Another day, another awful console to PC port release (The last of us: Part 1)

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, porina said:

Not all games are 60fps on console. 30fps is still a thing.

Console gamer: "Wee this game is fun"
PC Gamer: "50 FPS average, pure garbage! Unplayable"

 

Console gamer: "PC gamers are weird. Oh well back to enjoying the game"

 

FPS doesn't actually matter that much.

[hysel]

Everyone, please calm down lol. It's only computers...

 

That said, Naughty Dog came up with this tweet

 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, porina said:

 

 

Not all games are 60fps on console. 30fps is still a thing.

Motion sickness is also still a thing, something that is induced primarily by FPS games not being fast enough, motion blur, and wobble/head-bobbing. A TPS lacks most/all of that by virtue of using an over-the-shoulder camera.

 

When a game doesn't run at 60fps, it's always because it traded off resolution/detail. A third-person shooter and a first person shooter have somewhat different audiences, because the FPS player will prefer 60fps at the expense of visuals. All other game styles, like platformers and RPG's don't rely on running at 60fps to be playable. Only FPS/TPS games do.

 

But you're not going to buy a PC to have a crappier experience. To which there are three kinds of PC gamers:

a) Those who have somewhat-overkill rigs (eg 3080Ti's, 3090(ti)'s, 4080's, 4090's, i7/i9's) who want a better experience (eg 4Kp60 or 1440p120)

b) Those who have a slightly-better than average rig (eg 3070/3070Ti,3080's i5/i7's) and want an equal experience to the console (1080p60)

c) Those who have essentially a potato. (iGPU's, x50/x60 parts, laptop x70/x60/x50 parts, etc) and complain that every game is broken for them at any setting.

 

This game is bringing out all of group C. (I am not saying x60 parts are bad, I'm saying that x60 parts tend to be more common, hence the screaming is more common)

 

FPS players are the biggest complainers.

 

My personal point of view is that "minimum specs are always a lie"

And you'll note that the minimum 720p30 listed is Radeon 470/GTX970 4GB card. So automatically you should look at that and go "that's a lie", and look at the Recommended as the minimum. 2070 and 3060 8GB cards for 1080p60... HMMMMMM

 

The only x80 part on that list  is 14th. The top 7 are x50/x60 parts. So those recommended settings, kills off 12 of the 17 cards.

 

 

[Erioch]

When will people learn not to buy a game on day one?

[starsmine]

26 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Motion sickness is also still a thing, something that is induced primarily by FPS games not being fast enough, motion blur, and wobble/head-bobbing. A TPS lacks most/all of that by virtue of using an over-the-shoulder camera.

 

When a game doesn't run at 60fps, it's always because it traded off resolution/detail. A third-person shooter and a first person shooter have somewhat different audiences, because the FPS player will prefer 60fps at the expense of visuals. All other game styles, like platformers and RPG's don't rely on running at 60fps to be playable. Only FPS/TPS games do.

 

But you're not going to buy a PC to have a crappier experience. To which there are three kinds of PC gamers:

a) Those who have somewhat-overkill rigs (eg 3080Ti's, 3090(ti)'s, 4080's, 4090's, i7/i9's) who want a better experience (eg 4Kp60 or 1440p120)

b) Those who have a slightly-better than average rig (eg 3070/3070Ti,3080's i5/i7's) and want an equal experience to the console (1080p60)

c) Those who have essentially a potato. (iGPU's, x50/x60 parts, laptop x70/x60/x50 parts, etc) and complain that every game is broken for them at any setting.

calling x50/x60 class parts potato class is absolutly unhinged and shows how problematic modern PC gamers have gotten honestly.
You are correct, no PC gamers go and buy a PC to have a crappier experience, they do it because people write emails, do research, organize their family photos, watch youtube on a screen bigger then a phone, and then on top of that, play some games in their downtime. And to say 720p40fps is a crappier experience is just wild. This is a ps3 game, remastered for ps4. You are still getting a better experience both visually and frame rate wise.
 

