Deus EX MD ran like crap at release, but I guess it got a huge pass because it wasn't a gameworks title. Weird how that always seems to be skipped over at ATF.
At least DEMD has graphics to match. Dishonored 2 is the least technically impressive big budget AAA FPS game released in the last 2 years. I cannot think of any other game of this genre and AAA level that has such poor horrible performance vs. graphics trade-off. Fallout 4 comes close but at least it's a massive open world game and it still runs better. Dishonored 2 is very similar to Mafia 3 levels of fail here.
At least Mafia 3 got a patch that increased performance
30-50%!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W7O0g2ro2I
The performance vs. graphics trade-offs in Dishonored look much worse in the context of console ports such as COD: IW and Titanfall 2, whose graphics and optimization absolutely wipe the floor with this title.
When
Infinite Warfare runs hits 60 fps upscaled 4K and runs like butter on a PS4 with 2.1Ghz 8-core Jaguar CPU and roughly RX 470 8GB spec and this game swings between 40-50 fps at 1080p on a Fury X and an i7 6700K/i7 5960X, it's a sure sign the developers spent almost no time testing this game/engine across various hardware in the last 3 years before release (or AMD was simply not allowed to have access to the title to optimize for it before release due to Dishonored being associated with NV). Either that, or the game was developed strictly on the latest NV GPUs. This is like a flashback of Project CARS where everything except GTX970/980 ran horribly, even last generation's 780/780Ti cards. Fallout 4 -- yet another title that ran very poorly on release on AMD hardware and it took many patches for it to get sorted.
It's very unfortunate because Dishonored 2 itself in artistic form looks good, but all the work put in by the artists, designers, writers, etc. is now overshadowed by a horrendously unoptimized game/engine. The blocked out HBAO+ on AMD cards is reminiscent of the Crew -- yet another
purely NV-biased title. Lack of CF/SLI support is also unfortunate since even if the game was not optimized well, at least owners of dual HD7970/R9 290/290Xs/Furies would have been able to take advantage of this bad situation.
Finally gamers are voting with their wallets which is good to see since many are getting tired of throwing $ on broken games:
"Dishonored 2 launch sales down 38% on Dishonored"
They should have delayed this game at least 6 months but now the franchise's future is in question if it is already trailing the 1st Dishonored's sales by almost 40%. I guess when a game is released under the Bethesda umbrella, we should 99% expect it to look outdated and run extremely poorly at the same time. Fallout 4 was a nice reminder not long ago. When Elder Scrolls 6 comes out in 2018-2020, I wouldn't be surprised if its graphics will be barely on par with 2013 Crysis 3 and yet it'll wipe the floor with GP102 1080Ti/2080Ti.
One would think that after Assassin's Creed Unity and Batman AK, that every single developer launching AAA PC games would be wise to delay their game by 6-12 months should it require more polish, but no, let's just release a broken game and then once the reputation is tarnished on launch week, it's VERY hard to reverse the negative sales trend.
Understandably he wasn't really able to figure it out.
But we do get another game showing how much of a difference polaris' geometry improvements can make, and conversely how imbalanced the fury cards were.
And where is all this amazing looking tessellation? All I see are flat washed out textures everywhere.
GameGPU readership has thus far rated the game's optimization as 1/5 and graphics as 2/5.
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dishonored-2-test-gpu
Ironically Wolfenstein New Order and expansation Old Blood ran beautiful on AMD cards, and that game was based on iD Tech 5 engine. We are talking about R9 280X hitting 60 fps averages with VHQ at 1440p!
Doom ran beautifully on AMD cards.
RX 470, 480 and R9 390 ran Doom flawlessly even at 1440p.
Even under OpenGL, R9 290X managed close to 60 fps in Doom at 1440p
WTF?? Fallout 4 seems to look better than that and with mods looks much better.
Doom is just better looking. Both of those are Bethesda games too.
Dragonage:Inquisition was released years ago and looks better than those screenshots.
It's getting really bad. You know when Infinite Warfare looks A LOT better and runs better that the PC gaming industry is going through some tough times. It's still funny to me how some were telling us during 2012-2013 that GTX680 2GB would last through the entire PS4/XB1 console generation and provide better gaming experience too. We are already at a point where it takes an i3 6100 + GTX960 4GB to just match the graphics of Xbox One S/original PS4. However, some games have serious issues even on an i3 6100 where the CPU requirements go up to an i5 6400. With PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio providing upscaled 4K gameplay, by the time this generation is over even an i5 6500 and a GTX1060 will be barely enough to keep up with $400 consoles.
It's a pretty scary though that every new generation of GPU hardware is seemingly wiped out by corresponding lack of optimization of future PC titles/ports. I know that many want to jump over to 4K PC gaming, but the level of optimization for many modern AAA PC titles is such that nothing less than $700 GPUs (sometimes in pairs) will do as we should expect 2017-2019 games to be even more GPU demanding.
This generation has reinforced the idea that
ANY single GPU released in the first year of a brand new console generation will not be sufficient for the duration of that console generation. We can see it now as GTX680 and HD7970Ghz are basically end of the line in 2016. I'd say RX 470/RX 480 and GTX1060/GTX980 are the bare minimum for 1080p HQ gaming on the PC for 2017-2019 before next gen of consoles. GTX970 is pretty much done for due to its 3.5GB of VRAM.