im not trying to demean anyone :D
@@VambraceMusic Its the tool. Given that even Fortnite Devs... people who actually work on and actively develop the Engine itself in the very studio that created the Engine.. has trouble optimizing for it.
@@Mr.Genesis Then why did days gone optimize it so well ? Or the mortal kombat games ? Or batman ? it's the developers' fault, they are known to ship unpolished games.
@@Mr.Genesis The tool certainly matters a lot. Its a difficult decision to make, do you spend the time and effort creating your own (like jonathan blow creating his own programming language) or use whats available at the cost of performance due to bloat in the code or whatever else it might be. Or in music, do you use samples or farm your own goats to use on the drums you build yourself. At the end youre more of a goat farmer than musician :D
Hot? Take: Not everything needs a day night cycle. Having several static ToD with high quality baked lighting is usually fine. We’re getting so lost in "mug graphics" and deadlines that were forgetting about great optimizations. And gameplay ofc GTA V had mirrors you can see yourself in. 10 years ago. Without RT.
Yeah, this take is valid if only the video aint bout stalker. Also, i think i can count with fingers what game ive played and relatively popular have night and day cycle.
that means modding will probably be killed in their games. enjoy buggy games that cant be modded to fix it. i was hoping they would kinda carry the torch if/when bethesda fails ES6, but looks like they will be the last ones with very modable AAA games in the future
@@GoalOrientedLifting Maybe you should think for a second before writing nonsense, STALKER 2 was released four days ago, there are 7 pages of mods for it on Nexus already
@@Finnishguy777 did i say there wouldnt exist mods? no. but the level of modding you can do on a game MADE with modding in mind with their OWN engine that comes with a modding kit, and unreal 5, are 2 complete different worlds. Look up what you need to know and tools required for UE modding vs how easy it is to mod with a dedicated modding kit for their own engine maybe you should think for a second
no excuse for games to run this poorly on the level of hardware we have today. dont blame the graphics cards, dont blame it on the vram. the game drops below 60fps sometimes on a 7800x3d, shame on the developers.
Yes, particularly in terms of CPU utilization it feels like Devs have become lazy simply because there is powerful hardware available to brute force stuff. I feel pretty confident that if the most powerful gaming CPU available was an R5 3600 it would be possible with work for devs to get all these games running at 120 fps on it. Not just making this up ; the fact is that there isn't any special work load or complex simulation that modern games require of the CPU which wasn't already present in games 5 years ago. It's just less efficient. With graphics at least there is the diminishing returns argument. A graphics load that is 3x harder to run only looks 5% better subjectively so that's very hard on GPUs. But for CPUs we are mostly doing the same thing as before with way more powerful processors.
@@SolidChrisGR LMFAO stop simping for devs, they are clearly at fault. "every UE5 game runs like shit" Black myth wukong doesn't, Hellbalde 2 doesn't , The finals doesn't . None of them drop below 60 on 7800x3D. probably not even below 100 lol.
The thing about these UE 5 titles that use Nanite, Nanite tanks vram. Just by playing on dx11 in the silent hill 2 remake i stopped having drops to 5 fps. I'm still rocking on an RTX 2060 that i bought in 2019, running on dx11 i played the game comfortably and streamed it on discord with no problems
Having worked with UE4 and UE5 for the better part of 4 years professionally now, I can confidently say that it's not the engine. It's a hodgepodge of previs/vertical promises, knowledge deltas and poor optimization. UE5 is a great engine - but not well documented. You've got to put in work (and a lot of it) to understand how its systems are interconnected, what it does and doesn't do well - and best practices to circumvent common issues. The engine is extermely dependant on manual performance optimization. That includes best practices, as well as hacks (And I can't overstate the importance of hacks). On top of that, when starting production, the engine has a habit of giving you false impressions about how well you're doing on performance. You'll see decent profiling stats all the time - but there's a tipping point you can't easily come back from once you've broken through that threshold because scaling back is way harder than scaling up. In the case of Stalker not everything is lost though, as its main performance issues seem to be happening on the main thread and how the game is handling its AI systems. Depending on what exactly they are doing, there's still tons of potential for optimization. But yes - that should have happened before launch, not after.
A life 2.0 isn't even in the game and it runs like shit. I bought the game cause I've played so much anomoly and I felt I owed them a purchase but I legit played 2 hours and Uninstalled going back to anomoly lmao.
@@HansLollo what do you mean by hacks? I think its definitely the engines fault if you only can get specific performance out of it if you need to use hacks that arent exposed normally. Thats some bs UX epic did here.
tl:dr if you know how to use the engine and spend a long time optimising the game you can get an unreal 5 game to run decent. The reality? Even if people do know how they wont do it because it costs time and money when these scumbags can just say "just use dlss and frame gen to get 60 fps at medium settings thats enough for us hue hue hue" Unreal is not a complicated engine compared to most others. Infact because it's the most used engine the odds of having no one familiar with it in the entire team is practically zero. It's not about lack of knowledge. It's about lack of care. Games years ago had soul and passion put into them. They were made to sell but they were made to be fun first. If that meant they took a long time to come out they would take a long time to come out. Now it's "release this game in 1 year or it's scrapped" The bar for quality simply does not exist anymore for these people.
I think source 2 is such an underrated engine. New counter strike maps look so good and run so well (I can't even imagine running something that looks similar on my 1050ti laptop in UE5). Not photo realistic like UE5, though they still look amazing, without compromising so much on performance.
Yeah source 2 is amazing. But they have the benefits of pre baking almost all the lighting. Conceptually you could probably tune a UE5 map to look as good and run as well if you spent enough time
yea, idk if valve allows others to use it to make games like source 1, but i wanna see in terms of graphic how much the source 2 engine can be pushed cause its only used in CS2 whch needs to be optimized as much as possible cause most people still play CS2 at low end pcs, in s&box whch is aiming to be cartoonish, valves newest game wch is also in cartoonish art style and HL alyx wch looked really good but i feel like its still not on max due to it being a VR game.
And also well optimized (a bit), my shit ass laptop (no graphics card, just plain potato laptop) can run cs2 with 55-60 fps, ofc at lowest settings but still looking beautiful.
Who's underrating Source 2? That's the silliest thing I've read today. Source 2 is just updated Source 1. So you're comparing a 20yrs old fully matured game engine. To a completely different, completely new engine from it's predecessor UE4, that's also only been released for a little over 2yrs now...
I care about performance much more than graphics especially in FPS games. Doom Eternal looked good and pushed almost 200 fps on my system which enhanced the gameplay. This game feels like a laggy mess in comparison.
Personally, I don't believe that game graphics need to be better than they were in about 2005. At that point, there was plenty of detail available to make everything easily identifiable. But it wasn't covered in so much unnecessary detail and special effects that you couldn't see anything. They focused on the big details that players would actually notice while playing, instead of the tiny details that only show up in perfectly staged screenshots. There's a reason that the retro look is so common in indie games. Its easier to make, easier to run, and with a bit of skill, can still look really nice. And its why I find games like Ultrakill or Animal Well more appealing looking than any new "AAA" game like CoD or Horizon. Sure, there are some cases where having tons of detail is good. Like if making your game perfectly photo realistic is an integral part of the story telling. But the vast majority of games don't need to be as detailed as they are these days. No one cares if each individual eyelash on every single NPC is modeled in so much detail that you can count the dust mites on them. Because unless you're going to spend all your time staring at a wall counting the individual pixels, you're never, EVER, going to see that detail. Instead, you're going to be sprinting past all those hundreds of gigabytes of 4k textures and hyper detailed GPU choking shaders, wishing you could be fighting monsters at more than 30 FPS. Because of that, most players are just going to end up disabling most of that detail anyway, by turning down the graphics options. Which usually makes the game look WORSE than it would have 20 years ago, while still running worse, too. Which is just plain stupid.
Not everyone wants to play an ugly ass looking game, amazing how that works with this day and age and I can agree with it to an extent depending on the style. Although I prioritize gameplay more but a good-looking game is also just as important along with it.
Their choice to switch to UE5 from UE4 is the sole reason Stalker 2 is awful imo, don't forget the A-Life will NEVER be the same in Stalker 2 since the engine they used in the older titles was built around A-Life simulation which they'll never get with UE5
@@Mr.Genesis UE4 had 30-40% more performance, making the stut.ers much less noticeable because of the much higher framerate to begin with. UE5 on the other hand..?
@@Bourinos02 oh i dont deny that. it's just that unfortunately we've been dealing with it for so long that people have forgotten that "Unreal Stutter butter" was a meme
Make low graphics great again. Imagine if the same mentality for photo realistic games was used in any sport, requiring players in said sport to wear gucci kits at the minimum to attend.
With current devs not being very talented and being heavily reliant on upscaling and frame gen this engine just makes that issue so much worse Even ue4 still had problems most of the time
I was so disappointed when I read that CDPR were ditching Red Engine in favour of UE 5. Cyberpunk 2077 looked pretty damm good even on lower settings imo.
But the problem isn't exactly the engine. It's the devs fault. They think that if they use an already established engine, it won't need optimization. It's wrong. The engine is a "tool", you still need to do your stuff. When you make your own engine you do the optimization yourself because you're making the engine. You can change a lot of things in UE5, and of course, create it yourself. I've lost count of the amount of games that I tweaked to get better optimization and image quality via the ".ini" files of these games. If we, gamers, can do it, they also can. UE5 is amazing they just need to use it properly, I think they use UE5 to cut corners. Like "I won't be wasting that much time because I already have this much done".
"I've lost count of the amount of games that I tweaked to get better optimization and image quality via the ".ini" files of these games." Same. I've even used hex editors to alter the code of certain games to allow for things like proper ultrawide support. And don't get me started on how many .ini edits I've had to make in games like Fallout 4. Which begs the question: Why tf do we as players have to do so much of the optimization work on behalf of the devs? It's ridiculous.
I think this is being pushed by asset managers, like BR and VG to push people to upgrade and get money on their other computer hardware investments. This kind of hidden monopoly is not good for consumers.
@@ПавелВолков-э9и Don't blame the drug dealer, blame the addict! Enabling stupid behaviour is equally responsible and ultimately, without the enabler there is no situation to begin with.
Remember when developers used to invest time, energy, resources, money and great talent into developing their own engine? Because I do. And gaming was way better then.
And lmao there comes the lies. "And gaming was way better then" I loved it when GTA 4 stuttered like hell. "Remember when developers used to invest time, energy, resources, money and great talent into developing their own engine" yeah creation used in starfield that has no CPU performance issues right ? "Because I do" no you clearly don't lol.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombatbefore you get all emotional, try to take a deep breath then comment.. there's no denying that the industry has been going down since the big cough. When I was a kid, you bought a game and it worked when you brought it home to play. No patches for better or worse, the games were more soulful and complete.
The problem is that people are demanding more out of games. Back when games didn't need realistic physics, advanced lighting, particle systems, skeletal animation with inverse kinematic support, landscape generation capabilities, material editing tools, dynamic global illumination, animation and sequence editing tools, and countless other modern features, it WAS possible for studios to make their own engines - although they often just licensed another engine and modified it, but that's another story. Now, though, people expect so much more from games than a ten to twenty hour single player experience with minimal variation and customization. All of those features take time to develop, and frankly it's a waste of time to reinvent the wheel. Why bother rebuilding an entity handling system when someone else has already done it? Or a material painting system, or a physics engine, or any of the other features we take for granted in modern titles. So developers have to pick: Focus on the parts of the game that make it a unique creative endeavor, or spend time and energy redoing two years of what Epic, iD, or Valve have already done and polished. Unfortunately, there's a bit of a trap there: Because Epic works hard to make a low barrier to entry (via blueprinting, mostly), it's very easy to sit down with UE5 and have a world you can run around in in only a few hours. However, it's not very scalable, and the engine tools aren't good enough to do optimization work without the use understanding how things work under the hood. If you make a complex set of AI rules for the NPCs in your game, and manage them all via blueprints in the render thread, your game performance is going to blow chunks. This is an obvious gotcha, but there are a *lot* of nonobvious ones - including the entire blueprint system itself - and as such it's very easy to make a very poorly optimized title in UE5. The right way to do a UE5 game is to use blueprints for prototyping, then get people who actually know the engine to build the systems you've prototyped in blueprints again using C++, making appropriate optimizations along the way. This takes money, time, and experience, though, so it's not always done... and as a result you have a ton of poorly optimized UE5 games on the market.
