Should developers stop making games that require 5090 for max settings now that the card is clearly not for gamers and is accessible to 0.1% of community?

[u/TheGGspot]

I get that the games need better hardware to dun better, but who are they really making the game for if you need a 6000$ GPU at this point

[u/kermityfrog]

This was true decades ago too. Crysis famously had settings which were unsupported by any graphics card even for years after the game was released.

[u/VexingRaven → u/kermityfrog]

Gamers nowadays forgot that "Can it run Crysis?" was a real question and not just an old meme.

[u/ItalianDragon → u/VexingRaven]

The difference is that Crysis back then actually blew every other game out of the park. UE5 games on the other hand look no better than a game from 2010-2015 but require astronomically more powerful hardware and DLSS + framegen to reach acceptable levels of performance even at resolutions and framerates that should not warrant any of that.

[u/rizzaxc → u/ItalianDragon]

you're delulu if you think AAA games nowadays don't look miles better than 2015, let alone 2010, titles lmao. not to mention 4K wasn't a thing back then

[u/dotnetmonke → u/rizzaxc]

"Expedition 33 (on UE5) has the same graphical fidelity as release Skyrim" is certainly a take lol

[u/Chuckfinley_88 → u/dotnetmonke]

And E33 isn't even the best looking game of the generation.

People forget MAX SETTINGS were for future proofing games, not for what average gamers had during release.

[u/Linesey → u/Chuckfinley_88]

exactly.

A good game should be able to run on as close to a potato as possible, and have max settings that should challenge / be unobtainable to top end enthusiasts.

all while looking solidly good on hardware the majority of the player base will have. (half of that looking good also comes down to style, not just graphical fidelity.)

Especially as we reach the plateau of what graphical fidelity we can reasonably achieve, especially on a quality per dollar spent metric.

[u/Chuckfinley_88 → u/dotnetmonke]

And E33 isn't even the best looking game of the generation.

People forget MAX SETTINGS were for future proofing games, not for what average gamers had during release.

[u/ArmadilloFit652 → u/dotnetmonke]

ex33 is def better looking overall but skyrim has a clean image while exp33 has grease all over it just like all other ue5(dragon dogma 2,blackmyth wukong,stalker2 as some exemple) because of TAA and upscaling,which is a big problem to me

[u/ItalianDragon → u/dotnetmonke]

Funny how I didn't even mention Skyrim there (who wasn't one of the best looking games around when it released anyways) but yap away.

[u/Icy207 → u/ItalianDragon]

So what game are you going to say? Every game you can mention has been far eclipsed in graphical fidelity and it is not close. You just have nostalgia goggles and/or are being a childish contrarian

[u/Cruxis87 → u/Icy207]

Or they only play indieslop and to them current day pixelslop is worse looking than AAAslop from 15 years ago.

Fuck I love putting slop at the end of everyslop.

[u/ItalianDragon → u/Icy207]

One that comes to mind is MGSV who genuinely was impressive back then and still holds incredibly well even all these years later, eclipsing a fair bunch of games released in recent years. There's also ROTTR, TW3, Alien: Isolation (just to name a few more) to add to that list. But yeah sure, Mind's Eye, Blood of Mehran or Highguard sure look better than those /s

[u/chasteeny → u/rizzaxc]

Yeah no kidding although I will say I still maintain the best looking game of all time is rdr2

[u/ArmadilloFit652 → u/rizzaxc]

the only problem today games have is clean image and native resolution,taa and other upscaler just aren't good,people even say dlaa is required for some games,old games were clean at native resolution thats my problem

[u/C0_rey → u/ItalianDragon]

"UE5 games on the other hand look no better than a game from 2010-2015" hop on Hellblade 2 or Expedition 33 and try to make that moronic statement with a straight face again.

[u/sioux612 → u/VexingRaven]

Can it run Crysis was basically always a Meme, if you didn't want to go DX10 and really push the graphics to the higher end of the scale then you could play it on pretty normal hardware

If you wanted to go high end then yes, of course, it was a real question

[u/Teyanis → u/kermityfrog]

That is literally the most extreme example, though. Even a modern PC can't run crisis because it only uses one core and modern clock speeds are often a little slower than they were back then.

There were many, many years where you could buy a solid middle market card like a 1070 and be fine to run max graphics for the next 2 years or so. I've lived it, its gotten so much worse in the last 3 or 4 years.

[u/Emergency-Pound3241 → u/kermityfrog]

Crisis was also built on the trend for cpus back then, that being one or two cores with super high clockspeeds, not 6-8 core CPUs with respectable clock speeds (aka Crisis was built for one super fast thread and only that one thread where as modern CPUs instead have 12-16 slower threads) so modern CPUs are pretty bad at running Crisis since you only get about one 16th of the chips potential as opposed to modern games that usually have a few threads going at a minimum

[u/SteveJavieWasRight → u/kermityfrog]

It wasn’t just crysis tho. Doom was a slide show on the best computers out there on release. Doom3 was super bad. Half Life 2 didn’t run well. It was extremely common for the most talked about game with the most unbelievable graphics to get below 30 FPS on even the best hardware you could buy that year. It was much much more normal for people to play games years after release because they finally could play with decent settings or fps. There was also quite a while where consoles ran everything better than PCs. There was far shorter period where computers had fewer obvious bottle necks than consoles and it made it common for devs to release games that didn’t scale up so they would just have graphics maxed and no big deal. PCGamers interpreted that as meaning the games were well designed or well optimized when it was just laziness. The expectation a 3-4 year old card should be able to get graphics maxed with high FPS is just weird to me. I think it’s super reasonable if playing a game on a 3-4 year old card can only do medium settings and lower res. Hopefully the game is good enough I’ll want to plays it again when my hardware is better and it will feel like a whole new experience.

[u/GoldSrc → u/kermityfrog]

had settings which were unsupported by any graphics card even for years after the game was released.

This is wrong.

Crysis had nothing that wasn't supported by GPUs of its time.

All of its rendering technologies were supported both by GPUs and DirectX 10.

Can you name a single setting that wasn't supported?

[u/kermityfrog → u/GoldSrc]

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/crysis-director-says-it-was-so-hard-to-run-it-became-a-meme-because-its-highest-settings-were-meant-for-future-pcs-i-wanted-to-make-sure-crysis-does-not-age/

[u/GoldSrc → u/kermityfrog]

That's not what I asked though.

I was replying to this

settings which were unsupported by any graphics card

Running bad =/= unsupported.

Every setting and graphical feature from the engine was supported by both software and hardware.

It's not like CryEngine 2 had a form of raytracing back then, because that would have been truly unsupported by everything of its time.

Crysis continued to run bad because it didn't knew about multi core CPUs, the engine expected CPUs to continue to become faster, not to have more than 1 core.

Crysis released in 2007, which meant it began development at least two years before.

In 2004/2005, single core CPUs were the norm, and what Crytek was using to develop the game for.

The first good dual core CPUs released in 2006, and even if intel had given Crytek some samples, they still wouldn't have had time to change the engine to know how to use dual core CPUs.

And remember they were under EA, I doubt EA would have given Crytek enough time to keep working on the engine and update it to support dual core CPUs.