The Dear Leader
Banned
Sub 15 FPS for extended periods of time is insane, coupled with below low settings and a sub 720p resolution... I don't see any sort optimization making this game anywhere near where it needs to be.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[DF] Ark: Survival Evolved Xbox One Frame-Rate Test
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
Sorry but this stupid idea that having spent a certain amount of hours with a game negates your opinion is pointless. I'm not even going to go into how many hours I've sunk in this but I will say that the game has changed a lot in bizarre ways. If you can't see that in 800 hours play I don't know what to tell you.
The devs attempts at providing end game content have created nothing more than unstoppable, unbalanced powerhouses that rely on constant round the clock monitoring to keep up with the most dedicated. Anything less and you will be destroyed by a Gigano or wave of overpowered dinos they bred.
Out of over 100 friends I made in the game only one even plays it anymore because of what they did to the balance. And the balance is only one of many glaring issues they continue to ignore. I mean that's not even counting the dinosaurs that demand 8 hours or more of constant babysitting to tame.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
and thats kinda my point, if you feel something is broken/unplayable how could you spend more than an hour or so with it.
i see how you cant and that makes sense cause as you said, you can barely spend an hour with it. but if you spend 50 hours with something it was playable for you.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
you are arguing something tottally different
you are arguing balance and direction. and in regards to that i agree with some of your points and im not always happy with devs decisions on balance or their direction.
but my argument on the 50 hours is him saying the game was broken and unplayable and dumb, yet he continued to pour 50 hours into it. so obviously it was playable
Chobel
Member
Their exact words were "broken/unfinished", nothing about the unplayability.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
he also said early access is dumb and he doesnt see the point of it. yet the reason he partook in it is the point of it.
none of us are arguing it being unfinished.
broken = unplayable
xXxNOYHIxXx
Banned
It runs on a 2X 980TI, and usually drop under 30fpsThe PC version looks way better than the Xbox One version too, it's just terrible, hope they'll optimize and work on consoles as much as possible...
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
Yeah I guess. I don't think I'd quite classify it as broken or unplayable, but at the same time I can understand why it could easily seem that way. Technically it is a balancing issue but if I went and started a new character in a public server right now and that was my first experience with it I'd feel like something isn't right.
The game heavily supports people who played since launch, or at least after the wipe and punishes newcomers, or allows newcomers to be punished too easily. That's going to leave bad impressions for some people.
With that said though, there are actually a number of bugs that can render the game unplayable without some awkward fixes and at launch it was extremely common that many couldn't play the game at all.
Maybe.
A game engine isn't some magic "make it run gud!" thing. An engine is only as good as the code going into it, and it's also only going to be suited to certain kinds of experiences. It's very possible that Unreal is just not built for the experience they are trying to achieve, and no amount of traditional optimization will fix that.
As I understand it, Ark has a lot of simulation elements to it, with lots of AI characters in a really large open space, and apparently even things like temperature and weather simulation. If they are doing "real" simulation which is updated frequently, then that probably compounds to be a huge resource sink. Additionally, Unreal is typically not regarded as a "simulation-focused" game engine; it may not be geared to the level of simulation that the Ark developers want to achieve.
The fact that many people say even high-end systems struggle with the PC version, seems to suggest the game is simply simulating a ton of stuff and that they would either have to cut features or cut the detail of their simulation to make the game run better. Maybe they aren't willing to do that because they think it would hurt the gameplay.
(I haven't played Ark, just speculating.)
Insane Metal
Member
1080*624 LMAO
Jesus, what a mess! Holy shit.
Jesus, what a mess! Holy shit.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
i dont think any of us are referring to launch.
also i think we can all agree the official public servers are a dumpster fire... like most official public servers of survival games.
and i disagree that if you are new you will struggle. cause a friend of mine was new when i put him onto the game and he helped the tribe he joined which wasnt established yet become king tribe of his server.
I understand that the engine isn't magic at all. I was just responding to another user that this isn't an in-house developed engine.
I don't even know if UE4 was a good choice for open-world, heavy CPU simulations either. Are there any currently released open-world UE4 games?
And yea, the finished game is supposed to be very sim heavy. Similar to A-Life in STALKER.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6EMc6eu3c8
That kite demo for how good it looks, runs well on hardware @ realtime.
Ok, so it's probably not the large environments, but the very CPU heavy simulation then.
HanzSnubSnub
Member
This is why early access will never work on consoles. Developers can have users with powerful PC's just brute force the code to test the game out and play it. On console, ~20fps on average will just ruin the user experience.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
but apparently its working so....
The (surprising) popularity of the XB1 version seems to contradict this.
The kite demo uses an ungodly amount of resources. It is a tech demo at high fidelity and shouldn't really be used as a metric for a complete game.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Played trial and deleted it after about 10 minutes. I didn't really notice any bad performance, but then not much was happening on screen.