@@eagleone5456 There's truth in this but when triple-A games come out and they don't look photorealistic enough, the graphics aren't good enough (for example the facial animations of Starfield), the games get destroyed online. The fact is that people demand better looking graphics, animations, lighting whatever which ends up taking much more resources to make and which puts much more load on the CPU and GPU.
In this weekend I played the campaign of Black Ops 6. 2k ultrawide (+30% pixels) with DLAA at 90fps without framegen. And the game is more beautiful than many unreal 5 games. I have a 4080 super.
Can't compare open world to corridor shooters. In open world everything needs to be fleshed out for free roam, in corridor shooters devs know exactly where you can and can't go and what you get is pretty theater stage with nothing outside. Apples =/= oranges.
Unreal Engine is not killing games, bad game developers are. Unity had this same problem back in the early 2010s where everyone said it was killing indie games even though most game developers using it to make bad games were just bad/inexperienced at using it. Now this doesn't excuse the fact that those said game engines have their own issues that need fixing, but we shouldn't be only blaming the tool for reasons that mostly have to do with the developers using them incorrectly. We should give fair constructive criticism for both the engine and the developer where it's due instead of scapegoating the engine for all bad problems in games made in it
@@TheNameIsSR that is true although developers can modify the engine source code to fix those issues and then forward it to the github to be fixed in the official version
@@randomcommenter10_ except were talking about epic games software devs which deny that there are any issues with unreal engine while removing ways to fine tune engine operation and game studio devs would modify the source code if they knew what works, what can be modified and if epic devs were keen on helping game studios devs because epic keeps denying that there are issues and keeps recommending people to use nanite and lumen because both of them improve performance in badly optimized games while tanking it in well optimized games
The real PROBLEM is there is not enough programmers and companies do NOT want to pay for them, they want to lower development costs so all they need to do is hire artists that can be outsourced
The problem with this engine is that all the things that have the potential to make games beautiful need to be set to the worst and lowest settings just for the game to work, and in many cases it still works poorly! So in the end, it was better that they weren't used at all! The old way of making games is far superior to this.
IMHO, what they are achieving with this is that people end up looking away from games that promise graphical improvements instead of polished gameplay and good art design with low hardware requirements.
I love how UE5 is turning into the new "Made with Unity" and in the meantime Unity is turning out more and more quality titles where people dont even know that its made with Unity. Unity is in his engine development on a way better track then Epic, Unity is quite Barebone but can be optimized quite well if you know what youre doing. UE5 is so feature rich its a pain to optimize because a lot of systems rely on each other. Also Multithreading is a pain to do, Unity has DOTS now which is insane for Multithreading, Unity is the only mainstream engines that has Data Oriented Programming, the only one that has that and is Bevy which nobody heared of but its an engine that is completely build on DOP
Unity is still a huge mess of an engine to work with though, their codebase is very jank and outdated and they also just shoehorn in half-baked features with little to no documentation. Unreal at least rewrote most of the engine core and functionality every generation in order to alleviate any possible technical debt
@@randomcommenter10_ the whole streaming system in unreal is still the same like in UE3 probably UE2.5 and back then it was bad and now its worse because it cant handle all the new fancy models. You cant bruteforce everything if stuff hardware occupied by other shiny stuff
@@randomcommenter10_ and I agree the whole package manager is a mess still BUT thats features that can be disabled, some of them are loaded all the time but can be removed out of the project, this is what I mean with barebone, if you need features you usually install them. I watched the Unit 6 and beyond presentation at Unite and was impressed what they're doing currently. Basically they made a complete asset management rewrite build on dots, you can open a project and everything will be loaded multithreaded and you dont have to wait on long building or import times anymore which is crazy and so necessary. Big Unity Projects are a pain to work with, this will be a big improvement
I'm more concerned as to the lack of alternatives from Unreal Engine , there's far too many game studios using it nowadays. I'd rather CDPR stuck with RedEngine after doing so much work with it for Cyberpunk and kept evolving that. Not to mention that UE5 seems very immature and although it has some good features , it also has some serious performance issues for real time rendering which upscaling is being used to mask for gaming. I get the feeling that UE5 is being targeted at arch Vis and other uses which are offline so performance issues are being ignored.
Both UE's terrain system and their cell loading system are... clunky... and neither has seen significant attention for several years. This means that for open world games (which very much would like to use both) tend not to perform well unless the developer has some serious experience optimizing open world titles. You *can* make UE work well in open worlds, but out of the box it's going to have a pretty low performance ceiling unless you're pretty careful about what you're doing to optimize it.
Last gen games running at 150+ fps native res look better to me than current gen upscaled trash. Everything is blurry and full of artifacting and ghosting now, and running slow on top of that I don't really understand what is happening to graphical priorities at the big studios. It seems like framerate is barely part of the discussion, when its the biggest contributor for a good image when you are actually in motion playing. I dont get it.
The funniest thing is that the developers of the original Stalker went to 4A Games. And they created the 4A Engine. And the game Metro Exodus, which was released in 2019, looks, maybe, a little worse than Stalker 2, but it also weighs three times less than Stalker 2 on the Unreal engine 5. 😅😅
Thats a negative, metro exodus is to me the best graphic to performance ratio.. Even when using low settings its still looks so good, goodluck finding UE5 engine games that looks good without make it a basically a polygon game on low settings
I'm actually extremely worried about Witcher IV and Project Orion (Cyberpunk sequel) at CD Projekt RED. They literally had the god-engine and I don't know what got to them that they ditched the RED Engine for Unreal Engine 5.
Funnily enough, CP2077 had better performance in 1.2/1.3 than in 1.6-2.0. I had preordered the game and it was performing far better than stalker 2 if we talk about the day 1 performance. Deleted stalker 2 after 2 hours due to performance being all over the place. 40 fps on med 1080p with dlss balancr in the first hub on 3070? Guess that's not my cup of tea. CP had 70+ with rtx enabled and rare drops to 55+ on optimized ultra settings on the same system, while looking miles better.
The state in which it ran perfectly fine on 1080Ti in 1440p? That Cyberpunk? I swear, it's like no one played Cyberpunk on release and only heard about it from auntie's nephew's friend's brother in law. I've finished it in 2 days after release on 10 year old CPU (i7 5960X) and 3.5 year old GPU (1080Ti). The fact they've managed to get it to run on a Steam Deck over time is a testament to how adaptable the engine really was. We see no such adaptability from UE5 games - they all unilaterally run like dogshit and don't scale at all.
There was bugs, but when it came to performance, on PC it was already there. Learning that their future games are on UE5 will mean the exact same shit will be going on and it will run like shit too. No graphically demanding game runs well on UE5, absolutely none.
@@Kaylas1821 They increased memory budget requirement or whatever the developers name it, which is why 2.0 update isn't available on old gen like PS4 or XB1, i used to be able to run it smoothly on 8gb ram, now it's stuttery within 1 hour and guaranteed crash after 2 hours, if you're wondering, no i'm not on my old PC anymore, i upgraded recently in 2023
Social media has ruined literally everything. I miss going to the store and buying a game, made to last, completed development on launch, passion and soul coming through the screen. AND it's mine til It's either stolen, sold, gifted, or until death. God I love capitalism.
The days of native rendering are over. I genuinely believe frame generation is gonna be the future direction, because I just don't see Devs putting in extra effort for optimisation when you can push a "more frames pls" button. I think it's the future whether we like it or not. In fact, one of my main worries is that addons like "Lossless scaling" are gonna be cracked down on by the likes of NVidia and AMD, as it potentially puts their chokehold of the market in danger by allowing people to extend the life of their old cards. Then we start falling into conspiracy territory. They already KNOW technologies like lossless scaling place them in danger. The solution? Make games SO 'unoptimised' and insanely demanding that even WITH upscaling and frame generation, you won't be able to run them without their specialist new shiny hardware. Food for thought
And yet your theory is proven to be the case with Nvidia, where they release their new cards with significantly less raw power, smaller memory bandwith and smaller memory bus (cheaper hardware overall) and slapping the excuse of "just use DLSS" all over it.
That's cool - I can remain disinterested longer than they can remain solvent 😂 especially with Path of Exile 2 dropping 6th of December, I will probably play it until 2034 anyway 🤷🏻
I believe so, I'm now at 40s have passed my gaming time couldn't get off day work. Now ss Stalker fan I'm gonna hold on to my RX7700XT probably my last buy gpu and if I can play Stalker mod Anomaly :-)
I hope you're wrong but it doesn't look like you are. I hate DLSS/FSR and now frame gen. I played around with the settings for STALKER 2 to not use the frame gen and get consistent frames. I don't know how frame gen works but I can assume that it predicts what the next frame will be, it renders it and then displays it which adds a delay. Which explains why the aiming and moving around feels weird, like you have a high temperature or like you're in a dream. I turned that off and the game immediately started to feel snappier. As for DLSS most games have a terrible implementation. It's a smear fest, almost as bad as TAA 🤢. The only good thing that came out from this AI tech is DLAA/FSR Native AA. It makes the games look sharper. Unfortunately STALKER 2 is forcing Lumen/Ray tracing lighting on all graphical settings which makes the game run like it does. I only played few games with ray tracing on (Control & Metro Exodus) because it was new back then. Now I turned it off for higher frames and sharper image. The only good TAA implementation I saw was in Watch_Dogs 2.
I remember when the matrix demo got released on ps5. the performance was absolute garbage, but it had nanite lol years later, every ue5 game still runs like garbage, but we have nanite. nanite, guys!!!!
In the 360/Ps3 era devs took chances. Really creative people came up with new game mechanics and systems and no one is really taking these chances anymore (with the exception of indie). Indie creators have made great games using cards and these big AAA studies just remake and remaster ad infinitum. DEI has been proven to put the worst people in creative positions because these AAA devs can hire them on the cheap, get special venture cap and gov funding.
PS360 era produced the most generic slop in the history of gaming and all major releases were marketed on graphical fidelity. Before that games used to be bigger, better and more badass - at least on PC, but that all went away with the explosive popularity of Xbox 360, making games for the lowest common denominator and a sea of absolutely shitty ports to PC. There are literally no games released during that era, bar few humble exceptions that focused on actually improving gameplay (Demon's Souls for example), that are worth remembering or returning to.
Ive been telling my friends that games dont just run well without upscaling anymore. I mean what the hell happened? Sometime after RDR2 nothing has ran as good with Native resolution, or DLAA is what they call it now. Upscaling and Frame Generation has made devs get away with unoptimized crap.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla has 90ish average fps on my 2019 PC(ryzen 2700x and rx 5700) without upscaler and frame generation, so don't say that after RDR 2 nothing runs as good with native resolution, cause it's objectively false. it started happening when upscaler and frame generation were introduced. now frame generation has become mandatory cause devs got lazy with optimization. Monster Hunter Wilds literally says to enable upscaler and frame generation on the recommend specs page. this is the future.