 

26 minutes ago, Kisai said:

My personal point of view is that "minimum specs are always a lie"

 

And you'll note that the minimum 720p30 listed is Radeon 470/GTX970 4GB card. So automatically you should look at that and go "that's a lie", and look at the Recommended as the minimum. 2070 and 3060 8GB cards for 1080p60... HMMMMMM

You are correct, minimum specs are a lie, as in they suggest something way overkill in 90% of games.

720p30 is fine, and people and their privileged asses need to stop pushing this fomo onto others.


Like this isnt some old head, I used to go up hills both ways and enjoy it type thing.
PC gamers used to have a god damn understanding that everything is a compromise, because engineering, everything is a compromise. Sure you cant play GL quake, but you can play it in software, AND ENJOY IT. untill you upgrade you pc in 3-5 years and damn, now you can play gl quake, and quake 2.

Im not here arguing Last of us Part 1 port does not have issues, just that the way PC gamers want to have their cake, and eat it to over the last gen and this gen is fucking unhinged. We used to meme about crysis but people understood crysis was still a solid game, and well optomized, no one actually cared that they could not play it at 1440p ultra on launch. (not the one with tesselated water under the map obviously). Its the misplaced anger and attitudes from the vocal community that are just so disheartening, its so insanely privileged. 

Even based off of the Recommended specs. Cards like the 1070 or 1650 will be able to play the game 1080p60, just not on high, but on some mix of med to low. 


This Community driven Attidude pushing FOMO on people is just toxic to both gamers and developers. 
Gamers feel entitled to running games at QHD or higher at 144hz, and push it on their fellow players (see it here on the forums with everyone saying oh no 9900k isnt good enough anymore or some bullshit like that) and developers are not allowed to push things anymore or they fear backlash, so instead they have to just hold back the actual ultras settings for a cool free patch in 3 years as to not hurt the fee fee of people who buy top end today and cant run 4k ultra 120fps.

And issues like the last of us has, get drowned out by this noise.

[porina]

15 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Motion sickness is also still a thing, something that is induced primarily by FPS games not being fast enough, motion blur, and wobble/head-bobbing. A TPS lacks most/all of that by virtue of using an over-the-shoulder camera.

Motion sickness is primarily from a disconnect between your motion senses and visual information. Running a true 90 Hz VR headset (no reprojection) can easily bring motion sickness if visual cues are not contained to prevent it. Some techniques include teleporting, or if you do move, narrowing the field of view temporarily helps a lot.

 

I'm not aware of low fps being a factor, but I would welcome any credible evidence to that effect. Appropriate motion blur is a necessity at lower fps like 30 to help the illusion of smooth motion. I think the different between 1st and 3rd person shooters is that FPS are often faster paced, but this isn't an area of interest to me.

 

15 minutes ago, Kisai said:

But you're not going to buy a PC to have a crappier experience. To which there are three kinds of PC gamers:

a) Those who have somewhat-overkill rigs (eg 3080Ti's, 3090(ti)'s, 4080's, 4090's, i7/i9's) who want a better experience (eg 4Kp60 or 1440p120)

b) Those who have a slightly-better than average rig (eg 3070/3070Ti,3080's i5/i7's) and want an equal experience to the console (1080p60)

c) Those who have essentially a potato. (iGPU's, x50/x60 parts, laptop x70/x60/x50 parts, etc) and complain that every game is broken for them at any setting.

 

This game is bringing out all of group C. (I am not saying x60 parts are bad, I'm saying that x60 parts tend to be more common, hence the screaming is more common)

You can't lump tiers like that. A 3060 is still a great GPU for most gaming even now. 2060 might be struggling a bit if you push it. 1060 will definitely limit your options. Also the gap to laptop models isn't that big in practice. Outside of benchmarks I can't tell the difference between the 3070 in my desktop and the 3070 Laptop in my laptop, even if the latter is about a partial tier down compared to desktop. In short, I feel what you call group b is much bigger. 3060 is more than a match for current consoles.

