Lichdom: Battlemage has made it to the consoles..Sub 20 fps, Oh dear! *Update: Fixed*

[Misanthrope]

10 hours ago, Xorbot said:

Welcome to the Unity generation of games.

 

No, I don't mean that this game was made with Unity (it was clearly made with CryENGINE).  What I refer to is the generation of game developers where you can take a very inexperienced programmer, if any at all, and jam and mash scripts together to output "indie games".  Sure, this may work for a 3-sprite game consisting of pixels.  But when it is time to develop something that rivals what Crysis 1 did in the year it was released, you can no longer mash together a bunch of C# scripts downloaded from various posts in the Unity forums without any programming knowledge.

Your post just gave me a mental picture of a 30 something hipster sitting on a starbucks "designing" a new game based on 8 bit graphics and feminist rhetoric while taking breaks to fuck Kotaku "reporters"....I hate where my mind goes sometimes.

[ConnorDahne]

They're trying to sell their new consoles.

"Don't like 15fps? Buy the PS4.5 and run it at ultra high frame rate of 30fps!!!"

/s

[Dabombinable]

Feel the irony console....defenders, you just got your own version of Arkham Shite. 

 

Yes you are one if you keep on defending the BS despite all of the facts-the CMR weakened greatly after PS2 and Xbox Original production stopped, and outright died a painful death when the Xbone and Pisspoor arrived.

 

[Humbug]

On 2016-4-22 at 10:53 PM, dragosudeki said:

I don't think Sony or Microsoft sign off releases for their consoles

This isn't gog or steam. They do sign off on everything.

This is just incompetent software development. Some fanboys will sprout rubbish blaming the console hardware, but in reality it's just shoddy work.

 

ps- props to digital foundry for providing valuable service to the gaming community (both console and PC).

[Castdeath97]

Console users: "Only the PC get bad ports" 

Yeah right.

[Citadelen]

The new consoles couldn't come soon enough.

[Humbug]

22 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

The new consoles couldn't come soon enough.

Nothing to do with bad optimization

 

 

 

Bad code and bad software will bring any hardware to it's knees

 

 

[Dabombinable]

11 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Nothing to do with bad optimization

 

 

 

Bad code and bad software will bring any hardware to it's knees

 

 

Which is why AMD and Nvidia keep on having to release drivers that add SLI/Crossfire profiles and make games run better on their GPU.

[cryon1cang3l]

3 hours ago, Humbug said:

This isn't gog or steam. They do sign off on everything.

This is just incompetent software development. Some fanboys will sprout rubbish blaming the console hardware, but in reality it's just shoddy work.

 

ps- props to digital foundry for providing valuable service to the gaming community (both console and PC).

Xaviant did a great job with Lichdom:Battlemage and they do a decent job with The Culling right now.

Underpowered hardware results in crappy FPS numbers, it is simple. 

And MS does not test the game, they make sure it runs without crashes and thats it. Remember how they launch their own games like Quantum Break

 

Generally i can say - Lichdom:Battlemage is worth it and you should support Xaviant, thats a small studio that doesnt have a huge publisher sitting behind them.

[CyanideInsanity]

35 minutes ago, cryon1cang3l said:

Xaviant did a great job with Lichdom:Battlemage and they do a decent job with The Culling right now.

Underpowered hardware results in crappy FPS numbers, it is simple. 

And MS does not test the game, they make sure it runs without crashes and thats it. Remember how they launch their own games like Quantum Break

 

Generally i can say - Lichdom:Battlemage is worth it and you should support Xaviant, thats a small studio that doesnt have a huge publisher sitting behind them.

Good job? How the hell is this a good job? Yeah underpowered hardware will mean low fps, which is why they should change it so it renders based ON the hardware's capabilities... 1080p at 15fps or 720p at maybe 25-30fps, which do you think should've been the end result? No this is just bullshit on par with arkham knight. Why are you applauding them for giving no fucks about the consumer? This isn't a bunch of bugs that they missed or a bit of spotty performance here and there, this is them KNOWING performance was absolute shit, and proceeding to give said shit to customers.

[cryon1cang3l]

25 minutes ago, CyanideInsanity said:

Good job? How the hell is this a good job? Yeah underpowered hardware will mean low fps, which is why they should change it so it renders based ON the hardware's capabilities... 1080p at 15fps or 720p at maybe 25-30fps, which do you think should've been the end result? No this is just bullshit on par with arkham knight. Why are you applauding them for giving no fucks about the consumer? This isn't a bunch of bugs that they missed or a bit of spotty performance here and there, this is them KNOWING performance was absolute shit, and proceeding to give said shit to customers.

Did you fire up the game on PC?

If you want i make a quick video how that thing runs on my rig (that you should see in my profile) with an overlay. 

The game runs great. And the small developer team is dedicated to The Culling on PC right now, that runs OK for an early access game and is getting patches and hotfixes once a week. Do you really think Xaviant will throw a crapload of money and manpower on a console port when they have way more important stuff in the pipeline right now?