I hate UE5 so much. UE4 used to be amazing! But then Nvidia ruined everything with their raytracing and upscaling idea. Then Epic followed their lead, making UE4 go from an image quality, high resolution focused performant engine to a fake pixels and fake frame mess that expect blurry antialiasing to bandaid a garbage software RT and lazy LOD system that kills performances especially at higher resolution, in an era where people actually want ultra HD!
So basically hope they will optimize the game, wait for a few months or a year, get if for a much cheeper price and maybe by that time even have a bit upgraded PC. Got it
Just wait until all of these games will be handed over to you in a Humble Bundle Monthly subscription at $12 a year-two from now - no point paying full price to be a beta tester for a game that may or may not get fixed in the future (looking at you Remnant 2, Dragons Dogma 2 😂) - maybe by then there will be a hardware that doesn't choke on it for no good reason 🤷🏻
Not just Unreal. Both Unreal Engine and Unity. 2 Blights in game development. They are not killing gaming. They are killing themselves, and those developers that don't know how to use Unreal are going to KTS. Games are going to be fine, plenty of old games with a little ReShade look better than these modern Unreal Stutter slop.
UE5 as bad as it is, it is still the job of devs and companies to put out optimized games or fix it with patches after release. What I mean is I wouldn't say it's entirely the fault of Unreal Engine for these unoptimized games that are being released, it's the fault of these big companies that set out shitty timeline for projects and expect a perfect product, devs will have to skimp out somewhere and that's performance. Also don't forget the other aspects of the games too. Lots of smaller dev teams like these using UE does help them get very good graphics but at a performance cost so high that most people who have a decent mid range build or gaming laptop probably wouldn't be able to run games like these at acceptable performance, but people use this engine because it is the only option, they are kinda forced into to use it.
nobody forced them to use an engine that they didn't know how to use. it's not the fault of the engine. the engine is a tool. you don't blame a hammer when it fails to sharpen a sword. this video is retarded. it's just more clickbaity garbage to feed the excessive amount of armchair programmers present in the gaming community.
The graphics are there, when there's a storm in this game it's absolutely terrifying and beautiful at the same time. But yeah, UE5 is a bitch and runs like ass.
I agree, the graphics doesn't seem that impressive. I mean sure it looks good when it's set to epic setting but at low setting it's like the game from 2000s & blurry as hell. On the other hand, Low settings in alan wake 2 doesn't look that bad, even if we ignore the ugly terrain the rest is phenomenal.
The fact that people can practice on unreal engine and have experience it makes game development so much easier since not every studio is requiring proprietary engines
I have said this before and I will say it again, upcoming games made using Rockstar's Rage and Naughty Dog's game engines will embarrass UE once again like they have done over the last decade.
Let's add Capcom RE engine, the Id tech engine and the 4A engine (which does path tracing on consoles at 60fps and looks fantastic) to the list as well. There are probably more.
It's not necessarily only UE5 but it's certainly the biggest offender. That's what happens when all revolve around shareholders and profit. Having photorealistic graphics is the easiest way to market a game and make the general public interested without necessarily having to incur the risks of trying anything new.
As a veteran player of Tera Online back in the day Unreal Engine always had these issues. People were buying the best possible gear at the time expecting the game to run on max graphics with a playable frame rate. What they realized back then was that you didn't need the best gear but a specific type of gear that will allow for that. Otherwise you were alway stuck on playing on the lowest graphics possible.
Fun fact: the most resource-intensive part of the game, where evryone have performace issues, is actually their a-live npc system, epsecially during emmisions (big red storms) where all npcs run to shelter and bunch up... and it's reportedly not working properly (both in performace, and in behaviour aspects)
I said unreal engine will destroy gaming, people called me crazy when UE5 was released and hyped up. Also in my opinion UE5 looks garbage compared to other game engines. Sure UE5 looks great at its maximum settings but when the best GPU struggles to do 30 FPS can it be really considered a success? Game engines make games look great while rendering in real time, UE5 looks like it was made for prerendered movie CGIs, its a failure. Edit: Never forget Rockstars RAGE engine (an actual game engine) made whole dense cities work with pretty good performance and great graphics.
Yeah I agree, I don't understand how people keep praising UE5. But when I look at it, it just the same with other games that don't use UE5. Sure, maybe it looks good at the first gland, but sterile when we consider about environment. Battlefield 1 did not use UE5, and till now. Games barely look better than it
Game dev here. Let me be honest, most UE5 games (I think 90% of them) don't really need UE5's specific features like Lumen and Narnite. The main benefit of those two features is cutting down development time NOT making the game more optimized. For example, if the game doesn't have very difficult light scenarios (dynamic day-night cycles, many moving lights, etc.) you don't need Lumen and could just use baked lightmaps. For Narnite, pre-processing LOD from the 3D authoring tools can get the job done just fine. The result might be quite poppy but you save tons of computing time on that. I haven't played this game yet so I can't say that their decision on Lumen or Narnite is justified but most of the UE5 games aren't.
reason they shift to UE5 is because they would not need the traditional programmer which develop a dedicated game engine for the game, they would have less running cost/ getting more artist to do the model for you
UE4 is indeed still widely used today. On the other hand, UE3 was even said to be cursed. Almost all MMORPGs made with UE3 had problems, except for one... UE3 was truly terrible (like UE5).
@@monikaguerra nah I think UE3 was good, I still play many good games made in it such as Dishonored, Mirror's Edge, A Hat in Time, etc. I do however agree that it was pretty jank/cursed but again it's an engine from 2006, Source Engine was also like that but that doesn't make them terrible
Okay, sure, you can think what you want, but this story about the UE3 curse was very widespread at the time. In fact, Epic had to do a strong rebranding with the brand. However, it's also normal that if you play on Unreal now, it seems like a good engine, but at the time it was terrible. All MMORPGs had problems, as mentioned, the data centers always crashed because the engine exploded. They had to create instances within instances to keep the server from going down. The developers had problems, and consider that all MMORPGs made with Unreal Engine 3 eventually shut down. With Unreal Engine 5, it feels like reliving the Unreal 3 era; it was a massacre
@@solaroid4442 This. These "new gen" games don't look good enough to justify this horribly unoptimized and buggy mess of a trend that every new game is releasing with, and that's really sad.
People think that UE is only used for photorealism, when in truth, UE can be moulded to fit any art style you want. Guilty Gear Strive, Tales of Arise and Scarlet Nexus are examples of UE being used the right way. Those games are far from realistic, but are beautifully optimised and have the potential to be timeless.
1. Yes, UE5 is not optimised (nanite instead of LOD), and TAA baked in engine sucks. So we can hope the developers will solve this problems and optimise the game in the (not so close) future 2. On the other hand, why do people expect to play games that just came out in highest settings? Why do you expect to have maxed out settings in 4k and run 120fps on best card right now? I think its good that you cant maxout, as there is a future potential that game will look and run better with time as hardware progresses. Just like in the old days.
2- Because the games graphics are absolute ASS (relative to how how much it asks from hardware, at least)? There's no reason these games should be even nearly as FPS heavy as they are.
Do you not hear yourself? You don't think we should be able to play games at ultra settings with the best hardware? Games are made worse and worse and that's a fact. RDR2 has amazing and better graphics than most games still and that runs amazing. Devs are getting away with releasing broken products and fix it later. It's stupid
Anytime i hear a big studio that use to have their own engine switch to UE5 i immediately think oh so they either A) fired all their old devs so they didn't have to pay as much. B) the devs left because something was happening inside the company that caused them to be left out. C) they started hiring for DEI and not hiring the best person for the job to learn their own engine. It's always usually one of these reasons when i hear they're switching to UE5 always these 3 reasons and then they go oh so yeah we have like 20 guys left from the old engine left out of like 200-300 ppl of the original team. So yeah now we have to switch to UE5 because no one can code shit for our own engine and because UE5 is easier to hire and poach from other companies.
The best Non-Mod solution is to set the in game frame rate cap to unlimited, but then set a limit through your driver software. That will cut down on stutters a bit, but using some engine tweaks will eliminate most if not all stutters.
I’m not judging this game performance since they’re literally going through a war to get this out. They didn’t just have time to optimize and fix everything, so I would just wait to give them time to fix these issues.
The Unreal engine 5 has advanced the graphics so much that the hardware its being ran on is incredibly slow and unoptimized. Rather than focusing on graphics technology now Epic games should focus on compatibility with low end cpus and gpus.
In all fairness maintaining and making your own engine is an insane undertaking and if there is a product that is already made that does it for you its just a better choice for companies.
The team is in Ukraine and were developing this during the height of the conflict. There’s even a video showing what their working conditions were at the time so that could have played a factor in the lack of polish and stability. Not saying UE5 doesn’t have a part in this but I’ve never had a UE5 game crash as hard as stalker 2 did when I was playing it.
Team is not in Ukraine, they relocated in Czechia after war started. There might be some office left in Ukraine, but main office now in Prague. Also all previous stalkers had bad tech condition at the start too.(And even after, only community made it work ok) Seems it's more of skill issue and the ones who manage the project simply doesn't care.
Using War and conflict as an excuse for not optimizing your game is just lame. Nobody forces you to make your game, so if it's not good, don't sell it until everything ironed out. Charging 60$, the game should be optimized at day one. Amd the fact that Stalker 2 has the same graphic quality with BF1, which I can run smoothly on a GTX 1050ti, really shown that Stalker 2 is poorly made AF
It is NOT the Engine BUT the Developer! I hate every time I see a video titled Unreal Engine is killing/ruining this and that. I don't understand why people blame the Engine when it's the Developer's responsibility to optimize their game. The Engine has provided you powerful tools and engine source codes and every version of the Engine. It's up to the Developers to PROPERLY utilize them for their needs, for their specific project; not go crazy with them. . People who have made Game Engines have made game creation and development a lot easier and time-saving. You should be thankful to them for their invaluable efforts and time as a Dev for creating and as a gamer for playing, awesome games which would've taken years of time and knowledge. It is not their responsibility to fix the FPS of your game. You use Photoshop, right? Do you use all of it's features on the same picture/project? NO! If yes, then the result might look ugly. Same goes for Game Engines. It is YOUR responsibility to use ONLY the specific tools needed for your specific project.
Finally someone who understands the truth, there's way too much misinformation about Unreal being the culprit for games performing/looking bad even though it's literally the developers fault 90% of the time. They love to also disregard all the good games made in Unreal and also never talk about poorly optimised games in other engines such as Unity and even Frostbite. Now I do know that most people making these statements have never used Unreal nor are even game devs themselves but they really should still do more research when making such bold statements
You can take a hammer and drive screws with it. I work on UE4/5, and as a developer I can confidently say that the engine is a tool that is always! Dopisyvayut under the needs of the project, if the developers of Stalker could not do it at the proper level, it does not mean that UE5 is guilty of optimization.
exactly, there are a ton of well optimised games made in unreal engine that all these unreal haters just love to completely ignore, talk about confirmation bias
The sad thing is the UR5 engine developers seem passionate but always underdeliver when it comes to the performance side, I've yet to play a game using UR5 that runs well without upscaling and turning all the "features" down or off, and im using a 7900 GRE WITH A 5900X CPU
People keep on shifting blame on unreal but this game imo is more of the developers' fault than just an engine problem. One might even add it seems like an industry wide issue
@@sonnyankau9239 Yep and the I don't even understand what people are whining about with STALKER 2, I've played for 29 hours, encountered exactly one bug, one, the performance "problem" has only occurred in a few cutscenes, the game itself has run at 75-120fps and I don't really have a 2000€ PC, but my entire set, monitor and all accessories included have cost around 900€ at most... I'm starting to be pretty sure that in both games and software, most of the "bugs" people are whining about are nothing more than people not knowing how to use their hardware. In addition, CSG has already announced that a major patch will be coming to the game next week that will fix so many "problems" that I can't even list them here, although as I mentioned, strangely enough, I haven't encountered these problems myself. Moreover from what I've watched, this particular channel in particular does nothing but whine about something, I haven't seen a single video where he has anything positive to say about anything.'another thing that is as illogical as it can be is that certain people call upscalers and framegeneration fps: fake fps, just so you know, all fps are "fake"., Framegeneration image quality starts to be so close to "real" native resolution and "real" frames that you have to examine it with a 1000x magnifying glass if you want to see any difference.. Apparently some people have nothing else to do but whine about non-existent "problems".. Super tired of these les cry over something channels, It's starting to get almost as annoying as certain rage-spewing tubers
Well when almost nobody can make a game with UE5 that is optimized and runs well that isn't so CPU heavy that even the best CPUs on the market struggle, maybe it's about time to also start putting some blame on the engine as well hell even the people that made the engine have a difficult time optimizing it.
