Support NeoGAF

[clarky]

Arc Riders and BF6 are MP focused game, so I think developers made a right choice focusing on performance, because more people would be able to enjoy their games. That being said these missing UE5 graphics features would make the lighting in this game objectively better and I wouldnt need screenshots comparison to easily notice that difference.

I work with light and I can understand what is being rendered in the scene. I can notice small differences, which impact my enjoyment of the game because I become more immersed. For example, in games like Cyberpunk or Borderlands 4, I enjoy just admiring how the sunlight changes the scene lighting throughout the day and how realistically objects are lit. Lighting quality matters to me, so don't assume that your experience and opinion is representative of everyone's.

No it would make the games in question objectively worse because the features in question would tank the frame rate. Shinny's aren't everything you know.

Battlefield is a fast paced shooter, if you have time to enjoy the lighting on a box you'll be dead.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

When people don't know what they're talking about and can't defend their argument, they often post funny gifs just to divert attention elsewhere.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

No it would make the games in question objectively worse because the features in question would tank the frame rate. Shinny's aren't everything you know.

Battlefield is a fast paced shooter, if you have time to enjoy the lighting on a box you'll be dead.

I have a news for you, groundbrakig graphics effects that pushed technology forward always tanked performance. If good graphics aren't important, please explain why so many gamers have demanded better graphics throughout the years.

UE5 can achive solid framerates on good PC's even with all it's features turned on and especially with DLSS. My PC isnt exactly a high end anymore and I can still get well over 100fps with razor sharp 4K image even in borderlands 4, so I cant really complain about my framerate in this game. However, we can objectively say that the UE5 engine generally has stuttering issues in most games. Arc Riders avoided this problem by disabling the engine's most important graphics features. I wonder which was the main culprit: Nanite, Lumen or VSM.

 

[clarky]

I have a news for you, groundbrakig graphics effects that pushed technology forward always tanked performance. If good graphics aren't important, please explain why so many gamers have demanded better graphics throughout the years.

UE5 can achive solid framerates on good PC's even with all it's features turned on and especially with DLSS. My PC isnt exactly a high end anymore and I can still get well over 100fps with razor sharp 4K image even in borderlands 4, so I cant really complain about my framerate in this game. However, we can objectively say that the UE5 engine generally has stuttering issues in most games. Arc Riders avoided this problem by disabling the engine's most important graphics features. I wonder which was the main culprit: Nanite, Lumen or VSM.

You have zero news for me but I have some for you, I've been gaming for 45 years and what you prefer does not apply to everyone.

My enjoyment would go down at the same rate as the frame rate. BF6 would be less enjoyable for me personally with a shiter frame rate and some slight graphical improvements.

Sure turn all that shit on on something like GTA 6 or Red Dead as long as they can remain stutter free and above 60. For the majority of the titles I play graphics are not at the top of my list. Besides BF6 looks awesome if you are not sat in a corner analysing a box and it's shadows.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

You have zero news for me but I have some for you, I've been gaming for 45 years and what you prefer does not apply to everyone.

So, if that's nothing new to you, how could you downplay the importance of graphics? Yes, people's preferences don't apply to everyone. I said as much before you wrote your post, so don't perpetuate the idea that all gamers wouldn't notice better graphics in Arc Riders.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

People who don't have 5080/90 don't think ray tracing is worth it.
People who do think it is.

 

[clarky]

So, if that's nothing new to you, how could you downplay the importance of graphics? Yes, people's preferences don't apply to everyone. I said as much before you wrote your post, so don't perpetuate the idea that all gamers wouldn't notice better graphics in Arc Riders.

Because in multiplayer titles having cutting edge graphics is not the most important factor. It nice to have but rarely, or never the most important.

Most of the best games from the past are not known for cutting edge graphics.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Because in multiplayer titles having cutting edge graphics is not the most important factor.

Now we are getting somewhere, because you finally said that the graphics has some importance even in MP focused game. Of course, graphics aren't the most important factor in MP game, here we can agree.

I support the Arc Riders developers' decision to prioritise performance, but when I saw people claiming that Arc Riders has better graphics than games utilising all of UE5 features, I just had to add my two cents (or maybe even a whole dollar ). Arc Riders is not an ugly game and it may impress many gamers with its scale, art direction and use of raster tricks. However, the scene below would definitely look better with proper indirect lighting.

 

[rodrigolfp]

I don't find Arc or BF6 'lacking' because they don't have RTGI or RT reflections.

It lacks. Look at the massive difference between Arc and Starker 2 on the video posted.

Plus:

 

[Donald mac Ronald]

What buzzwords? Lumen has better coverage than this. If youre pleased with worse looking games just so you can get higher framerates than thats you. I actually like game tech being advanced and future proof.

 

[Mengy]

So, if that's nothing new to you, how could you downplay the importance of graphics? Yes, people's preferences don't apply to everyone. I said as much before you wrote your post, so don't perpetuate the idea that all gamers wouldn't notice better graphics in Arc Riders.

Gamers might notice the better graphics, but would they notice the lower framerates more than the better graphics?

While you are correct that Arc Raiders isn't "cutting edge" in regards to its lighting, its hard to deny the game still looks phenomenal while (more importantly) playing phenomenal at a high and smooth frame rate. Arc is very well optimized while still looking absolutely stunning to everyone but graphical elitists who will nitpick the minor tech details. To 95% of gamers Arc looks incredible.

Most of the time graphics matter less to gamers than performance and art style. Its why WoW still has such a huge playerbase despite its "less than peak" graphics. Its why Minecraft is so immensely popular despite having a graphical style from the 90's. Cutting egde graphics can be an impressive boast, but they are usually less important for games than art style and performance.