[Skip]

I am saddened that such an old game could not be effectively ported to PC. If this will run on a PS3, how can it not run on modern hardware? Any machine with better specs than a PS4 (basically an AMD APU), should be able to run a port of this game. Somebody must have done something incredibly stupid (over-ambitious graphics could not explain such a dumpster fire of a release).

 

I would have happy paid for a playable game, but not this. This is easily BILLIONS of dollars left on the table. The game needed to be playable, not a match for the graphics of the  latest  PlayStation. what a missed opportunity.
 

It makes one appreciate how Crysis get Re-released periodically and looks great. 

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Skip said:

I am saddened that such an old game could not be effectively ported to PC. If this will run on a PS3, how can it not run on modern hardware? Any machine with better specs than a PS4 (basically an AMD APU), should be able to run a port of this game. Somebody must have done something incredibly stupid (over-ambitious graphics could not explain such a dumpster fire of a release).

 

I would have happy paid for a playable game, but not this. This is easily BILLIONS of dollars left on the table. The game needed to be playable, not a match for the graphics of the  latest  PlayStation. what a missed opportunity.
 

It makes one appreciate how Crysis get Re-released periodically and looks great. 

The PS3 architecture was not very conducive to being suited for multi-platform games. In fact, a lot of effects, for example, Ambient Occlusion, that are run on the GPU today, the PS3 actually ran on its CPU (more specifically, an SPE core). It was said that a lot of tasks were offloaded from the RSX GPU, specifically to provide more time to crank out more geometry. Pretty wildly different from how the PC takes on graphics. 

[Skip]

44 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

The PS3 architecture was not very conducive to being suited for multi-platform games. In fact, a lot of effects, for example, Ambient Occlusion, that are run on the GPU today, the PS3 actually ran on its CPU (more specifically, an SPE core). It was said that a lot of tasks were offloaded from the RSX GPU, specifically to provide more time to crank out more geometry. Pretty wildly different from how the PC takes on graphics. 

I thought this game had been ported to the PS4. I did not realize it only had a PS3 version.

[Kisai]

19 hours ago, Skip said:

I thought this game had been ported to the PS4. I did not realize it only had a PS3 version.

This is a remake, not a remaster. The PS4 is a remaster of the PS3 game.  This remake is directly because of the TV show.

 

But it's pretty clear that the developers likely over-shot the system requirements in the same CP2077 did. CP2077 also didn't downgrade gracefully and if your system was "powerful enough" you STILL could have wound up with PS3 level graphics and T-posing characters everywhere. 

 

My expectation is that they'll take a look at the requirements and either come up with one of three solutions:

 

1) a DLC "potato" patch. Download this potato patch if you have a x60 card or an 8GB card. It will load a smaller texture set and lower-geometry versions of moveable/destructible objects. Basically opposite of "4K" patches.

 

2) release an official patch that doubles the game size to support potato systems. So you'll end up with both 2K and 4K textures and models, even if you never use half of them.

 

3) release a re-profiler patch, which opens up some additional tunables to swap between 2K and 4K model/textures on a per-loadable area. Like in most FPS/TPS games, indoor areas are much faster than outdoor areas, and LOTU is a LOT of outdoor areas. Maybe do allocation tests with the GPU to determine if the GPU load has changed in the background (like when it's being streamed, which can lose 10% of the the 3D/CUDA capability to NVENC.) If the GPU is already underload, figure out how much room it has to use and dialdown as needed instead of just going straight to the bottom.

 

Like you don't REALLY need both 2K and 4K textures, you can mipmap downwards 4K textures to 2K textures. BUT if you don't have the video memory to do that, you have to do that at the driver level (eg DX12/Vulkan) and you won't get a chance to use the full size textures ever again until the game is reloaded. But it is possible. It just would suck if that's NOT the problem, and it's actually the geometry. Because you can't do mesh decimation on the fly. All sorts of things will be broken.