@@MrAnony07 ue5 is 2 & a half years old. you dorks act like the engine has been out 5 years and every game made on it is garbage. some incredible games have been developed with ue5 in a very short time.
This reminds me of the time when home construction moved away from manual tools to power tools: Any idiot with a power tool can pop pre-made nails into a house frame, but people back then, with their hammers and hand forged square nails, made better quality structures because the human aspect is more involved in it than the tools.
@@Riyozsu Because the Developers have yet to release a game that doesn't perform like trash. Even Epic Games has trouble with UE5 and it's their engine. You ever see @vex 's videos about Fortnite?
@@Mr.Genesis how to say you know nothing and an idiot. You do remember that the engine that made cyberpunk was a mess as well with performance issues, its not the engine you idiots
the ai in this game just spawns in within 50m at spawn points when you enter an area, the older games had a-life ai that traveled across the map and interacted with eachother even when the player wasnt there, nothing exists outside the player 50m bubble in this game. you can test it, walk away from a group until they despawn then try and go find them, they are deleted from the game once you leave
To be fair, I am surprised people are now starting to understanding that Unreal Engine is not a great engine, it is a problem for the industry. There are a just handful of studios that are not EPIC and that can actually use Unreal Engine in the good way. But most of the stuff we are getting that are based on this engine, are just feeling like "yet another asset flop" - no own art style, same animations reused here and there... no special atmosphere or light... everything feels just SAME. It has been happening since Unreal Engine 4, but people are not starting to notice that more with Unreal Engine 5. Konami not only pushed Silent Hill remake to UE5, but also are making MGS 3 remake there too - they literarily have this amazing (even outdated yet still amazing) engine called "Fox engine" but they simply cannot use it - because people knew how to work on it, left Konami after Kojima. It is the same sad story with CDProject RED - they got their own engine called "REDEngine" that was used in Witcher 2, Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk... and want to know the funny story why they are not going to make both Witcher 4 and Witcher (1) remake in it? Because people that knew how to work on that engine... are no longer working in CDProject RED... Studios now are loosing all the talented people that made them what they are known for -> almost no one that worked on REDEngine is working in CDProject RED. They are filling up all those slots with untalented washed up "dev wannabes" that are coming out of nowhere, have no actual skills outside "ohh I played in Unreal Engine Studio" Coloured haired activists forcing unreal engine down our throats - that is what we will only see at "AAA" market for next 5 years :)
I agree on the last part, but keep in mind that the initial release of CP was an unmitigated disaster like we've never seen before and some devs blame the Red Engine for most issues. UE has a few huge problems, like CPU bottleneck and traversal stutter, but latest versions are getting better and the hope is that in time they will fix these issues. The rest is on the devs
you made an illogical leap in your conclusion makes no sense. For most companies, the move to UE5 are high-level business decisions made by senior management and executives chasing growth for shareholders for most of the case. UE looks good to them because they can theoretically reduce headcount by cutting the experience devs that pays more. for GSC game world, all their experience dev left for 4Agames to make metro series, and as for konami, the technical employees left with Hideo Kojima making their expertise on their old game engine useless. No activist are involved in any of the move to Unreal Engine. at lest point the fingers at the right people, if you are serious about solving the problem.
Do you work for or know people that work for these studios? If not how could you possibly know how many people did or worked on what in said studios? "Washed up non talented devs" says the obscure keyboard warrior. Cry harder while I enjoy amazing games like Stalker 2 and doesn't whine when I experience an occasional bug or glitch which is way less common than the internet will lead you to believe or throw a tantrum cause the flashlight doesn't cast shadows. Not to mention what the devs at GSC studios went through making this game while you do nothing to contribute just complain and be negative. Show some respect you entitled brat.
@@spartand001 I think he was pointing to all the DEI injection of people that have no true merits that plagues the game industry. The connection to UE is made up. But Epic itself is a perpetrator of this ideology too. I Don't think they push it on other studios, Wukong is a good example of it not being the case
This needs reiterating with every UE5 game released: UE5 has been *designed* with Performance upscaling in mind. So 4K to 1080p, 1440p to 720p, etc. It's not "meant" to be run at native resolution.
most of the stuttering issues have to do with DX12 (mainly for games that don't precompile shaders) which is known to have stuttering issues in other engines such as Frostbite. DX11 has almost none of these stuttering issues so it's best to use that when possible
Devs has been using UE since college. "Opportunities"? More like they don't want to relearn another engine so moving to UE5 gives the company more opportunities to hire dev
I'm no game director, but I'd imagine the costs of having your own engine once you factor in engineering, upkeep and up-skill/train someone on how to use it, can be quite expensive once you factor in time and resources needed for it. Where as using an exisiting engine plus finding existing talent that know how to use such engine would be a lot easier and cost effective.
The developers have confirmed that there's currently a memory leak related to how the game renders NPC skeletons and faces. This explains why the game’s FPS tanks when you enter villages with a large number of NPCs.
I remember when they showcased UE5 saying it wasn't demanding and that we wouldn't need expensive hardware.
LMAO who said that ?
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat The UE5 showcase.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat
That's how they "advertised" it.
Lumen and Nanite, revolutionary low cost methods that would let you push graphical boundaries at good performance.
That did not work out at all huh.
seems like they were aiming for 2030's cheap hardware, not 2020's cheap hardware
imagine if devs apply this lighting that Unreal Engine has made. fps will tank by another 10-20%.
Paying over $1000 for a card and not getting 60 on 1080p is so fucking demoralizing
Unless we get framegen that entirely gets rid of input delay, then it's just not worth it
A 1000 dollar card should be able to CRUSH 1080p lmao, people gotta stop excusing these studios fr
In 5 years you'll remember this as the good old days when gpus didn't cost 6000$ 😂😂
lmao which GPU costs 1K dude? but anyways if anyone should get the blame its you for paying that much in first place
The reason why we have this problem, is that the development studios got rid of all or most of the staff who knew how the proprietary engines worked, so they thought it easier and cost effective to just switch to UE instead of training new people to work with their engine.
Well as it turns out there are even less people experienced with UE5 who will work for big companies.
Well, that’s fine. But the problem is they don’t seem to know how UE5 works either.
Trust me, X-ray engine, the one from previous stalker games was a pain to work with and a buggy mess
@@goncalolopes5818 yup, Xray did a great job gameplay wise but is an absolutal clusterfuck behind the scenes. Anomaly and Gamma are the result of thousands of people squeezing every inch of performance out of the engine yet these mods barely hold together. Noone would bother to make a 2024 game on Xray
Dev got to stop relying on upscaling cheat code like DLSS and FSR and instead optimize their games betters.
if a game is optimized for intel or nvidia, it will always be a shitshow if you got any AMD hardware
At this point they need general optimization within the engine, this is bullshit across the board how low FPS youre getting per dollar on these games @@xbm41
They won't because TH-camrs and pundits won't shut up about him"how great DLSS is" rather than talk about terrible it is that we even need it
@@xbm41 We're well past that. It has nothing to do with your hardware brand.
@xbm41
Just wrong. Soo many use amd. Better price performance.
Nvidia is like 300mph bike. Its nice but expensive, yet you can get a 280mph bike for half the price
i dont want photo realistic games if hardware cant run anything. Graphics needs to stop going "futher" it needs to optimise and let hardware catch up before we go futher
How do developers then explain why their modern games look worse than their previous titles to the average consumer?
Production cost and time will drastically increase as well in an industry where development costs are already out of control.
@@penumbrum3135 the "average consumer" wants a fun game.. they really don't care about graphics.
Take Nintendo's games and sales.. they beat Sony's games and sales on lesser hardware and they don't get PC ports.
@@penumbrum3135 You don't chase after graphics.. Nintendo does quite fine without having to make their games "photo realistic"
Nintendo's games typically outsell "photo realistic" big budget games as well or make more money using less resources
Maybe I'm looking too deep but I feel like everything is becoming more superficial. It's all about what's on the tin anymore. I am hopeful that this game in particular will get better but games these days are hype fest disappointments.
the only way we are going to get better hardware is if there is a reason for companies to create it, if there aren't demanding games like stalker 2 pushing hardware limits then hardware companies are just gonna get lazy
When i hear unreal engine5 i tell myself:oh no another stutter fest and bad performance game...
I remember when the splash screen "Made in Unity" was making people say the same thing haha. Its probably a more of a skill issue than which tool the developer chooses. But making games is incredibly hard so im not trying to demean anyone :D
@@VambraceMusic Its the tool. Given that even Fortnite Devs... people who actually work on and actively develop the Engine itself
in the very studio that created the Engine.. has trouble optimizing for it.
@@Mr.Genesis Then why did days gone optimize it so well ? Or the mortal kombat games ? Or batman ? it's the developers' fault, they are known to ship unpolished games.
@@VambraceMusic compltely agreed. Non UE games can be just as bad if not worse.
@@Mr.Genesis The tool certainly matters a lot. Its a difficult decision to make, do you spend the time and effort creating your own (like jonathan blow creating his own programming language) or use whats available at the cost of performance due to bloat in the code or whatever else it might be.
Or in music, do you use samples or farm your own goats to use on the drums you build yourself. At the end youre more of a goat farmer than musician :D
Hot? Take: Not everything needs a day night cycle. Having several static ToD with high quality baked lighting is usually fine.
We’re getting so lost in "mug graphics" and deadlines that were forgetting about great optimizations. And gameplay ofc
GTA V had mirrors you can see yourself in. 10 years ago. Without RT.
eh, Stalker has always been about things such as the day-night cycle.
Duke Nukem 3d had mirrors like that, in 1997!
Yeah, this take is valid if only the video aint bout stalker. Also, i think i can count with fingers what game ive played and relatively popular have night and day cycle.
Even Ocarina of Time had a day night cycle. That’s not the problem.
Watch crowbcats new video dead rising could on the wii
The upcoming witcher and cyberpunk game will use UE5, lol we are so cooked.
that means modding will probably be killed in their games. enjoy buggy games that cant be modded to fix it. i was hoping they would kinda carry the torch if/when bethesda fails ES6, but looks like they will be the last ones with very modable AAA games in the future
It is gonna be another disaster
@@GoalOrientedLifting Maybe you should think for a second before writing nonsense, STALKER 2 was released four days ago, there are 7 pages of mods for it on Nexus already
@@Finnishguy777 did i say there wouldnt exist mods? no. but the level of modding you can do on a game MADE with modding in mind with their OWN engine that comes with a modding kit, and unreal 5, are 2 complete different worlds.
Look up what you need to know and tools required for UE modding vs how easy it is to mod with a dedicated modding kit for their own engine
maybe you should think for a second
Metro exodus looks 1000x better than this
no excuse for games to run this poorly on the level of hardware we have today. dont blame the graphics cards, dont blame it on the vram. the game drops below 60fps sometimes on a 7800x3d, shame on the developers.
i dont beleve the developers dont optimized the game this stupid engine is the problem , every UE5 game runs like shit , EVEN 2D ONES !!
