• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

First Baldur's Gate 3 PS5 Impressions - "No Stable 60FPS - Performance vs Quality Mode"

Aja

Neo Member
The performance is far from the only thing that's broken in the PS5 version. There's broken audio, broken tutorials, broken account linking, multi-second freezes, crashes (that can bring the entire PS5 down), etc.

It's just not an acceptable version of the game yet.
This is so weird. I've played since "early access" on my ps5 and I've had none of those faults. I'm still only in Act 1 though since I like to go slow in these types of games but for me the experience has been awsome. I also have the game on PC which I've played since it was released in early access and I'm in no way dissapointed in the ps5 version which is the only version I play now.
 

Flabagast

Member
Is there any visual differences between Quality and Performance besides resolution (I dont really mind the inconsistent 40-60 framerate)
 

TrebleShot

Member
Is there any visual differences between Quality and Performance besides resolution (I dont really mind the inconsistent 40-60 framerate)
Nah it’s good bro just lower res which doesn’t look that bad tbh I wasn’t sure it wasn’t the same as 1440p until I really looked
 

Mister Wolf

Gold Member


With more and more people getting their hands on the game and reporting their experience it seems the port is solid after all. My plate is full so I'm still going to wait to pick it up, after a bunch of patches it will ultimately be a better game anyway.


Its a great game. He isn't really showing much benchmarking Act 1. The game becomes more demanding of hardware in Act 2 and even more so in Act 3.
 
Last edited:

RobRSG

Member
He said it in one of the DF directs that he's a mixture of polish snd something else and immigrated to germany/had to learn German etc.
So he's neither German nor American.
Having mixed ancestry is not a proof that you’re not American. 🤦🏻‍♂️
 


With more and more people getting their hands on the game and reporting their experience it seems the port is solid after all. My plate is full so I'm still going to wait to pick it up, after a bunch of patches it will ultimately be a better game anyway.


It works well when you're wandering around in the outside. The moment you enter a village / camp with multiple buildings and NPCs, the FPS takes a dive. I was looking at the FPS counter and it starts running at 50 - 55 FPS, with frequent dips below 48 FPS. You can clearly see when the game stars exiting the VRR window. It's not a good port.
 

TonyK

Member
It works well when you're wandering around in the outside. The moment you enter a village / camp with multiple buildings and NPCs, the FPS takes a dive. I was looking at the FPS counter and it starts running at 50 - 55 FPS, with frequent dips below 48 FPS. You can clearly see when the game stars exiting the VRR window. It's not a good port.
But, is it not a good port or is it because the game is extremely demanding regarding CPU? Because for me it's not the same. From outside it seems a good port of a highly demanding game.
 
But, is it not a good port or is it because the game is extremely demanding regarding CPU? Because for me it's not the same. From outside it seems a good port of a highly demanding game.

I guess I would argue that the game engine is fundamentally problematic. There's nothing in this game that should require huge amounts of CPU power. Compare the complexity to Witcher 3, a game that ran on laughably underpowered CPU. Similarly, Cyberpunk is light years ahead in terms of complexity, and yet it runs great on PS5/XSX. There are other examples as well, such as Horizon. BG3 doesn't have an excuse for this.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
This is so weird. I've played since "early access" on my ps5 and I've had none of those faults. I'm still only in Act 1 though since I like to go slow in these types of games but for me the experience has been awsome. I also have the game on PC which I've played since it was released in early access and I'm in no way dissapointed in the ps5 version which is the only version I play now.

Tutorials are working for you? Those seem to be broken for a lot of people. Same with the audio, IF you have 3D audio enabled in the system settings.
 

BbMajor7th

Member
Is this games graphics significantly better than Divinity Orig Sin 2? Because that was a nice looking crpg on the Xb1X and was 4k/30.

I know this game is more demanding than DOS2, but is it really that much more that we can only get 1440/30 with dips? That's lower res and on system that's supposed to be 2.5x more powerful than xb1x. This is a common thread this gen. The visual upgrade doesn't seem commensurate with the power of these consoles, nor does it seem commensurate with what last gen pro consoles achieved, despite having more power and less bottlenecks (cpu +ssd).

