Charlietus
Regular
More than "the worst PC port ever" it would be more appropriate to say: "the worst engine ever". Maybe just surpassed by the team ninja engine.
Please retire those engines, they will not be missed.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
Please retire those engines, they will not be missed.
Nah, it's just the latest Crysis. "Can your PC run FFXVI?"
davis.anthony
Veteran
It's way better than Crysis was back in 2007.
Charlietus
Regular
Crysis justified it with visuals. I'm so bitter against this game
It looked like a game that I should have loved, but it's so bad.
DavidGraham
Veteran
I would say it's one more nail in the coffin for the pure rasterization engines, they try to push visuals way up but end up with mediocre graphics and bad performance.
This game is performing like a heavy ray traced or path traced title, despite not featuring any of that, and despite looking like nothing special.
davis.anthony
Veteran
It's nothing to do with rasterisation, it's everything to do with the developers.
Charlietus
Regular
I would agree, but they aren't even pushing graphics that much, while having disastrous performance.
Still remember being in a desert in the game, looking at nothing, and the game couldn't reach 60 fps. Get out of here ^=^
DavidGraham
Veteran
I guess it all comes down to devs in the end yes.
Rasterization requires more time and effort from developers to give it a certain look though, so I would argue that having ray tracing would have helped the game (Final Fantasy 16) to have a better visual result in the same current performance profile for potentially less time and effort from the developer.
Yeah, confirmed by a developer of the game (God Of War Ragnarock).
Last edited:
FF16 looks pretty good but the weakest area is flat lighting in some areas. A half decent GI solution would make a big difference.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Games like A Plagues Tale Requiem show that some of the 'AAA' studios are out of touch with their technology.
That game is easily top 5 best looking on PC.
That game is easily top 5 best looking on PC.
Does FF16 even look better than FF15? I’m not sure, particularly if we look at the PC version of FF15.
Here just mere speculations ok? Would the "Radec Engine" ( Name of character of Kilzone franchise) used in this game it could be a variation of the Decima Engine? If so, would there be any change that would cause such a loss of performance?
Good on him, somebody needs to call out this nonsense.
GPU usage is one of the biggest lies in the industry right now. 100% GPU usage just means the GPU is always doing “something” not that 100% of the GPU is being used. That metric wouldn’t make sense anyway as it’s impossible to use 100% of every unit in a GPU simultaneously. However the problem is that most games don’t come close to using 100% of any unit on the GPU at any time.
I ran a few traces of the FF16 demo on my 3090 at 720, 1080 and 1440 and unsurprisingly utilization is poor. So the game isn’t GPU heavy. It’s just a poor fit for GPUs.
Unknown settings and different benchmarking scenes.
I'm sure DF will test this though.. it would be the most interesting thing to test tbh.
So are you saying the PS5's high quality mode is ultra because that's the only option left
That’s what Jetpack Interactive said in the DF interview.
Similar threads