Yes, particularly in terms of CPU utilization it feels like Devs have become lazy simply because there is powerful hardware available to brute force stuff. I feel pretty confident that if the most powerful gaming CPU available was an R5 3600 it would be possible with work for devs to get all these games running at 120 fps on it. Not just making this up ; the fact is that there isn't any special work load or complex simulation that modern games require of the CPU which wasn't already present in games 5 years ago. It's just less efficient.
With graphics at least there is the diminishing returns argument. A graphics load that is 3x harder to run only looks 5% better subjectively so that's very hard on GPUs. But for CPUs we are mostly doing the same thing as before with way more powerful processors.
@@SolidChrisGR LMFAO stop simping for devs, they are clearly at fault. "every UE5 game runs like shit" Black myth wukong doesn't, Hellbalde 2 doesn't , The finals doesn't . None of them drop below 60 on 7800x3D. probably not even below 100 lol.
It was a mistake to pick Unreal 5 as an engine. Not realy the devs fault.
The thing about these UE 5 titles that use Nanite, Nanite tanks vram. Just by playing on dx11 in the silent hill 2 remake i stopped having drops to 5 fps. I'm still rocking on an RTX 2060 that i bought in 2019, running on dx11 i played the game comfortably and streamed it on discord with no problems
Having worked with UE4 and UE5 for the better part of 4 years professionally now, I can confidently say that it's not the engine. It's a hodgepodge of previs/vertical promises, knowledge deltas and poor optimization. UE5 is a great engine - but not well documented. You've got to put in work (and a lot of it) to understand how its systems are interconnected, what it does and doesn't do well - and best practices to circumvent common issues. The engine is extermely dependant on manual performance optimization. That includes best practices, as well as hacks (And I can't overstate the importance of hacks). On top of that, when starting production, the engine has a habit of giving you false impressions about how well you're doing on performance. You'll see decent profiling stats all the time - but there's a tipping point you can't easily come back from once you've broken through that threshold because scaling back is way harder than scaling up. In the case of Stalker not everything is lost though, as its main performance issues seem to be happening on the main thread and how the game is handling its AI systems. Depending on what exactly they are doing, there's still tons of potential for optimization. But yes - that should have happened before launch, not after.
A life 2.0 isn't even in the game and it runs like shit. I bought the game cause I've played so much anomoly and I felt I owed them a purchase but I legit played 2 hours and Uninstalled going back to anomoly lmao.
@@HansLollo what do you mean by hacks? I think its definitely the engines fault if you only can get specific performance out of it if you need to use hacks that arent exposed normally. Thats some bs UX epic did here.
@@dd805100 what does this have to do with anything.Do you expect a-life to make it run like shit?
@@dd805100 You sound like a loser. You don't like STALKER, you like Anomaly.
tl:dr if you know how to use the engine and spend a long time optimising the game you can get an unreal 5 game to run decent.
The reality? Even if people do know how they wont do it because it costs time and money when these scumbags can just say "just use dlss and frame gen to get 60 fps at medium settings thats enough for us hue hue hue" Unreal is not a complicated engine compared to most others. Infact because it's the most used engine the odds of having no one familiar with it in the entire team is practically zero. It's not about lack of knowledge. It's about lack of care. Games years ago had soul and passion put into them. They were made to sell but they were made to be fun first. If that meant they took a long time to come out they would take a long time to come out. Now it's "release this game in 1 year or it's scrapped"
The bar for quality simply does not exist anymore for these people.
I think source 2 is such an underrated engine. New counter strike maps look so good and run so well (I can't even imagine running something that looks similar on my 1050ti laptop in UE5). Not photo realistic like UE5, though they still look amazing, without compromising so much on performance.
Yeah source 2 is amazing. But they have the benefits of pre baking almost all the lighting. Conceptually you could probably tune a UE5 map to look as good and run as well if you spent enough time
yea, idk if valve allows others to use it to make games like source 1, but i wanna see in terms of graphic how much the source 2 engine can be pushed cause its only used in CS2 whch needs to be optimized as much as possible cause most people still play CS2 at low end pcs, in s&box whch is aiming to be cartoonish, valves newest game wch is also in cartoonish art style and HL alyx wch looked really good but i feel like its still not on max due to it being a VR game.
@@nowaynowaynottoday Ehm... Unreal do prebake too, most games does that unless they have dynamic weather and time of the day
And also well optimized (a bit), my shit ass laptop (no graphics card, just plain potato laptop) can run cs2 with 55-60 fps, ofc at lowest settings but still looking beautiful.
Who's underrating Source 2? That's the silliest thing I've read today.
Source 2 is just updated Source 1. So you're comparing a 20yrs old fully matured game engine. To a completely different, completely new engine from it's predecessor UE4, that's also only been released for a little over 2yrs now...
I still don't understand why people give so much shit about graphics in games.
I care about performance much more than graphics especially in FPS games. Doom Eternal looked good and pushed almost 200 fps on my system which enhanced the gameplay. This game feels like a laggy mess in comparison.
Exactly. Original 2007 Stalker holds up with its old graphics, just fine. Story and gameplay above all.
Personally, I don't believe that game graphics need to be better than they were in about 2005. At that point, there was plenty of detail available to make everything easily identifiable. But it wasn't covered in so much unnecessary detail and special effects that you couldn't see anything. They focused on the big details that players would actually notice while playing, instead of the tiny details that only show up in perfectly staged screenshots.
There's a reason that the retro look is so common in indie games. Its easier to make, easier to run, and with a bit of skill, can still look really nice. And its why I find games like Ultrakill or Animal Well more appealing looking than any new "AAA" game like CoD or Horizon.
Sure, there are some cases where having tons of detail is good. Like if making your game perfectly photo realistic is an integral part of the story telling. But the vast majority of games don't need to be as detailed as they are these days. No one cares if each individual eyelash on every single NPC is modeled in so much detail that you can count the dust mites on them. Because unless you're going to spend all your time staring at a wall counting the individual pixels, you're never, EVER, going to see that detail. Instead, you're going to be sprinting past all those hundreds of gigabytes of 4k textures and hyper detailed GPU choking shaders, wishing you could be fighting monsters at more than 30 FPS.
Because of that, most players are just going to end up disabling most of that detail anyway, by turning down the graphics options. Which usually makes the game look WORSE than it would have 20 years ago, while still running worse, too. Which is just plain stupid.
Not everyone wants to play an ugly ass looking game, amazing how that works with this day and age and I can agree with it to an extent depending on the style. Although I prioritize gameplay more but a good-looking game is also just as important along with it.
the hardware these days is absolutely insane but the devs become so lazy that even a 5 grand pc feels like youre using mid tier parts
Again my 3070 ti is running great 😂
Their choice to switch to UE5 from UE4 is the sole reason Stalker 2 is awful imo, don't forget the A-Life will NEVER be the same in Stalker 2 since the engine they used in the older titles was built around A-Life simulation which they'll never get with UE5
UE4 is worst
UE4 is also a stutter fest.. Wild West iis a prime example of a UE4 game released this decade that stutters like crazy
@@Mr.Genesis UE4 had 30-40% more performance, making the stut.ers much less noticeable because of the much higher framerate to begin with. UE5 on the other hand..?
@@Bourinos02 oh i dont deny that. it's just that unfortunately we've been dealing with it for so long that people have forgotten that "Unreal Stutter butter" was a meme
At least games on UE4 ran a heck of a lot better and modders could help with the stutter problems as well but not with UE5.
Make low graphics great again.
Imagine if the same mentality for photo realistic games was used in any sport, requiring players in said sport to wear gucci kits at the minimum to attend.
With current devs not being very talented and being heavily reliant on upscaling and frame gen this engine just makes that issue so much worse
Even ue4 still had problems most of the time
I was so disappointed when I read that CDPR were ditching Red Engine in favour of UE 5. Cyberpunk 2077 looked pretty damm good even on lower settings imo.
Stalker 2's optimization is the least of it's problems to be fair. The game feels like an early access release.
But the problem isn't exactly the engine. It's the devs fault. They think that if they use an already established engine, it won't need optimization. It's wrong. The engine is a "tool", you still need to do your stuff.
When you make your own engine you do the optimization yourself because you're making the engine. You can change a lot of things in UE5, and of course, create it yourself. I've lost count of the amount of games that I tweaked to get better optimization and image quality via the ".ini" files of these games. If we, gamers, can do it, they also can.
UE5 is amazing they just need to use it properly, I think they use UE5 to cut corners. Like "I won't be wasting that much time because I already have this much done".
"I've lost count of the amount of games that I tweaked to get better optimization and image quality via the ".ini" files of these games."
Same. I've even used hex editors to alter the code of certain games to allow for things like proper ultrawide support. And don't get me started on how many .ini edits I've had to make in games like Fallout 4. Which begs the question: Why tf do we as players have to do so much of the optimization work on behalf of the devs? It's ridiculous.
You must be a Putin simp
Been saying this since UE4 with darksiders 3
Any game developed on this engine feels like a fanmade project
Amazing graphics don't count for much when every other game runs like Power Point presentation even on the highest end GPUs.
Im getting to the point where i pre-select "ignore" on Unreal 5 games.
unreal is just an insult to the amazing hardware we have nowadays
I think this is being pushed by asset managers, like BR and VG to push people to upgrade and get money on their other computer hardware investments. This kind of hidden monopoly is not good for consumers.
@@oren2234 true
Don't blame a tool for being misused.
@@ПавелВолков-э9и Don't blame the drug dealer, blame the addict! Enabling stupid behaviour is equally responsible and ultimately, without the enabler there is no situation to begin with.
Remember when developers used to invest time, energy, resources, money and great talent into developing their own engine? Because I do. And gaming was way better then.
And lmao there comes the lies. "And gaming was way better then" I loved it when GTA 4 stuttered like hell.
"Remember when developers used to invest time, energy, resources, money and great talent into developing their own engine" yeah creation used in starfield that has no CPU performance issues right ?
"Because I do" no you clearly don't lol.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombatbefore you get all emotional, try to take a deep breath then comment.. there's no denying that the industry has been going down since the big cough. When I was a kid, you bought a game and it worked when you brought it home to play. No patches for better or worse, the games were more soulful and complete.
The problem is that people are demanding more out of games. Back when games didn't need realistic physics, advanced lighting, particle systems, skeletal animation with inverse kinematic support, landscape generation capabilities, material editing tools, dynamic global illumination, animation and sequence editing tools, and countless other modern features, it WAS possible for studios to make their own engines - although they often just licensed another engine and modified it, but that's another story.
Now, though, people expect so much more from games than a ten to twenty hour single player experience with minimal variation and customization. All of those features take time to develop, and frankly it's a waste of time to reinvent the wheel. Why bother rebuilding an entity handling system when someone else has already done it? Or a material painting system, or a physics engine, or any of the other features we take for granted in modern titles.
So developers have to pick: Focus on the parts of the game that make it a unique creative endeavor, or spend time and energy redoing two years of what Epic, iD, or Valve have already done and polished.
Unfortunately, there's a bit of a trap there: Because Epic works hard to make a low barrier to entry (via blueprinting, mostly), it's very easy to sit down with UE5 and have a world you can run around in in only a few hours. However, it's not very scalable, and the engine tools aren't good enough to do optimization work without the use understanding how things work under the hood. If you make a complex set of AI rules for the NPCs in your game, and manage them all via blueprints in the render thread, your game performance is going to blow chunks. This is an obvious gotcha, but there are a *lot* of nonobvious ones - including the entire blueprint system itself - and as such it's very easy to make a very poorly optimized title in UE5.