I don't know the ins and outs of the tech and what makes these games demanding so im talking a little out my ass here but this has bothered me this gen.
Tend to agree. particularly as so many developers heralded the shift to SSD as such a huge game changer. Be interested to know where all the extra horsepower is going. FFXVI, for example, is a good-looking game, but it's not 720p/60 with dips pretty. Ditto for Remnant II and Immortals of Aveum - good-looking games with a few next-gen flourishes but nothing that really looks leagues beyond what a 1.4TF PS4 with a mechanical HDD and a netbook CPU could manage.

TLOU2 runs at a stable1080/30 on base PS4; the PS5 can run it at 1440/60 without breaking a sweat, but TLOU Part I, which is natively coded for PS5, looks much the same and runs at the same numbers, despite the scope of the game being much more limited than TLOU2 (it was originally designed for the PS3, after all). With those two factors taken into account (and the massive streaming bump on PS5), TLOU P1 should have either looked or performed leagues better than a PS4 game running BC, but it really doesn't.

Also, despite TLOU P2's campaign running twice the length of TLOU P1's, it manages to have nearly identical file sizes, despite the Kraken compression and the fact that SSDs should make file sizes more manageable by eliminating duplication.
 
Last edited:
So there's apparently a patch recently that addresses some of the issues, as I expected them to at official launch.

But it clearly doesn't solve all the issues, so I guess I'll hold off for a month or so and see how much further they improve it.

Hopefully it's not SEVEN patches later like Jedi Survivor took to be where it's at now.
 

T-0800

Member
I'm really interested in getting this on PS5 but I think I'll wait 12 months. All patched up and probably half the price.
 

Caio

Member
adamsapple,

Baldur's Gate 3 PlayStation 5 vs PC - The Digital Foundry Tech Review is waiting for you :D

 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Tend to agree. particularly as so many developers heralded the shift to SSD as such a huge game changer. Be interested to know where all the extra horsepower is going. FFXVI, for example, is a good-looking game, but it's not 720p/60 with dips pretty. Ditto for Remnant II and Immortals of Aveum - good-looking games with a few next-gen flourishes but nothing that really looks leagues beyond what a 1.4TF PS4 with a mechanical HDD and a netbook CPU could manage.

TLOU2 runs at a stable1080/30 on base PS4; the PS5 can run it at 1440/60 without breaking a sweat, but TLOU Part I, which is natively coded for PS5, looks much the same and runs at the same numbers, despite the scope of the game being much more limited than TLOU2 (it was originally designed for the PS3, after all). With those two factors taken into account (and the massive streaming bump on PS5), TLOU P1 should have either looked or performed leagues better than a PS4 game running BC, but it really doesn't.

Also, despite TLOU P2's campaign running twice the length of TLOU P1's, it manages to have nearly identical file sizes, despite the Kraken compression and the fact that SSDs should make file sizes more manageable by eliminating duplication.

TLOUP1 is clearly a PS4 engine game released for PS5 rather than one built for the PS5 from the ground up. You need look no further than the load times to see that.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Played 2 hours couch co op with the wife. Seemed to run pretty well on our end.
How dare you play a mode nobody seems to play!
phil-spencer-cringe.gif
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I guess I would argue that the game engine is fundamentally problematic. There's nothing in this game that should require huge amounts of CPU power. Compare the complexity to Witcher 3, a game that ran on laughably underpowered CPU. Similarly, Cyberpunk is light years ahead in terms of complexity, and yet it runs great on PS5/XSX. There are other examples as well, such as Horizon. BG3 doesn't have an excuse for this.
The level of interactivity of the levels is miles ahead Cyberpunk/The Witcher 3 though. In the city for example, every house has an interior, filled with objects you can pick up, use, throw, as well as npcs that can be interacted with, looted, killed, etc. Maybe there are improvements that could be made, but there's plenty there to justify the CPU stress.
 
Last edited:

RoadHazard

Gold Member
doesn't the ps5 have some kind of special SSD that makes it capable of loading things much faster though?

Only if the game has been made to fully take advantage of the new data APIs, this doesn't happen automatically. If you're still doing CPU decompression (as was the norm until this generation) your load times are gonna be slow, which is why PS4 games running on PS5 don't magically load everything in a few seconds.
 

DeaDPo0L84

Member
Games are becoming more demanding at a pace that consoles can't keep up on the hardware side to be able to provide an optimal experience.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Games are becoming more demanding at a pace that consoles can't keep up on the hardware side to be able to provide an optimal experience.