I couldn't figure out how to start a fire. I just kept seeing other people's fires that were put out and they were all "locked". Just seemed fucking boring and stupid. I punched a couple of dinosaurs and turned it off.
I couldn't figure out how to start a fire. I just kept seeing other people's fires that were put out and they were all "locked". Just seemed fucking boring and stupid. I punched a couple of dinosaurs and turned it off.
bee
Member
if your console is underpowered just make shit up
single titan x , 4k, some epic, some medium
not a looker for sure, least it plays well
Eh the game has been the top downloaded title many times and it's usually around the 6-7th most played game. I'd say it's working pretty fine
If your playing this game, your not caring about performance that much. It's dinosaur minecraft. People like that
Yeah it's really awful, like upscaled from a very low res.
Piston Hyundai
Member
Backfoggen
Banned
if your console is underpowered just make shit up
single titan x , 4k, some epic, some medium
not a looker for sure, least it plays well
Wtf are the developers doing that this is ever the output. Just terrible.
Edit: Looked at the settings. You're going to need to set resolution scale to 100% if you want to post a 4K screenshot lol.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
I would expect maybe around the summer. It took Elite Dangerous four months to come out of preview.
ISee
Member
I really do not understand your point or what you are trying to sell. I was talking about the epic preset in 1080p. Not mixed settings, a random screenshot with a fps value that could go down to 25ish in another scene and '4k'.
I was talking about recent benchmarks (6 days old) and I tend to believe them and not you.
Epic preset, sub 1080p, 6 days old benchmarks.
edit: And why do you even think I own a xbox one?
edit2: are you sure your resolution scale is set to 100%?
Dictator93
Member
Are they taking advantage of things like Distance field AO and other heavy UE4 features? What exactly explains this game's GPU hunger?
ISee
Member
As far as I know they implemented distance field AO some time ago and generally the game is surely on the eye catching side with some effects, like High-resolution reflections, an impressive dynamic lightning model, high resolution godrays (and we know how taxing high resolution god rays can be from Fallout 4), particles etc. I guess most of the GPU hunger comes from this.
Still the hunger seems to be very real. pcgameshardware.de used the ingame presets for benchmarking (without further tweaking) and none of the presets even use the full rendering resolution (1080p in this case), but internaly a slightly reduced one (later upscaled).
Also worth mentioning: This time around they used an overclocked Titan X (+200mhz core clock, 110% power target and 70% fan speed at all times) for benchmarking. That's really a beast of a card and not representative at all. And even this card struggled to hold 30fps in this scenario (sub 1080p) on the epic preset.
I somehow get the feeling this game will be the new crysis. A game that won't run descently on max/high setting for a long time.
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
I tried it out and found it pretty much unplayable. Not only the framerate, but the atrocious screen tearing. I have a difficult time understanding how so many people are OK with this and are seemingly enjoying the game in its current state. If I were to review the game right now, I'd give it a 2-3, based mainly on the horrendously unoptimized performance.
The game lets you punch dinosaurs. I died something like 15 times during my 1 hour trial and loved it.
Dictator93
Member
I do not think UE4 has volumetric global lighting by default, those are probably just cheep screen space crepuscular rays. But since they are at least using something distance field, maybe that explains some of the weight.
It plays pretty well and looks very nice on my relatively modest PC...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB_Dbq-yQXk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB_Dbq-yQXk
thelastword
Banned
Dips to 8fps with heavy screen tearing is not fun (no matter how much you want to punch baby dinosaurs)
Ground Zeroes was more or less early access to the phantom pain, the game run like a dream on every piece of hardware (60fps). This game here is barely 15fps, it's sub-hd and the Xbone version looks absolutely awful.
Very strange to me as well, triple x titans and you'd rather play at 15fps at 640p. So 1440p or 1080p 60fps is not a better option?
That's about Alan Wake's resolution on the 360, very close to 480p, this is beyond ridiculous for any developer.
Very strange....., I can understand a 30fps game, not a sub-hd game that runs in the teens.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
nvm
Crayon
Member
1/4K
Are you seeing wicked hitching and all the time like the video when you play? Much of the video showed 18-25 on the frame counter but there were huge stutters the whole time. Almost like the recording was bad or something. Is the game like that?
Are you seeing wicked hitching and all the time like the video when you play? Much of the video showed 18-25 on the frame counter but there were huge stutters the whole time. Almost like the recording was bad or something. Is the game like that?
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
I can only speak for PC here but it likely applies to Xbox One too. If you're talking about the stuttering that I think you are then that is server side and generally very common in the game. I'd imagine the issue extends to Xbox due to the nature of it. They've tried other servers too but it's clearly either their netcode or the simulation itself as nothing so far has fixed it, or should I say nothing had fixed it when I last played about a month or so ago.
LordOcidax
Member
Whats the point of this game... Even on PC with a super hardware looks bad.... I dont get it....