The right way to do a UE5 game is to use blueprints for prototyping, then get people who actually know the engine to build the systems you've prototyped in blueprints again using C++, making appropriate optimizations along the way. This takes money, time, and experience, though, so it's not always done... and as a result you have a ton of poorly optimized UE5 games on the market.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat what a braindead corporation shill!
@@eagleone5456 There's truth in this but when triple-A games come out and they don't look photorealistic enough, the graphics aren't good enough (for example the facial animations of Starfield), the games get destroyed online. The fact is that people demand better looking graphics, animations, lighting whatever which ends up taking much more resources to make and which puts much more load on the CPU and GPU.
In this weekend I played the campaign of Black Ops 6. 2k ultrawide (+30% pixels) with DLAA at 90fps without framegen.
And the game is more beautiful than many unreal 5 games.
I have a 4080 super.
Oh that game made by a AAA studio thats not ina War?
Can't compare open world to corridor shooters. In open world everything needs to be fleshed out for free roam, in corridor shooters devs know exactly where you can and can't go and what you get is pretty theater stage with nothing outside. Apples =/= oranges.
Unreal Engine is not killing games, bad game developers are. Unity had this same problem back in the early 2010s where everyone said it was killing indie games even though most game developers using it to make bad games were just bad/inexperienced at using it. Now this doesn't excuse the fact that those said game engines have their own issues that need fixing, but we shouldn't be only blaming the tool for reasons that mostly have to do with the developers using them incorrectly. We should give fair constructive criticism for both the engine and the developer where it's due instead of scapegoating the engine for all bad problems in games made in it
If every game using the engine has the same problem, the problem is the engine.
@@TheNameIsSR that is true although developers can modify the engine source code to fix those issues and then forward it to the github to be fixed in the official version
@@randomcommenter10_ except were talking about epic games software devs which deny that there are any issues with unreal engine while removing ways to fine tune engine operation
and game studio devs would modify the source code if they knew what works, what can be modified and if epic devs were keen on helping game studios devs because epic keeps denying that there are issues and keeps recommending people to use nanite and lumen because both of them improve performance in badly optimized games while tanking it in well optimized games
listen , the problem is that maybe they didn't optimize it enough
21:24 Alan Wake 2 uses Remedy's Northlight engine not Unreal Engine 5
The real PROBLEM is there is not enough programmers and companies do NOT want to pay for them, they want to lower development costs so all they need to do is hire artists that can be outsourced
This is not an engine problem, it is the optimization implemented by the developers, or rather the lack of it.
exactly, Unreal provides all the optimisation tools you need, it's up to the developer to use them to properly optimise their games
Precisely. I'm starting to think the comments don't know what an engine is lol. Every engine requires optimization, especially proprietary ones
Gamers would rather buy a flawed gem than a polished turd
Fortunately the new UE update released more performance lighting system settings.
The problem with this engine is that all the things that have the potential to make games beautiful need to be set to the worst and lowest settings just for the game to work, and in many cases it still works poorly!
So in the end, it was better that they weren't used at all!
The old way of making games is far superior to this.
For some reason you can't criticize this game just because it was developed by Ukrainians.
IMHO, what they are achieving with this is that people end up looking away from games that promise graphical improvements instead of polished gameplay and good art design with low hardware requirements.
Stalker 2 doesn't even look that impressive lmao. NPCs look like they're from a game in 2014
Are you even played in 2014 games?
NPC even look close to Kingdom Come Deliverance with CryEngine ..a 5 year old game that also accomplish the atmosphere, environment, and visuals
yeh i didnt even know the game was on UE5 it looks like the same graphics tarkov started with 7 yrs ago lol
Asset quality is a totally different thing and has no effect on performance
Crysis 3 came out in 2013 and NPCs in that game looked better.
I love how UE5 is turning into the new "Made with Unity" and in the meantime Unity is turning out more and more quality titles where people dont even know that its made with Unity.
Unity is in his engine development on a way better track then Epic, Unity is quite Barebone but can be optimized quite well if you know what youre doing. UE5 is so feature rich its a pain to optimize because a lot of systems rely on each other. Also Multithreading is a pain to do, Unity has DOTS now which is insane for Multithreading, Unity is the only mainstream engines that has Data Oriented Programming, the only one that has that and is Bevy which nobody heared of but its an engine that is completely build on DOP
Unity is still a huge mess of an engine to work with though, their codebase is very jank and outdated and they also just shoehorn in half-baked features with little to no documentation. Unreal at least rewrote most of the engine core and functionality every generation in order to alleviate any possible technical debt
@@randomcommenter10_ the whole streaming system in unreal is still the same like in UE3 probably UE2.5 and back then it was bad and now its worse because it cant handle all the new fancy models. You cant bruteforce everything if stuff hardware occupied by other shiny stuff
@@randomcommenter10_ and I agree the whole package manager is a mess still BUT thats features that can be disabled, some of them are loaded all the time but can be removed out of the project, this is what I mean with barebone, if you need features you usually install them.
I watched the Unit 6 and beyond presentation at Unite and was impressed what they're doing currently. Basically they made a complete asset management rewrite build on dots, you can open a project and everything will be loaded multithreaded and you dont have to wait on long building or import times anymore which is crazy and so necessary. Big Unity Projects are a pain to work with, this will be a big improvement
There are no bugs in stalker,only anomalies
I'm more concerned as to the lack of alternatives from Unreal Engine , there's far too many game studios using it nowadays. I'd rather CDPR stuck with RedEngine after doing so much work with it for Cyberpunk and kept evolving that.
Not to mention that UE5 seems very immature and although it has some good features , it also has some serious performance issues for real time rendering which upscaling is being used to mask for gaming.
I get the feeling that UE5 is being targeted at arch Vis and other uses which are offline so performance issues are being ignored.
I don't think UE is that bad for corridor games. But for open worlds it definitely is subpar so far.
Both UE's terrain system and their cell loading system are... clunky... and neither has seen significant attention for several years. This means that for open world games (which very much would like to use both) tend not to perform well unless the developer has some serious experience optimizing open world titles.
You *can* make UE work well in open worlds, but out of the box it's going to have a pretty low performance ceiling unless you're pretty careful about what you're doing to optimize it.
Damn like RE engine
Last gen games running at 150+ fps native res look better to me than current gen upscaled trash. Everything is blurry and full of artifacting and ghosting now, and running slow on top of that
I don't really understand what is happening to graphical priorities at the big studios. It seems like framerate is barely part of the discussion, when its the biggest contributor for a good image when you are actually in motion playing. I dont get it.
The funniest thing is that the developers of the original Stalker went to 4A Games. And they created the 4A Engine. And the game Metro Exodus, which was released in 2019, looks, maybe, a little worse than Stalker 2, but it also weighs three times less than Stalker 2 on the Unreal engine 5. 😅😅
Metro Exodus looks worse?
Thats a negative, metro exodus is to me the best graphic to performance ratio.. Even when using low settings its still looks so good, goodluck finding UE5 engine games that looks good without make it a basically a polygon game on low settings
I'm actually extremely worried about Witcher IV and Project Orion (Cyberpunk sequel) at CD Projekt RED. They literally had the god-engine and I don't know what got to them that they ditched the RED Engine for Unreal Engine 5.
CDPR is making majour modifications and improvements to their version of UE5 so I wouldn't be worried
Cyberpunk and Red Engine is such a bad example here because we seem to have forgotten the state at which Cyberpunk was released
It's memory holed for some reason LMAO
Funnily enough, CP2077 had better performance in 1.2/1.3 than in 1.6-2.0. I had preordered the game and it was performing far better than stalker 2 if we talk about the day 1 performance. Deleted stalker 2 after 2 hours due to performance being all over the place. 40 fps on med 1080p with dlss balancr in the first hub on 3070? Guess that's not my cup of tea. CP had 70+ with rtx enabled and rare drops to 55+ on optimized ultra settings on the same system, while looking miles better.
The state in which it ran perfectly fine on 1080Ti in 1440p? That Cyberpunk? I swear, it's like no one played Cyberpunk on release and only heard about it from auntie's nephew's friend's brother in law. I've finished it in 2 days after release on 10 year old CPU (i7 5960X) and 3.5 year old GPU (1080Ti). The fact they've managed to get it to run on a Steam Deck over time is a testament to how adaptable the engine really was. We see no such adaptability from UE5 games - they all unilaterally run like dogshit and don't scale at all.
There was bugs, but when it came to performance, on PC it was already there.
Learning that their future games are on UE5 will mean the exact same shit will be going on and it will run like shit too. No graphically demanding game runs well on UE5, absolutely none.
@@Kaylas1821 They increased memory budget requirement or whatever the developers name it, which is why 2.0 update isn't available on old gen like PS4 or XB1, i used to be able to run it smoothly on 8gb ram, now it's stuttery within 1 hour and guaranteed crash after 2 hours, if you're wondering, no i'm not on my old PC anymore, i upgraded recently in 2023
Social media has ruined literally everything. I miss going to the store and buying a game, made to last, completed development on launch, passion and soul coming through the screen. AND it's mine til It's either stolen, sold, gifted, or until death. God I love capitalism.
The days of native rendering are over. I genuinely believe frame generation is gonna be the future direction, because I just don't see Devs putting in extra effort for optimisation when you can push a "more frames pls" button. I think it's the future whether we like it or not.
In fact, one of my main worries is that addons like "Lossless scaling" are gonna be cracked down on by the likes of NVidia and AMD, as it potentially puts their chokehold of the market in danger by allowing people to extend the life of their old cards.
Then we start falling into conspiracy territory. They already KNOW technologies like lossless scaling place them in danger. The solution? Make games SO 'unoptimised' and insanely demanding that even WITH upscaling and frame generation, you won't be able to run them without their specialist new shiny hardware.
Food for thought
And yet your theory is proven to be the case with Nvidia, where they release their new cards with significantly less raw power, smaller memory bandwith and smaller memory bus (cheaper hardware overall) and slapping the excuse of "just use DLSS" all over it.
That's cool - I can remain disinterested longer than they can remain solvent 😂 especially with Path of Exile 2 dropping 6th of December, I will probably play it until 2034 anyway 🤷🏻
I can just play older games ngl, plus ppl will prolly be playing tf2 in 5000 years only dying when the game turns off due to a solar flare.
I believe so, I'm now at 40s have passed my gaming time couldn't get off day work. Now ss Stalker fan I'm gonna hold on to my RX7700XT probably my last buy gpu and if I can play Stalker mod Anomaly :-)
I hope you're wrong but it doesn't look like you are. I hate DLSS/FSR and now frame gen. I played around with the settings for STALKER 2 to not use the frame gen and get consistent frames. I don't know how frame gen works but I can assume that it predicts what the next frame will be, it renders it and then displays it which adds a delay. Which explains why the aiming and moving around feels weird, like you have a high temperature or like you're in a dream. I turned that off and the game immediately started to feel snappier.
As for DLSS most games have a terrible implementation. It's a smear fest, almost as bad as TAA 🤢. The only good thing that came out from this AI tech is DLAA/FSR Native AA. It makes the games look sharper. Unfortunately STALKER 2 is forcing Lumen/Ray tracing lighting on all graphical settings which makes the game run like it does. I only played few games with ray tracing on (Control & Metro Exodus) because it was new back then. Now I turned it off for higher frames and sharper image. The only good TAA implementation I saw was in Watch_Dogs 2.
Performance aside, the ALife 2.0 has nearly ruined this game for me. Previous titles were so much more alive.
This is the bigger problem. Forget graphics.
I remember when the matrix demo got released on ps5. the performance was absolute garbage, but it had nanite lol
years later, every ue5 game still runs like garbage, but we have nanite. nanite, guys!!!!