Perhaps, but this game doesn't seem to be doing anything that justifies it being this demanding on the CPU (which seems to be the main issue).
 

Meicyn

Gold Member
The level of interactivity of the levels is miles ahead Cyberpunk/The Witcher 3 though. In the city for example, every house has an interior, filled with objects you can pick up, use, throw, as well as npcs that can be interacted with, looted, killed, etc. Maybe there are improvements that could be made, but there's plenty there to justify the CPU stress.
Yep, and it keeps track of the state of those objects whether you are there or not so when you return, it’s as you left it.

On my current playthrough, my barbarian used the corpses of some enemies to help diffuse an area littered with traps. I literally threw those bodies on top of vents spewing noxious gases to function as makeshift lids. I grabbed nearby crates and other objects and flung them at explosive traps. There were plenty of options to resolve the situation, but I thought about doing it that way because it would make sense for a barbarian to do that. And it worked because this is a highly interactive game with a lot of emphasis put into the actively tracked state of objects and NPCs in the world.

There is way more going on under the hood in this game, and it’s pure comedy reading someone say Witcher 3 is more complex. It’s just not, not even close.
 

Danknugz

Member
Only if the game has been made to fully take advantage of the new data APIs, this doesn't happen automatically. If you're still doing CPU decompression (as was the norm until this generation) your load times are gonna be slow, which is why PS4 games running on PS5 don't magically load everything in a few seconds.
so if this game as using the new data apis as you say then it would load in a few seconds vs 43 seconds?
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
so if this game as using the new data apis as you say then it would load in a few seconds vs 43 seconds?

Probably yes. Filling up the entire RAM pool only takes like 2 seconds when using that stuff fully, and then setting everything up for the scene takes a little additional time, but definitely not 40 seconds. The only explanation for load times that long is that they have not optimized the game for the PS5 in that regard.

Examples of games that do use those APIs properly:

Demon's Souls remake
Ghost of Tsushima Director's Cut
All Insomniac PS5 releases
FFXVI (I think, haven't played it)
Probably a bunch more that I can't think of right now

Zero load screens in those games, just quick transitions.
 
Last edited:
It feels like developers this generation haven't really found a way to tap into what these systems can actually do, barring maybe the first party folks?

You know how games just steadily improved and really pushed the systems in the PS3 and PS4 gen? It feels like they haven't done that here, those little tricks and things.
 

NecrosaroIII

Ask me about my terrible takes on Star Trek characters
It feels like developers this generation haven't really found a way to tap into what these systems can actually do, barring maybe the first party folks?

You know how games just steadily improved and really pushed the systems in the PS3 and PS4 gen? It feels like they haven't done that here, those little tricks and things.

To be fair, I feel like this is the first year games have been really coming out on these consoles. It's like the start of this gen was delayed and we got the consoles early or something. Maybe over the next few years we'll see that ramp.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
Idk, I like high frame rates as much as the next guy, but when I see people acting as if some frame drops completely ruin a game for them, I can't help but think that they are somehow ....... soft (for the lack of a better word). I have empathy for people playing competitive games, but single player or turn based.... cmon. I had a blast playing Starfox at 15 fps, Goldeneye, Twisted Metal at 21 fps, Elden Ring, Zelda BoTW and TotK on and on. If that is idiotic then I am unapologetically an idiot.

As always, there are exceptions and a game hovering around 20 fps can be taxing. I'm not suggesting low fps is better. At the same time, there isn't a fps high enough to make a bad game fun. A good game is a good game.
 

DeaDPo0L84

Member
Idk, I like high frame rates as much as the next guy, but when I see people acting as if some frame drops completely ruin a game for them, I can't help but think that they are somehow ....... soft (for the lack of a better word). I have empathy for people playing competitive games, but single player or turn based.... cmon. I had a blast playing Starfox at 15 fps, Goldeneye, Twisted Metal at 21 fps, Elden Ring, Zelda BoTW and TotK on and on. If that is idiotic then I am unapologetically an idiot.