 

 

[SolarNova]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

the developers likely over-shot the system requirements

Translation:

The devs got lazy (and/or were rushed by the publisher) with optimization, and leaned to heavily on generational improvements in GPU performance.

 

Not to uncommon to be honest, just sad to see when it happens. Still , at least its just a remake of an already decent looking and relativly modern game. Its not like its a PS2 or older remake that would very much benefit from it.

[Quackers101]

just their 90th game that sucks on PC. porting be crazy.

would be fun if sony added some of the problems, from the console side. thanks sony.

[HenrySalayne]

20 hours ago, Skip said:

I thought this game had been ported to the PS4. I did not realize it only had a PS3 version.

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

This remake is directly because of the TV show.

This remake was already launched in September 2022 for PS5. No excuses.

[Kisai]

4 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

This remake was already launched in September 2022 for PS5. No excuses.

The LOTU television show stated filming in March 2021.

 

The point I'm making there, is that the remake is directly a consequence of the Television show being made, otherwise it would have just been a port of the PS4 version.

https://kotaku.com/the-last-of-us-hbo-lore-changes-tendrils-mycology-tess-1850019712

 

You also have to realize there is hindsight since it's "remade" post the sequel.

 

Now. I'm just going to be blunt and say that I have not played the original game, I watched a LP of it when PT2 came out so I'd have the context for watching the LP of PT2, because SONY didn't seem like they were interested in a PC port, and I was not going to by a PS4 or PS5 when very little on the platform justified owning one.

[HenrySalayne]

12 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The LOTU television show stated filming in March 2021.

 

The point I'm making there, is that the remake is directly a consequence of the Television show being made, otherwise it would have just been a port of the PS4 version.

https://kotaku.com/the-last-of-us-hbo-lore-changes-tendrils-mycology-tess-1850019712

 

You also have to realize there is hindsight since it's "remade" post the sequel.

 

Now. I'm just going to be blunt and say that I have not played the original game, I watched a LP of it when PT2 came out so I'd have the context for watching the LP of PT2, because SONY didn't seem like they were interested in a PC port, and I was not going to by a PS4 or PS5 when very little on the platform justified owning one.

It's been 7 month since the PS5 launch. So it's simple the technicality of making it run on PC which they screwed up. The ONLY thing they had to do.

It's even worse if you think about it. The PS5 is not even exotic hardware, it's basically a Zen 2 CPU with RDNA2 graphics...

[starsmine]

56 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

It's been 7 month since the PS5 launch. So it's simple the technicality of making it run on PC which they screwed up. The ONLY thing they had to do.

It's even worse if you think about it. The PS5 is not even exotic hardware, it's basically a Zen 2 CPU with RDNA2 graphics...

So... zen 2 with rdna 2 can run the game on Ps5 at 1080p with high textures at well over 60 fps or 4k with low textures and just under 60 
COOL

so we are not that far off the PC requirements which have more OS and driver overhead

That just sounds like its plenty optimized when you put it like that and they did just fine.

Why do people think their PC is so much stronger then the ps5 and naughty dog is a bastard for giving you ultra which is significantly higher fidelity for those who do have PCs that are stronger.

Imagine being that guy, with a PC as strong or weaker then a console, complaining they can not play a console game, at console settings.

[Kisai]

29 minutes ago, starsmine said:

So... zen 2 with rdna 2 can run the game on Ps5 at 1080p with high textures at well over 60 fps or 4k with low textures and just under 60 
COOL

so we are not that far off the PC requirements which have more OS and driver overhead

That just sounds like its plenty optimized when you put it like that and they did just fine.

Why do people think their PC is so much stronger then the ps5 and naughty dog is a bastard for giving you ultra which is significantly higher fidelity for those who do have PCs that are stronger.

Imagine being that guy, with a PC as strong or weaker then a console, complaining they can not play a console game, at console settings.