 

You will get the video in like 30-60min and see how the game performs.

Edit: or a bit longer, since the game is not installed right now

[Citadelen]

3 hours ago, Humbug said:

Nothing to do with bad optimization

 

 

 

Bad code and bad software will bring any hardware to it's knees

 

 

I didn't mention optimisation.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Game does run great on PC though, I played this a year ago.

Ran like a dream (On both my HD7950/R9-290 and now my GTX970), just is a bit repetitive to keep playing for extended periods of time.

[CyanideInsanity]

21 minutes ago, cryon1cang3l said:

Did you fire up the game on PC?

If you want i make a quick video how that thing runs on my rig (that you should see in my profile) with an overlay. 

The game runs great. And the small developer team is dedicated to The Culling on PC right now, that runs OK for an early access game and is getting patches and hotfixes once a week. Do you really think Xaviant will throw a crapload of money and manpower on a console port when they have way more important stuff in the pipeline right now?

 

You will get the video in like 30-60min and see how the game performs.

Edit: or a bit longer, since the game is not installed right now

It doesn't take a large team, or programming genius to simply lower the resolution from 1080p down to 720p...Surely that would help alleviate the gpu load. I don't expect them to make consoles bend to their arcane coding will, but I certainly expect them to do a good enough attempt to respect customers and make their product not run like shit since they are selling it.

 

Also I'm not going to pick this up. I have been interested in it, looks pretty fun, but I'm not about to support developers who don't even attempt to put out a good product when porting to consoles.

[cryon1cang3l]

50 minutes ago, CyanideInsanity said:

It doesn't take a large team, or programming genius to simply lower the resolution from 1080p down to 720p...Surely that would help alleviate the gpu load. I don't expect them to make consoles bend to their arcane coding will, but I certainly expect them to do a good enough attempt to respect customers and make their product not run like shit since they are selling it.

It does take some manpower and cash to optimize a console port. Simply screwing up the resolution is not enough, otherwise you end with stuff like Quantum Break that will upscale 720p to 1080p. And this looks HORRIBLE, your eyes will jump out and run away. Literally. I know i know, pcmasterrace crap - but this is true. Running a game in non native resolution will always look ugly no matter what. Many developers try to "cover" that with motion blur and other tricks, but crappy textures will always look like shit, it doesnt matter what filter you use on them. 

 

Xaviant did a really good job with that game. It is not the best game out there, but in terms of optimization, gameplay and story and everything else - its good. Really good.

Video is done and uploading, sadly i use an ISP that is similar to Comcast and works just like Comcast, gonna take a bit ^^

 

And here is how the game runs on my rig and a simple GTX 970 with the default boost, i disabled my OC for that video:

 

 

[minibois]

It's like Skyrim on seventh gen consoles all over again, but worse

[CyanideInsanity]

35 minutes ago, cryon1cang3l said:

It does take some manpower and cash to optimize a console port. Simply screwing up the resolution is not enough, otherwise you end with stuff like Quantum Break that will upscale 720p to 1080p. And this looks HORRIBLE, your eyes will jump out and run away. Literally. I know i know, pcmasterrace crap - but this is true. Running a game in non native resolution will always look ugly no matter what. Many developers try to "cover" that with motion blur and other tricks, but crappy textures will always look like shit, it doesnt matter what filter you use on them. 

 

Xaviant did a really good job with that game. It is not the best game out there, but in terms of optimization, gameplay and story and everything else - its good. Really good.

Video is done and uploading, sadly i use an ISP that is similar to Comcast and works just like Comcast, gonna take a bit ^^

If I had to choose between 1080p and low performance or 720p with higher performance on a 1080p display, I'd chose the latter. This is exactly why I don't own and use all current consoles, because its more important to have high fidelity graphics than good performance according to them.

[cryon1cang3l]

1 minute ago, CyanideInsanity said:

If I had to choose between 1080p and low performance or 720p with higher performance on a 1080p display, I'd chose the latter. This is exactly why I don't own and use all current consoles, because its more important to have high fidelity graphics and than good performance according to them.

But you understand that even with 720p the game would not run smooth (and smooth is 60+ FPS minimum for me)?

Remember thats a fact paced game, pretty similar to a shooter, you want your FPS close to the refresh rate of the monitor (ideally you have more and cap it at 60 or whatever your refresh rate is). 

I prefer good quality, native resolution AND decent FPS. If i cant achieve decent FPS, i would turn off some stuff like AA before turning down the resolution. Upscaling will always look horrible.

 

Btw check out the video, edited my last post.

Thats on a simple 970 Windforce without OC, something around 1300Mhz. With OC to 1525Mhz on the GPU i can run that game with 75FPS minimum no matter what happens. On maxed out settings.

 

The problem with the game: missing optimization and way underpowered console hardware to handle that game with current settings on 1080p.

[CyanideInsanity]

12 minutes ago, cryon1cang3l said:

But you understand that even with 720p the game would not run smooth (and smooth is 60+ FPS minimum for me)?