 

[clarky]

Now we are getting somewhere, because you finally said that the graphics has some importance even in MP focused game. Of course, graphics aren't the most important factor in MP game, here we can agree.

I support the Arc Riders developers' decision to prioritise performance, but when I saw people claiming that Arc Riders has better graphics than games utilising all of UE5 features, I just had to add my two cents (or maybe even a whole dollar ). Arc Riders is not an ugly game and it may impress many gamers with its scale, art direction and use of raster tricks. However, the scene below would definitely look better with proper indirect lighting.

I never said otherwise. I can look pretty average in places if you go looking for it. but really nice in other. It can be super atmospheric most of the time, especially outdoors. I don't think adding the features you mentioned would add much to the experience overall.

 

[DirtInUrEye]

Besides BF6 looks awesome if you are not sat in a corner analysing a box and it's shadows.

I think BF6 looks pretty shit on lower settings, particularly indoors and especially because of the inadequate shadow casts. Grizzled gamer here too, and it's obviously a subjective preference: frame rate trumps graphical fidelity, but if I have the available horsepower for the shiny I will enable it. I could be more the tryhard if I want to and lower everything for a stable 180fps or whatever it would be, but I'm just not that competitive; locking to 100hz with the mind to have the nicer visual features switched on is more the cinematic chillshooter experience I've always loved about this series. Besides, I'm only embracing what BF's MO always used to be anyway: a large combined arms sandbox which showcases state-of-the-art graphics technology. Frostbite was always that.

So yeah, when one has watched games evolve from Jet Set Willy to the latest Battlefield release, there's a profound appreciation for where video game graphics technology now is. I'll take a balanced presentation over a pointlessly very high refresh one that more than likely would have ran on generationally older hardware. I'm not playing these games in some Vegas tournament anyway.

 

[clarky]

I think BF6 looks pretty shit on lower settings, particularly indoors and especially because of the inadequate shadow casts. Grizzled gamer here too, and it's obviously a subjective preference: frame rate trumps graphical fidelity, but if I have the available horsepower for the shiny I will enable it. I could be more the tryhard if I want to and lower everything for a stable 180fps or whatever it would be, but I'm just not that competitive; locking to 100hz with the mind to have the nicer visual features switched on is more the cinematic chillshooter experience I've always loved about this series. Besides, I'm only embracing what BF's MO always used to be anyway: a large combined arms sandbox which showcases state-of-the-art graphics technology. Frostbite was always that.

So yeah, when one has watched games evolve from Jet Set Willy to the latest Battlefield release, there's a profound appreciation for where video game graphics technology now is. I'll take a balanced presentation over a pointlessly very high refresh one that more than likely would have ran on generationally older hardware. I'm not playing these games in some Vegas tournament anyway.

Absolutely. Like like BF6 because i can just max everything out and still get well over 120fps. Its nice not having to fuck around with the settings sometimes.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Gamers might notice the better graphics, but would they notice the lower framerates more than the better graphics?

While you are correct that Arc Raiders isn't "cutting edge" in regards to its lighting, its hard to deny the game still looks phenomenal while (more importantly) playing phenomenal at a high and smooth frame rate. Arc is very well optimized while still looking absolutely stunning to everyone but graphical elitists who will nitpick the minor tech details. To 95% of gamers Arc looks incredible.

Most of the time graphics matter less to gamers than performance and art style. Its why WoW still has such a huge playerbase despite its "less than peak" graphics. Its why Minecraft is so immensely popular despite having a graphical style from the 90's. Cutting egde graphics can be an impressive boast, but they are usually less important for games than art style and performance.

I'm fully aware that art direction plays a vital role in game graphics, that's why I mentioned it. At the same time better technology enables artists to bring their vision to life with fewer limitations. I don't think the developers of Arc Riders deliberately removed indirect lighting from their game for artistic reasons. It was most likely done for performance reasons.

Speaking of Ark Riders' performance, to me, UE5 without its main graphics features (Nanite, Lumen and VSM) is just UE4. If you compare Ark Riders' performance to that of UE4 games without ray tracing, you'll see that the performance isn't actually that great.

 

[SlimySnake]

People who don't have 5080/90 don't think ray tracing is worth it.
People who do think it is.

This game has ray tracing though.

And the PS5 has several games with ray tracing. AC shadows, outlaws, avatar etc.

 

[GymWolf]

It runs great but it also doesn't look nearly as good as the best ue5 games so...no shit arnold gif??!

(Before you ask, i'm playing the damn thing maxed out at 4k on pc)

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

So, if that's nothing new to you, how could you downplay the importance of graphics? Yes, people's preferences don't apply to everyone. I said as much before you wrote your post, so don't perpetuate the idea that all gamers wouldn't notice better graphics in Arc Riders.

Arc Raiders. I'm assuming you're not getting it wrong intentionally but it's getting a little grating.

Anyway, gaming is a fairly mature medium. Graphical advances are more expensive and less noticeable, i.e. diminishing returns. Same thing with movie CGI. You put me and 99.9% of people in front of Marvel slop from today and Marvel slop from 10 years ago and we're not going to perceive some massive gap in technology.

You have to understand just how few people actually share in your hobby of staring at where the boxes meet the ground in a video game.

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

Where do I download the version that looks like ass?

This game looks fantastic and runs phenomenally well even on 20xx systems.

But just to my post consistent with the shit takes in this thread:
Could just be the folks that dislike the presentation are huffing their own farts while crawling through a Senua game running at 24fps and sending Kojima "get well soon BIG BOSS" messages on twitter.