In the 360/Ps3 era devs took chances. Really creative people came up with new game mechanics and systems and no one is really taking these chances anymore (with the exception of indie). Indie creators have made great games using cards and these big AAA studies just remake and remaster ad infinitum. DEI has been proven to put the worst people in creative positions because these AAA devs can hire them on the cheap, get special venture cap and gov funding.
PS360 era produced the most generic slop in the history of gaming and all major releases were marketed on graphical fidelity. Before that games used to be bigger, better and more badass - at least on PC, but that all went away with the explosive popularity of Xbox 360, making games for the lowest common denominator and a sea of absolutely shitty ports to PC. There are literally no games released during that era, bar few humble exceptions that focused on actually improving gameplay (Demon's Souls for example), that are worth remembering or returning to.
Ive been telling my friends that games dont just run well without upscaling anymore. I mean what the hell happened? Sometime after RDR2 nothing has ran as good with Native resolution, or DLAA is what they call it now. Upscaling and Frame Generation has made devs get away with unoptimized crap.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla has 90ish average fps on my 2019 PC(ryzen 2700x and rx 5700) without upscaler and frame generation, so don't say that after RDR 2 nothing runs as good with native resolution, cause it's objectively false. it started happening when upscaler and frame generation were introduced. now frame generation has become mandatory cause devs got lazy with optimization. Monster Hunter Wilds literally says to enable upscaler and frame generation on the recommend specs page. this is the future.
@@SapiaNt0mataThe future is me not spending money on unoptimized crap that's no better than products from 10 years ago.
I hate UE5 so much. UE4 used to be amazing! But then Nvidia ruined everything with their raytracing and upscaling idea. Then Epic followed their lead, making UE4 go from an image quality, high resolution focused performant engine to a fake pixels and fake frame mess that expect blurry antialiasing to bandaid a garbage software RT and lazy LOD system that kills performances especially at higher resolution, in an era where people actually want ultra HD!
UE4 was no better it was a stuttering simulator.
So basically hope they will optimize the game, wait for a few months or a year, get if for a much cheeper price and maybe by that time even have a bit upgraded PC. Got it
Just wait until all of these games will be handed over to you in a Humble Bundle Monthly subscription at $12 a year-two from now - no point paying full price to be a beta tester for a game that may or may not get fixed in the future (looking at you Remnant 2, Dragons Dogma 2 😂) - maybe by then there will be a hardware that doesn't choke on it for no good reason 🤷🏻
@@Micromationoh god Remnant 2
Not just Unreal. Both Unreal Engine and Unity. 2 Blights in game development. They are not killing gaming. They are killing themselves, and those developers that don't know how to use Unreal are going to KTS. Games are going to be fine, plenty of old games with a little ReShade look better than these modern Unreal Stutter slop.
UE5 as bad as it is, it is still the job of devs and companies to put out optimized games or fix it with patches after release. What I mean is I wouldn't say it's entirely the fault of Unreal Engine for these unoptimized games that are being released, it's the fault of these big companies that set out shitty timeline for projects and expect a perfect product, devs will have to skimp out somewhere and that's performance. Also don't forget the other aspects of the games too.
Lots of smaller dev teams like these using UE does help them get very good graphics but at a performance cost so high that most people who have a decent mid range build or gaming laptop probably wouldn't be able to run games like these at acceptable performance, but people use this engine because it is the only option, they are kinda forced into to use it.
nobody forced them to use an engine that they didn't know how to use. it's not the fault of the engine. the engine is a tool. you don't blame a hammer when it fails to sharpen a sword. this video is retarded. it's just more clickbaity garbage to feed the excessive amount of armchair programmers present in the gaming community.
This is first video with title unreal engine in your channel i believe despite u talked lot on it
i expected to see insane graphics on ue 5 and WHERE ARE THEY?all i see is stutter and poor optimization
The graphics are there, when there's a storm in this game it's absolutely terrifying and beautiful at the same time.
But yeah, UE5 is a bitch and runs like ass.
I agree, the graphics doesn't seem that impressive. I mean sure it looks good when it's set to epic setting but at low setting it's like the game from 2000s & blurry as hell. On the other hand, Low settings in alan wake 2 doesn't look that bad, even if we ignore the ugly terrain the rest is phenomenal.
@@hquan1 stalker 2 has better graphics than alan wake 2. Plus alan wake 2 isn't open world.
@hquan1 yea the low settings look horrible i was expecting betyer graphics for seing how bad the performance i hope yhey heavily fix it
The fact that people can practice on unreal engine and have experience it makes game development so much easier since not every studio is requiring proprietary engines
I have said this before and I will say it again, upcoming games made using Rockstar's Rage and Naughty Dog's game engines will embarrass UE once again like they have done over the last decade.
Damn I had no news for upcoming games using Decima and CryEngine or were they still updated?
Let's add Capcom RE engine, the Id tech engine and the 4A engine (which does path tracing on consoles at 60fps and looks fantastic) to the list as well. There are probably more.
this is a shit take. I can build you a duke nukem 3d level that runs like shit
@@R3TR0J4N KCD 2 has Cryengine 5.0 and it looks better than anything else on the market right now.
It's not necessarily only UE5 but it's certainly the biggest offender.
That's what happens when all revolve around shareholders and profit. Having photorealistic graphics is the easiest way to market a game and make the general public interested without necessarily having to incur the risks of trying anything new.
when upscaling was becoming widespread i KNEW was an excuse for optimizind EVEN less the games...
As a veteran player of Tera Online back in the day Unreal Engine always had these issues. People were buying the best possible gear at the time expecting the game to run on max graphics with a playable frame rate. What they realized back then was that you didn't need the best gear but a specific type of gear that will allow for that. Otherwise you were alway stuck on playing on the lowest graphics possible.
it kills games on weak PCs like mine, but this is a step into the future.Once upon a time I couldn't even play the first Crysis on my PC.
It makes me feel like my £3000 PC is a fucking toaster 😂
@@Micromation my pc costs less than 1000 dollars 😩
@ВладК-ш7м we've all been there brother, stay strong 💪🏻
Fun fact: the most resource-intensive part of the game, where evryone have performace issues, is actually their a-live npc system, epsecially during emmisions (big red storms) where all npcs run to shelter and bunch up... and it's reportedly not working properly (both in performace, and in behaviour aspects)
I said unreal engine will destroy gaming, people called me crazy when UE5 was released and hyped up.
Also in my opinion UE5 looks garbage compared to other game engines. Sure UE5 looks great at its maximum settings but when the best GPU struggles to do 30 FPS can it be really considered a success? Game engines make games look great while rendering in real time, UE5 looks like it was made for prerendered movie CGIs, its a failure.
Edit: Never forget Rockstars RAGE engine (an actual game engine) made whole dense cities work with pretty good performance and great graphics.
What are tomorrows lottery numbers?
Yeah I agree, I don't understand how people keep praising UE5. But when I look at it, it just the same with other games that don't use UE5. Sure, maybe it looks good at the first gland, but sterile when we consider about environment. Battlefield 1 did not use UE5, and till now. Games barely look better than it
11:10 I genuinely thought TH-cam changed my video quality to 720p here lmao
Game dev here. Let me be honest, most UE5 games (I think 90% of them) don't really need UE5's specific features like Lumen and Narnite. The main benefit of those two features is cutting down development time NOT making the game more optimized. For example, if the game doesn't have very difficult light scenarios (dynamic day-night cycles, many moving lights, etc.) you don't need Lumen and could just use baked lightmaps. For Narnite, pre-processing LOD from the 3D authoring tools can get the job done just fine. The result might be quite poppy but you save tons of computing time on that.
I haven't played this game yet so I can't say that their decision on Lumen or Narnite is justified but most of the UE5 games aren't.
Dev huh? Whats worse. Crunch or a War?
reason they shift to UE5 is because they would not need the traditional programmer which develop a dedicated game engine for the game, they would have less running cost/ getting more artist to do the model for you
unreal engine 5 is killing games (again) is like UE3 .. same shit... only UE4 was blessed..
UE3 and 4 were good though, there are a ton of well made games using them
UE4 is indeed still widely used today. On the other hand, UE3 was even said to be cursed. Almost all MMORPGs made with UE3 had problems, except for one... UE3 was truly terrible (like UE5).
@@monikaguerra nah I think UE3 was good, I still play many good games made in it such as Dishonored, Mirror's Edge, A Hat in Time, etc. I do however agree that it was pretty jank/cursed but again it's an engine from 2006, Source Engine was also like that but that doesn't make them terrible
Okay, sure, you can think what you want, but this story about the UE3 curse was very widespread at the time. In fact, Epic had to do a strong rebranding with the brand. However, it's also normal that if you play on Unreal now, it seems like a good engine, but at the time it was terrible. All MMORPGs had problems, as mentioned, the data centers always crashed because the engine exploded. They had to create instances within instances to keep the server from going down. The developers had problems, and consider that all MMORPGs made with Unreal Engine 3 eventually shut down. With Unreal Engine 5, it feels like reliving the Unreal 3 era; it was a massacre
I remember people being greatly exited when Stalker Call of Pripyat demonstrated "sun rays" in dusky environments.
um what do you expect? the new age is here. Remember when Far cry /Crysis came out. we needed 4 generations of GPU to run it properly.
The difference is those games looked great for the time, stalker barely looks better than metro exodus and Metro runs extremely well
The new age is cutting optimization and blaming it to customer hardware
@@solaroid4442 This. These "new gen" games don't look good enough to justify this horribly unoptimized and buggy mess of a trend that every new game is releasing with, and that's really sad.
@@Just_a_jinx_lol assets and engine are different things
They're all switching because of the time they save in production.
As unreal engine dev: performance problem is mostly not unreal engine related but poor optimization by devs
Yeah right, funny how 0 devs using UE5 has managed to make it run well on good looking games yet...
Exactly! I made a video about this very thing, 11 years working in UE here
People think that UE is only used for photorealism, when in truth, UE can be moulded to fit any art style you want. Guilty Gear Strive, Tales of Arise and Scarlet Nexus are examples of UE being used the right way. Those games are far from realistic, but are beautifully optimised and have the potential to be timeless.
@@Bourinos02 sea of thieves, Fortnite, final fantasy 7 rebirth, Hellblade, Star wars Jedi, Batman, borderlands 3, PUBG and much much more.
@@markisaki979 I'll add to the list: Bioshock, Dishonored, Mirror's Edge, A Hat in Time, Astroneer, Deep Rock Galactic
Devs should have made design choices to dynamically change settings based on load.
1. Yes, UE5 is not optimised (nanite instead of LOD), and TAA baked in engine sucks. So we can hope the developers will solve this problems and optimise the game in the (not so close) future
2. On the other hand, why do people expect to play games that just came out in highest settings? Why do you expect to have maxed out settings in 4k and run 120fps on best card right now?
I think its good that you cant maxout, as there is a future potential that game will look and run better with time as hardware progresses. Just like in the old days.
Hardware will not progress, moores law is dead. We have reached the limit of physical scale for these graphics cards.
2- Because the games graphics are absolute ASS (relative to how how much it asks from hardware, at least)? There's no reason these games should be even nearly as FPS heavy as they are.
Ue5 killed the ability of people from gtx series to play games and rtx 2000 is pretty harsh
Do you not hear yourself? You don't think we should be able to play games at ultra settings with the best hardware? Games are made worse and worse and that's a fact. RDR2 has amazing and better graphics than most games still and that runs amazing. Devs are getting away with releasing broken products and fix it later. It's stupid
@@alkhaovlmao bro shut up.
bad developers and tech leads are killing games
Anytime i hear a big studio that use to have their own engine switch to UE5 i immediately think oh so they either
A) fired all their old devs so they didn't have to pay as much.
