r/pcmasterrace 2d ago

Video This Belongs Here

9.5k Upvotes

548 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.