Remember thats a fact paced game, pretty similar to a shooter, you want your FPS close to the refresh rate of the monitor (ideally you have more and cap it at 60 or whatever your refresh rate is). 

I prefer good quality, native resolution AND decent FPS. If i cant achieve decent FPS, i would turn off some stuff like AA before turning down the resolution. Upscaling will always look horrible.

 

Btw check out the video, edited my last post.

Thats on a simple 970 Windforce without OC, something around 1300Mhz. With OC to 1525Mhz on the GPU i can run that game with 75FPS minimum no matter what happens. On maxed out settings.

 

The problem with the game: missing optimization and way underpowered console hardware to handle that game with current settings on 1080p.

How many people do you think find the game playable on consoles in its current state? I'd wager that number is very, very low. And thats where the problem lies. They should have gimped so many things, including resolution, and worked their way up from there to make the game playable. Tell me, whats the point of releasing a visually good looking game commercially in such a state that its unplayable? Its going to get slaughtered in reviews, and its going to be seen as shit not worth buying. Meanwhile if they were to slash settings that both impact the gpu and cpu to the point of it being considered playable, sure it might get a black mark for looking worse, but it would still be worth picking up because its performance would render it playable. Also remember that its not unusual for console games to have lower resolutions than the average display. If a games performance is so bad to the point its considered unplayable there is no reason to pick it up...

[cryon1cang3l]

Yeah sure. But still take a look at the video that i made to see the numbers produced by a single GPU that is almost 2 years old and was not the highest tier when released.

 

And remember, doing that kind of optimization takes a lot of work. You have to work everything out and test it, not only on the start of the game but also in some other spots like massive combat scenes or open space. 

How do you imagine a small team of maybe 15 people (where half of them has no expirience in that area, they have network guy and some marketing guys too) can deal with an early access game and a console port at the same time? Remember, The Culling just came out and already has bigger numbers than Lichdom:Battlemage in all that time. That game is like 2 months old as early access. And they focus hard on it. Let em finish the early access game to the point where minor tweaks are needed and they might come back to the console port to get some patches for that thing.

 

And the game is not a really good looking game on the console, they already turned down some settings here and there. The console would burn if you try to run that game on the cryengine with everything cranked up, you would see 5 FPS, not 15+ FPS. 

 

Give em time and support the small indie studio instead of bashing them for a console port. Btw they have no expirience in that field, so it will take even more time.

You remember how long it took for a small team to fix the Batman PC port? We have the same situation here, but in that case there is just a small studio, not a big publisher and a decent developer kicking the door in and demanding a port right away.

[grayperview]

Yes, it runs like a dream on PC, 60fps with consistent frametimes, no argument about that....

 

However they really have done a poor job on console, that completely failed into taking the consoles limitations into accounts whilst porting the game over...

 

The game should not have been released in such a state, and this developer's future games need to be approached with caution.

 

I played this game for an hour tonight, it is a pretty game for sure, the game itself seem fair good too.

[aneil1998]

LET THE PEASANTS FEEL WHAT THE #PCMasterRace DEAL WITH,WITH THE CRAPPY PORTS.

[cryon1cang3l]

The game is good, thats something different to play as a melee battlemage. 

 

Remember, it runs at 1080p native resolution, not downscaled. Its a CryEngine3 game (already taxing as hell on weak systems if you crank up the settings).

It just looks like they ported the game over to Xbone and PS4 without adjusting it to the slow console hardware. 

On PC that game looks pretty good for what it is and the age, the optimization is more than just good (not many cryengine3 games where you crank up everything and it still runs 60+ fps on a midrange card that was avaliable when the game came out). But a console cant handle a 1080p game with very high settings (thats the highest as it gets ingame for pretty much the same). I have no idea what is actually on, if they have AA enabled, no wonder why the console is jumping from 12 to 20FPS. 

 

Just give em time and they will bring it to playable 24-30FPS and they will improve the loading times.

Meanwhile i can enjoy the game on PC if i want. 

Thats actually a good feeling when stuff goes the other way around and console player feel what a bad port is.It will get fixed one day, until then: enjoy the framerate

[79wjd]

13 hours ago, cryon1cang3l said:

You remember how long it took for a small team to fix the Batman PC port? We have the same situation here, but in that case there is just a small studio, not a big publisher and a decent developer kicking the door in and demanding a port right away.

And do you remember how much shit Arkham Knight got for that? Not to mention that the developer was also quite small actually AND was a CONSOLE developer to-boot. 

5 minutes ago, cryon1cang3l said:

It just looks like they ported the game over to Xbone and PS4 without adjusting it to the slow console hardware. 

The issue isn't just that the game runs poorly. It runs poorly even when you consider the hardware that the consoles have. 

[spartaman64]

On 4/22/2016 at 1:35 PM, Snadzies said:

Naw, man.

The human eye can't even tell the difference between 15 and 60fps anyway.

you mean it cant tell the difference between 0.005 fps and 60 fps