It runs at 4k native at 120 fps on a 4090. 1440p 60 fps on a 3060 12gb without any upscaling. Is that too much? I don't think so. The nioh engine and the ff16 engine are what I would consider terrible engines. Ff16 has to drop to 720p in combat on PS5 for 60 fps? That's what I would consider "unoptimized".
Can I ask you where exactly why it's not enough?
"The issue with Elden Ring for me personally was never it's looks, it was the performance of those looks - It was/is too high for what they are."
the game looks really good to me. It even looks better taking into account that entering caves and dungeons doesn't load another zone, it's already part of the map. I found that mindblowing when I started playing the game.
Alex said 2015, which is accurate. Those shots are wide and distant, making the game's art style shine. Up close, it can look quite ugly. The textures are awful and the geometric density leaves a lot to be desired. The lighting and shadows are also poor. The character models are hair rendering are also crap. Almost nothing in this game is technically accomplished honestly.
It's important to take in to consideration the target platform, which is a PS4. The textures are identical no matter the platform. The lighting and shadows are perfectly fine for a last gen game. Things like the npc's that have the player character model are a bit difficult to judge, since you aren't supposed to look at them up close, and they never show up in cutscenes or something like that. But the model quality for enemies and other creatures is pretty high.
Which is Alex's point. The game's graphics look like they belong in 2015 so why does it run so poorly? It looks fine for a PS4 game because as you said, it's the target platform. However, it runs badly on machines far more powerful than a PS4 which is where the issue is.
Yeah the Alex comment is in relation to the stutters, I forgor the context when I made the comment so it catched strays, sorry Alex
. But I remember in some DF directs that the opinions on this game graphics sounded a bit too severe to me, just like on the internet as a whole.
On PS4 definitely no to all those points (I am currently re-playing the game on base PS4). I think the game looks both impressive technically and obviously artistically on that hardware. Just the scale of the world and its density is the most impressive stuff on PS4. Even textures are very good for such a big game. They definitely do exploit the Playstation hardware well at a native 1080p as well and we expect 30fps with bad frame-pacing on that platform as standard, since Bloodborne (and because of Jaguar CPU obviously). But technically the game is one of the most impressive open-world game on PS4.
I agree, but that is most likely incompetence from whoever is deciding the resolution (here the bottom is 1512p, why not reduce it?). Their dynamic res system is also very slow to react. The incompetence is in those two things, not in the coding of the engine. And that is crazy because the amount of workload to change those two things isn't even high. At least compared to making the engine more efficient.
It looks like a middle of the road, lower budget PS4 game; which is fine because that’s what it is. Performance is very sub par for what the game is doing, just as all games they have released. Technical prowess is not their strong point.
I don't care, in fact I don't know why anyone does.
You don’t have to care. Some of us are debating the claim that the game performs well relative to its visual output.
I'm not debating that it's technically impressive. I'm debating that without at least competent tech, the art wouldn't shine. The art would look bad if it wasn't supported by the tech.
