I fixed Borderlands 4's stuttering issue by upping my shader cache size to 100 GB, which feels like something I shouldn't have to do in a well-optimised game
I fixed Borderlands 4's stuttering issue by upping my shader cache size to 100 GB, which feels like something I shouldn't have to do in a well-optimised game
Why buy this absolute disaster of a game?
Because the previous ones were great and this one has glowing critics reviews. For me though, the system requirements are too high, so I'll buy and play it sometime after a PC upgrade.
BL3 was just as much (if not more) of a mess - people shouldn't be surprised, especially with Randy telling people they should be selling their souls to have the privilege of playing this game.
Great? The first one was OK. Then it kinda went down hill from there.
I'm going to have to try to remember that everyone has different taste... But good God I can't be the only one who despised the dialog and "so randumb holds up spork!?11!" type humor in BL2?
It seems like everyone else loves it. I just found it incredibly grating.
Because it's fun and it's the only game series me and my dad still play together.
I'm not sure you saw, but borderlands ceo says you're just a pleb and get better gear scrub or don't buy their premium game
"Borderlands 4 is a premium game made for premium gamers. Just as Borderlands 4 cannot run on a PlayStation 4, it cannot be expected to run on too-old PC hardware," he posted on Saturday. "This is not a game made to run on 10-year-old PCs… if you're trying to drive a monster truck with a leaf blower's motor, you're going to be disappointed."
Modern gaming, why expect anything more?
Avoid UE5 games, they are all the same. Underperforming messes.
I'm still not convinced the engine is the problem. Maybe it's not helping, sure, but heavy reliance on upscalers to achieve nominal performance is probably a bigger issue.
That, and shipping before proper optimization passes is probably more profitable in the short term, so publishers will push for that.
Yes, the engine could be used well, but it's used for it's out of the box "good" graphics, lighting and such. Which then yes, devs slap on shitty DLSS, frame generation or whatever at the end to reach a somewhat playable framerate (or "framerate number" should I say with the way things are going. Fuck you Nvidia).
No developers are going to spend ages tweaking the engine to get good performance when people will just buy the game regardless. I've yet to see a good performing UE5 game with good fidelity and I probably never will because it's entirely reliant on TAA as it's deferred rendering as standard. I hate seeing developers abandoning their own in-house engines just to swap to shitty UE5. I know, I know, it's all about the money...
The engine is a plague, as every developer is seemingly moving to it. Chasing "upgraded" graphics that no one asked for. All games consolidating onto one engine is very bad.
It's good for movies, bad for games. Give us good raster performance back, no TAA, no upscaling, no frame gen.
UE5 can run well, but all the defaults that Epic suggests devs use are really quite bad for performance. They improve performance on horribly unoptimized scenes, but actually optimizing the scene would allow a 10x performance improvement at no reduction in visual fidelity. But devs don't tend to optimize much anymore because those Epic-suggested defaults "take care of optimization".
I'm becoming more and more convinced it is the engine honestly. It is probably harder to optimize and devs not having enough time to do so if I had to guess.
It's mostly not UE5 exactly. UE5 just let's devs turn on features that are performance hogs easily. Squad, for example, just upgraded from UE4 to UE5 but they took their time and did things in a smart way (like not using Lumen), and performance increased for a lot of people, with much higher detail too.
UE5 isn't the issue. It's devs who turn on all the features they can and ignore optimization because "the engine just handles it." It's got some really impressive technology, but it'll ruin your game if you let it.
Uh, Jesus Christ...
in 3 years PC build guides are gonna be like "You need 3 drives in your gaming PC. One for the OS (this can be small, its not important), at least 2TB for games, and another 1TB for the shaders for those games. Oh and you'll need a top of the line Nvidia card because even a dumb UE5 asset dump game like Notary Simulator won't run on a budget card"
Or just have DLSS run the game at 480p, but upscale it to 4k! You'll never notice the difference we swear!
For AAA games, that might be the case.
So what I’m hearing is that it’s not even worth trying to play on a Steam Deck 😂
I did it for the hell of it, I think it had 60-80 fpm after the opening cutscene, literal slideshow experience.
There's people on proton db claiming higher frames, but like 18-22 fps, def far from playable
Funny thing, that. It's not a well-optimised game. That's the problem.
Statement like that makes me seriously doubt that it can even run on a PS5 which I was thinking about getting it for but this is kind of changing my mind
250GB install sizes plus an additional 100GB shader caches. This is what the future looks like, buckle up.
For a cartoon game.
With the aesthetics they have, this could have been playable on the steam deck without anybody noticing the difference in graphics.
Why do they need 2-billion-polygon rocks only to flatten them all out and make it look like a cardboard cutout? It's ridiculous.
managers have insane priorities
It could have looked like BL2 with a few upgrades and more physics and that would have been fine.
Nah, this is just one horribly unoptimized game.
250GBs? Cries in DSL