But that IS where the whine is coming from. 40% of the steam survey are still only x50/x60 nvidia cards that are below the spec. The PS5 is "minimally" equal to a 3070. then you take into account the memory system of 448GB/s and that points you towards the 3060Ti or 3070, or 2060 Super (basically anything with 8GB of DDR6.) 

 

There IS OS/driver overhead, but that overhead doesn't matter when the GPU has that memory to itself, where as the PS5 does not. Your PC likely has 16GB+8GB at the minimum to hit parity with the PS5, where as the PS5 only has 16GB altogether. Your only justification to have a crappier PC port on equal hardware, is that your tools are assuming the "GPU" has access to that 16GB of memory. 

 

If I have 96GB of DDR4 and 24GB of GDDR6X between my CPU and GPU, by all accounts I should be able to load the entire game in RAM, or enough of it that it never has to touch the SSD. But will a game look at that memory and go "yay cache everything!" Nope.

 

[starsmine]

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

There IS OS/driver overhead, but that overhead doesn't matter when the GPU has that memory to itself, where as the PS5 does not. Your PC likely has 16GB+8GB at the minimum to hit parity with the PS5, where as the PS5 only has 16GB altogether. Your only justification to have a crappier PC port on equal hardware, is that your tools are assuming the "GPU" has access to that 16GB of memory.

And why do people assume Ultra is the same settings the ps5 is running? I can guaranfuckingtee you its not. Ultra is another level beyond. Those 8GB cards are hitting parity with the ps5. 

I would be surprised to see that its 100% high on ps5. 

The fact is, its NOT a crappier PC port in its current state. 

[Arokhantos]

I would not really consider it a bad PC port badly optimized and bad launch sure, compared to Elden Ring that has RT but no dlss or FSR or native ultrawide, The Last of us part 1 did everything right ignoring the crashes and bugs, those are more the result of bad optimizations then a bad PC port, kinda depressing hearing from some that its the worst PC port ever clearly its not, not excusing all those issues everyone is having tho.

If personally had lot of gpu driver crashes with the last of us part 1 on my new liquid devil 7900 XTX but given AMD history past year, i do not trust AMD either, hopefully it get resolved.

[Quackers101]

just dont see about the update about VRAM access. but yeah, I dont get why we still have to deal with bad ports.

When most engines can sort of adapt or run on both. I guess that is on microsoft.

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

just dont see about the update about VRAM access. but yeah, I dont get why we still have to deal with bad ports.

When most engines can sort of adapt or run on both. I guess that is on microsoft.

Is this a bad port because you cant run ultra on your machine? or because a machine that = ps5 hardware wise gets 90% of the performance of a PS5 at the same settings(that the ps5 uses)? Or because a PC that is weaker then the ps5 is able to play the game at low?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

On 3/31/2023 at 9:50 AM, Kisai said:

Last of Us pt 1 was originally a PS3 game I believe)

The last of us was a ps3 game

the last of us remastered is a ps4 game

the last of us pt1 was a ps5 remake, which is what the pc port is based off of, so it’s not surprising it doesnt run well on ps4 like gpu hardware like a 570 or so.

 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, starsmine said:

And why do people assume Ultra is the same settings the ps5 is running? I can guaranfuckingtee you its not. Ultra is another level beyond. Those 8GB cards are hitting parity with the ps5. 

I would be surprised to see that its 100% high on ps5. 

The fact is, its NOT a crappier PC port in its current state. 

The official recommended preset for 1080p is High not Ultra.... 

[xAcid9]

Iron Galaxy did the port to PC. They did Arkham Knight and Fallout 76 port in the past, anymore remember how shit those PC port was on release day?

[Dracarris]

On 3/31/2023 at 9:31 PM, leadeater said:

FPS doesn't actually matter that much.

yeah if you use motion blur so smear away any stuttering, sure.

 

above 60fps I largely agree with you.