As always, there are exceptions and a game hovering around 20 fps can be taxing. I'm not suggesting low fps is better. At the same time, there isn't a fps high enough to make a bad game fun. A good game is a good game.
I'm sorry but this attempt at labeling people as "soft" cause they have higher expectations than you is ridiculous. If anything rolling over and accepting a shitty final product on a "next gen" console is being soft. I'm almost 40yo, I played the same games you mentioned and it was fine when I was a kid cause I didn't know better. But now I'm older, I do know better, and technology advances at a rapid pace to just accept the same shit we've been given for decades on end. I put nearly 2k hours into Destiny 2 on PS4, obviously I dealt with the 30fps cap. Once I played it on PC @ 120fps it legit felt like an entirely different game. I even tried playing it on my PS5 when it got the 60fps patch and it still felt way too sluggish.

Also your last example is a false equivalency. 60fps at a minimum helps ANY game, regardless if it's mediocre or the next big thing. A game doesn't have to be regarded as worth playing before we start to recognize whether it performs shitty or not. Starfield is obviously perfectly playable by many on XSX where it tries to maintain 30fps. But accepting this in the year 2023 on again "next gen" consoles is ludicrous.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
I'm sorry but this attempt at labeling people as "soft" cause they have higher expectations than you is ridiculous. If anything rolling over and accepting a shitty final product on a "next gen" console is being soft. I'm almost 40yo, I played the same games you mentioned and it was fine when I was a kid cause I didn't know better. But now I'm older, I do know better, and technology advances at a rapid pace to just accept the same shit we've been given for decades on end. I put nearly 2k hours into Destiny 2 on PS4, obviously I dealt with the 30fps cap. Once I played it on PC @ 120fps it legit felt like an entirely different game. I even tried playing it on my PS5 when it got the 60fps patch and it still felt way too sluggish.

Also your last example is a false equivalency. 60fps at a minimum helps ANY game, regardless if it's mediocre or the next big thing. A game doesn't have to be regarded as worth playing before we start to recognize whether it performs shitty or not. Starfield is obviously perfectly playable by many on XSX where it tries to maintain 30fps. But accepting this in the year 2023 on again "next gen" consoles is ludicrous.
It's almost as if you started debating someone before even reading their post and comprehending what they were saying (not surprising honestly). You are attempting to provide evidence to dismiss claims I never even made 🤣😆.

Lol like dude, no one is saying high frame rates are not preferable, who even would try to make such a claim. As a fully grown adult I have accepted that you dont always get what you want, and some great games arent going to have the best performance...
big deal... it's a video game and I have played worse. "Oh no... I had to wait 43 seconds on a loading screen...unacceptable!!" "Destiny at 60fps is sluggish 😪😥" Like what is this?

Also, I'm sorry if what I said about being soft hit close to home. There is probably a better term, but I don't know what else to call someone who cries because their turn based strategy game is stuttering.

Edit: I thought of a better descriptor than "soft", as that admittedly seems more mean than I intended.... it's a Karen... a video game Karen. That fits my mental image much better.
 
Last edited:

DeaDPo0L84

Member
It's almost as if you started debating someone before even reading their post and comprehending what they were saying (not surprising honestly). You are attempting to provide evidence to dismiss claims I never even made 🤣😆.

Lol like dude, no one is saying high frame rates are not preferable, who even would try to make such a claim. As a fully grown adult I have accepted that you dont always get what you want, and some great games arent going to have the best performance...
big deal... it's a video game and I have played worse. "Oh no... I had to wait 43 seconds on a loading screen...unacceptable!!" "Destiny at 60fps is sluggish 😪😥" Like what is this?

Also, I'm sorry if what I said about being soft hit close to home. There is probably a better term, but I don't know what else to call someone who cries because their turn based strategy game is stuttering.

Edit: I thought of a better descriptor than "soft", as that admittedly seems more mean than I intended.... it's a Karen... a video game Karen. That fits my mental image much better.
Sorry if I came across like an asshole, not my intention. The conversation around FPS ever since the new consoles came out has been...tiring lol. I know you weren't trying to make the argument AGAINST higher frames, I just personally do fit the mold of "I can't really play games anymore @ 30fps". Call it being spoiled, petty, etc, I have just become so accustomed to no less than 90+ that 30fps feels terrible. My wife was super happy about the new FF game and she probably leans more towards your way of thinking about "fuck it if the game is fun I can deal with some motion blur and slideshow action". She played it for a little bit after just recently playing a lot of CP2077 on PC and she was like "yea, I can't really do this for long periods anymore". Also disagree or not but Destiny 2 @ 60fps feels shitty after you've played it @ 120fps, people who say there isn't a difference are straight up lying and delusional.