B) the devs left because something was happening inside the company that caused them to be left out.
C) they started hiring for DEI and not hiring the best person for the job to learn their own engine.
It's always usually one of these reasons when i hear they're switching to UE5 always these 3 reasons and then they go oh so yeah we have like 20 guys left from the old engine left out of like 200-300 ppl of the original team. So yeah now we have to switch to UE5 because no one can code shit for our own engine and because UE5 is easier to hire and poach from other companies.
The best Non-Mod solution is to set the in game frame rate cap to unlimited, but then set a limit through your driver software. That will cut down on stutters a bit, but using some engine tweaks will eliminate most if not all stutters.
I’m not judging this game performance since they’re literally going through a war to get this out. They didn’t just have time to optimize and fix everything, so I would just wait to give them time to fix these issues.
What about the Silent Hill 2 remake? The video is made about games running UE5 in general, they all run like this
They left the country when the war started. That's no excuse for shitty performance.
We should be judging everything we are paying for, no excuses.
Black Myth Wukong is also on UE5
The Unreal engine 5 has advanced the graphics so much that the hardware its being ran on is incredibly slow and unoptimized. Rather than focusing on graphics technology now Epic games should focus on compatibility with low end cpus and gpus.
Even high end hardware is just dying to UE5.
"low end" are you blind? Even 4070 is struggling. Wtf are you talking about
In all fairness maintaining and making your own engine is an insane undertaking and if there is a product that is already made that does it for you its just a better choice for companies.
The team is in Ukraine and were developing this during the height of the conflict. There’s even a video showing what their working conditions were at the time so that could have played a factor in the lack of polish and stability. Not saying UE5 doesn’t have a part in this but I’ve never had a UE5 game crash as hard as stalker 2 did when I was playing it.
Team is not in Ukraine, they relocated in Czechia after war started. There might be some office left in Ukraine, but main office now in Prague.
Also all previous stalkers had bad tech condition at the start too.(And even after, only community made it work ok) Seems it's more of skill issue and the ones who manage the project simply doesn't care.
Using War and conflict as an excuse for not optimizing your game is just lame. Nobody forces you to make your game, so if it's not good, don't sell it until everything ironed out. Charging 60$, the game should be optimized at day one. Amd the fact that Stalker 2 has the same graphic quality with BF1, which I can run smoothly on a GTX 1050ti, really shown that Stalker 2 is poorly made AF
UE5 is still quite new, we'd have to see what developers can do when a game is properly optimized since UE5 also brings tools for optimization
It is NOT the Engine BUT the Developer! I hate every time I see a video titled Unreal Engine is killing/ruining this and that. I don't understand why people blame the Engine when it's the Developer's responsibility to optimize their game.
The Engine has provided you powerful tools and engine source codes and every version of the Engine. It's up to the Developers to PROPERLY utilize them for their needs, for their specific project; not go crazy with them.
.
People who have made Game Engines have made game creation and development a lot easier and time-saving. You should be thankful to them for their invaluable efforts and time as a Dev for creating and as a gamer for playing, awesome games which would've taken years of time and knowledge. It is not their responsibility to fix the FPS of your game.
You use Photoshop, right? Do you use all of it's features on the same picture/project? NO! If yes, then the result might look ugly. Same goes for Game Engines. It is YOUR responsibility to use ONLY the specific tools needed for your specific project.
Finally someone who understands the truth, there's way too much misinformation about Unreal being the culprit for games performing/looking bad even though it's literally the developers fault 90% of the time. They love to also disregard all the good games made in Unreal and also never talk about poorly optimised games in other engines such as Unity and even Frostbite. Now I do know that most people making these statements have never used Unreal nor are even game devs themselves but they really should still do more research when making such bold statements
If the parent is enabling bad behaviour, is it the child's fault for pushing the boundaries?
You can take a hammer and drive screws with it. I work on UE4/5, and as a developer I can confidently say that the engine is a tool that is always! Dopisyvayut under the needs of the project, if the developers of Stalker could not do it at the proper level, it does not mean that UE5 is guilty of optimization.
the unreal engine can be optimized and run well if devs put in the slightest effort in not making they're games run like Utter #%@!
exactly, there are a ton of well optimised games made in unreal engine that all these unreal haters just love to completely ignore, talk about confirmation bias
The sad thing is the UR5 engine developers seem passionate but always underdeliver when it comes to the performance side, I've yet to play a game using UR5 that runs well without upscaling and turning all the "features" down or off, and im using a 7900 GRE WITH A 5900X CPU
People keep on shifting blame on unreal but this game imo is more of the developers' fault than just an engine problem. One might even add it seems like an industry wide issue
working engineers know where the blame lies. armchair programmers & clickbaity youtubers do not.
@@sonnyankau9239 Yep and the I don't even understand what people are whining about with STALKER 2, I've played for 29 hours, encountered exactly one bug, one, the performance "problem" has only occurred in a few cutscenes, the game itself has run at 75-120fps and I don't really have a 2000€ PC, but my entire set, monitor and all accessories included have cost around 900€ at most... I'm starting to be pretty sure that in both games and software, most of the "bugs" people are whining about are nothing more than people not knowing how to use their hardware. In addition, CSG has already announced that a major patch will be coming to the game next week that will fix so many "problems" that I can't even list them here, although as I mentioned, strangely enough, I haven't encountered these problems myself. Moreover from what I've watched, this particular channel in particular does nothing but whine about something, I haven't seen a single video where he has anything positive to say about anything.'another thing that is as illogical as it can be is that certain people call upscalers and framegeneration fps: fake fps, just so you know, all fps are "fake"., Framegeneration image quality starts to be so close to "real" native resolution and "real" frames that you have to examine it with a 1000x magnifying glass if you want to see any difference.. Apparently some people have nothing else to do but whine about non-existent "problems".. Super tired of these les cry over something channels, It's starting to get almost as annoying as certain rage-spewing tubers
Well when almost nobody can make a game with UE5 that is optimized and runs well that isn't so CPU heavy that even the best CPUs on the market struggle, maybe it's about time to also start putting some blame on the engine as well hell even the people that made the engine have a difficult time optimizing it.
@@MrAnony07 ue5 is 2 & a half years old. you dorks act like the engine has been out 5 years and every game made on it is garbage. some incredible games have been developed with ue5 in a very short time.
This reminds me of the time when home construction moved away from manual tools to power tools:
Any idiot with a power tool can pop pre-made nails into a house frame, but people back then, with their hammers and hand forged square nails, made better quality structures because the human aspect is more involved in it than the tools.
UE5 worst engine ever created and its not even close
RE engine would like to have a word
Do you create games on Unreal engine 5? How do you know it's bad for developers?
@@Riyozsu Because the Developers have yet to release a game that doesn't perform like trash.
Even Epic Games has trouble with UE5 and it's their engine. You ever see @vex 's videos about Fortnite?
@@Jinny-Wano RE is amazing especially since they use technology’s like interlacing and i mean they got it to work on ios it’s literally black magic
@@Mr.Genesis how to say you know nothing and an idiot. You do remember that the engine that made cyberpunk was a mess as well with performance issues, its not the engine you idiots
the ai in this game just spawns in within 50m at spawn points when you enter an area, the older games had a-life ai that traveled across the map and interacted with eachother even when the player wasnt there, nothing exists outside the player 50m bubble in this game. you can test it, walk away from a group until they despawn then try and go find them, they are deleted from the game once you leave
To be fair, I am surprised people are now starting to understanding that Unreal Engine is not a great engine, it is a problem for the industry.
There are a just handful of studios that are not EPIC and that can actually use Unreal Engine in the good way.
But most of the stuff we are getting that are based on this engine, are just feeling like "yet another asset flop" - no own art style, same animations reused here and there... no special atmosphere or light... everything feels just SAME.
It has been happening since Unreal Engine 4, but people are not starting to notice that more with Unreal Engine 5.
Konami not only pushed Silent Hill remake to UE5, but also are making MGS 3 remake there too - they literarily have this amazing (even outdated yet still amazing) engine called "Fox engine" but they simply cannot use it - because people knew how to work on it, left Konami after Kojima.
It is the same sad story with CDProject RED - they got their own engine called "REDEngine" that was used in Witcher 2, Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk... and want to know the funny story why they are not going to make both Witcher 4 and Witcher (1) remake in it?
Because people that knew how to work on that engine... are no longer working in CDProject RED...
Studios now are loosing all the talented people that made them what they are known for -> almost no one that worked on REDEngine is working in CDProject RED.
They are filling up all those slots with untalented washed up "dev wannabes" that are coming out of nowhere, have no actual skills outside "ohh I played in Unreal Engine Studio"
Coloured haired activists forcing unreal engine down our throats - that is what we will only see at "AAA" market for next 5 years :)
I agree on the last part, but keep in mind that the initial release of CP was an unmitigated disaster like we've never seen before and some devs blame the Red Engine for most issues. UE has a few huge problems, like CPU bottleneck and traversal stutter, but latest versions are getting better and the hope is that in time they will fix these issues. The rest is on the devs
you made an illogical leap in your conclusion makes no sense.
For most companies, the move to UE5 are high-level business decisions made by senior management and executives chasing growth for shareholders for most of the case.
UE looks good to them because they can theoretically reduce headcount by cutting the experience devs that pays more.
for GSC game world, all their experience dev left for 4Agames to make metro series, and as for konami, the technical employees left with Hideo Kojima making their expertise on their old game engine useless. No activist are involved in any of the move to Unreal Engine.
at lest point the fingers at the right people, if you are serious about solving the problem.
Do you work for or know people that work for these studios? If not how could you possibly know how many people did or worked on what in said studios? "Washed up non talented devs" says the obscure keyboard warrior. Cry harder while I enjoy amazing games like Stalker 2 and doesn't whine when I experience an occasional bug or glitch which is way less common than the internet will lead you to believe or throw a tantrum cause the flashlight doesn't cast shadows. Not to mention what the devs at GSC studios went through making this game while you do nothing to contribute just complain and be negative. Show some respect you entitled brat.
@@spartand001 I think he was pointing to all the DEI injection of people that have no true merits that plagues the game industry. The connection to UE is made up. But Epic itself is a perpetrator of this ideology too. I Don't think they push it on other studios, Wukong is a good example of it not being the case
This needs reiterating with every UE5 game released: UE5 has been *designed* with Performance upscaling in mind. So 4K to 1080p, 1440p to 720p, etc. It's not "meant" to be run at native resolution.
UE5 looks prety BUT, it tends to stutter for whatever reason and It's hard to optimize.
most of the stuttering issues have to do with DX12 (mainly for games that don't precompile shaders) which is known to have stuttering issues in other engines such as Frostbite. DX11 has almost none of these stuttering issues so it's best to use that when possible
Devs has been using UE since college.
"Opportunities"? More like they don't want to relearn another engine so moving to UE5 gives the company more opportunities to hire dev
I just want to hear my fellow stalkers shooting at things, the zone is so quiet.
The game litry needs another 6 months maybe even more, its fun rn, but it could be a lot more fun.
I'm no game director, but I'd imagine the costs of having your own engine once you factor in engineering, upkeep and up-skill/train someone on how to use it, can be quite expensive once you factor in time and resources needed for it. Where as using an exisiting engine plus finding existing talent that know how to use such engine would be a lot easier and cost effective.
The developers have confirmed that there's currently a memory leak related to how the game renders NPC skeletons and faces. This explains why the game’s FPS tanks when you enter villages with a large number of NPCs.
What is the point of making such photo realistic graphics when most of the hardwares are just struggling to run it...
If Valve wasn't gatekeeping Source 2, things would be different for the gaming space.