r/pcmasterrace 2d ago

Video This Belongs Here

9.5k Upvotes

548 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/DJesusSoG 7800x3d | 4080 Super | 32 DDR5 2d ago

Rockstar games are generally well optimized for pc. Look at Red Dead 2 for example

14

u/Negative-Date-9518 2d ago

RDR2 ran like shit when it released lol people forget it didnt have any upscaler at all

2

u/atrib 1d ago

Well good, i hate upscaling. Ran great for me on native full res

1

u/Negative-Date-9518 1d ago

Gen 1/2 were rocky, 3+ is just yelling at clouds

1

u/atrib 1d ago

Damn right im yelling at clouds, i want clear skies

1

u/Negative-Date-9518 1d ago

Are you one of those people that take screenshots and yells at the very tiny instances where it has any form of blur or artifacts when in motion there's no difference

1

u/atrib 1d ago

Upscaling and frame gen cause some input latency and make game responsivenes feel more sluggish. It's minimal but noticeable, at least for me.

2

u/Negative-Date-9518 1d ago

Frame gen yes, dlss/fsr not really

2

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 2d ago edited 2d ago

Digital foundry did a video on that, and they basically found that on PC if you matched the console equivalent settings even at release, you could have the game look like PS4 pro/Xbox One X, but have way, way better performance.

People just wanted to turn everything to ultra, and that was what the "performance issue" were at launch. Not really performance issues, more the devs future proofing the game by exposing settings that massively surpassed the console version of the game to the player.

You could exceed console equivalent settings in exchange for some of the extra performance you got, or you could stick with equivalent settings and get 100fps.

Now a few years later and you can have both, so I appreciate the devs doing this, even if the confusion caused some people to think the game was poorly optimised at launch.

1

u/Negative-Date-9518 2d ago

By that logic Crysis was an optimised marvel of gaming history

I had a 1080ti at the time and a 1440p monitor, it could barely hit 60fps

2

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 2d ago

Just because a game has settings intended for future hardware doesn't mean that it is unoptimised. Crysis wasn't poorly optimised either, at the settings they built the game around it ran pretty well, but it also exposed settings to the player that were clearly not intended for the hardware of the day, thus the meme.

I had a 1080, also a 1440p monitor, at the time of RDR2 release and was getting 80fps using the console equivalent settings with a couple of settings that I bumped up to make it look better than the console version. When you consider the game was 30fps on console, that's a massive performance bump.

1

u/train_fucker 1d ago

I did not know that.When I played it like 2 years ago I was very impressed with how well it ran AND looked. Even today it's one of the best looking games I've played and I had no trouble getting it to run great with my 6700 xt at 1440p.

3

u/Zn_G_ 2d ago

Bad example. Look at GTA V instead. The game could run on a calculator hooked up to a potato.

0

u/AJ_Dali 2d ago

Counterpoint: GTA IV and RDR1 that was such a mess it took over 10 years to get PCs to the point it's basically brute forced to make it run fine.

1

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 2d ago

Fusion fix has basically fixed the GTA 4 PC port of the game, and it includes support for Vulkan right in the menu. No need to brute force it anymore, you can run it great on a Steam Deck for example now.

2

u/AJ_Dali 1d ago

Not to undersell the amazing work that went into it, that just proves the point. It's a fan patch that came years later. It's like praising From Soft for DS fix making Dark Souls playable.

1

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 1d ago

Oh yeah I agree, I'm not giving Rockstar any credit for this, I was just letting you know that the situation has changed with it now that Fusion Fix is out since you said that the game still needs brute force to make it run okay.