Sure people can deal with lower FPS, again I have owned every console up to the most recent ones, I played competitive shooters at 30fps and looking back I have no clue how I did it cause if I tried to do that now it would feel totally foreign to me. I don't even use my PS5 much nowadays, but I love tech and I'd like to see the consoles get beefed up where they can start to product more consistent results. But honestly that is only really possible if they substantially raise the cost which kinda defeats the purpose of a cheaper all in one solution console.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
Sorry if I came across like an asshole, not my intention. The conversation around FPS ever since the new consoles came out has been...tiring lol. I know you weren't trying to make the argument AGAINST higher frames, I just personally do fit the mold of "I can't really play games anymore @ 30fps". Call it being spoiled, petty, etc, I have just become so accustomed to no less than 90+ that 30fps feels terrible. My wife was super happy about the new FF game and she probably leans more towards your way of thinking about "fuck it if the game is fun I can deal with some motion blur and slideshow action". She played it for a little bit after just recently playing a lot of CP2077 on PC and she was like "yea, I can't really do this for long periods anymore". Also disagree or not but Destiny 2 @ 60fps feels shitty after you've played it @ 120fps, people who say there isn't a difference are straight up lying and delusional.

Sure people can deal with lower FPS, again I have owned every console up to the most recent ones, I played competitive shooters at 30fps and looking back I have no clue how I did it cause if I tried to do that now it would feel totally foreign to me. I don't even use my PS5 much nowadays, but I love tech and I'd like to see the consoles get beefed up where they can start to product more consistent results. But honestly that is only really possible if they substantially raise the cost which kinda defeats the purpose of a cheaper all in one solution console.
I think we have common ground. We were just speaking over each other instead of to each other.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Speaking only from personal experience, but I played it for the last few days on Performance mode and it's been mostly fine for me.


The only graphical issues I have had was during the cutscene following the tutorial when the ship crashes. Had some textures not load right and had a bit of a stutter when it went over the mountains. Also have had an occasional texture pop when the game goes from zoomed out to zoomed way in for a cutscene suddenly. All of which I assume will be fixed relatively soon with hotfixes.


Outside of that if there has been any framerate issues it's been so minimal that I haven't noticed it. It certainly hasn't affected my enjoyment of the game. Which is fucking amazing btw.
 
Last edited:

devilNprada

Member
I'm sorry but this attempt at labeling people as "soft" cause they have higher expectations than you is ridiculous. If anything rolling over and accepting a shitty final product on a "next gen" console is being soft. I'm almost 40yo, I played the same games you mentioned and it was fine when I was a kid cause I didn't know better. But now I'm older, I do know better, and technology advances at a rapid pace to just accept the same shit we've been given for decades on end. I put nearly 2k hours into Destiny 2 on PS4, obviously I dealt with the 30fps cap. Once I played it on PC @ 120fps it legit felt like an entirely different game. I even tried playing it on my PS5 when it got the 60fps patch and it still felt way too sluggish.

Also your last example is a false equivalency. 60fps at a minimum helps ANY game, regardless if it's mediocre or the next big thing. A game doesn't have to be regarded as worth playing before we start to recognize whether it performs shitty or not. Starfield is obviously perfectly playable by many on XSX where it tries to maintain 30fps. But accepting this in the year 2023 on again "next gen" consoles is ludicrous.
I don't understand your point? It's a D&D game based on dice rolls... Why exactly do we need 120fps?

This game is a godsend to the world where we want to convert D&D to digital, because our geeky ass friends are too busy to get together; maybe not so much to the world of high end PC's.

Edit: Say fuck yeah to September 18th when we can play Gloomhaven with our friends laying in bed with a controller... The laptop and mouse is great and all but just saying.....
 
Last edited:

MarkMe2525

Member
I don't understand your point? It's a D&D game based on dice rolls... Why exactly do we need 120fps?

This game is a godsend to the world where we want to convert D&D to digital, because our geeky ass friends are too busy to get together; maybe not so much to the world of high end PC's.

Edit: Say fuck yeah to September 18th when we can play Gloomhaven with our friends laying in bed with a controller... The laptop and mouse is great and all but just saying.....
"playing Gloonhaven with friends laying in the bed" 😳
 
Top Bottom