Are you part of the problem with Fallout 4 performance?

[Mitigate]

I have a GTX 1080 Xtreme Gaming GPU, an i5-4690k OC'd to 4.2GHz and 16GB of RAM and I cannot run this game at high and meet the minimum standard of 60FPS in all areas (even 55 is unacceptable and 30FPS doesn't count as a playable framerate). It is ridiculous that I have to lower the shadows to Medium, the resolution of shadows to 1024, the draw distance and detail to 50% and disable God rays and I STILL stutter in Boston.

What hope do you have if your rig is weaker? I am just being realistic here. Too many people are punching above their weight class when they shouldn't even be competing. As unfortunate as that is for those who are financially impaired, they shouldn't even be playing this game. Fallout 4 needs optimisation yes, I understand that, but well, there it is.

Low-end hardware is for low-end games. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Not to mention you hold back the rest of us. Developers still cater to the slowest participant when they should just be left behind. If your rig only handles Minecraft then you should be limited to Minecraft. It just makes sense. If you can't throw a punch then you don't fight an MMA champ... Part of the reason modern games run so badly is because developers focus too much on consoles. And is your rig really any better than a console? If not then you are a part of the problem.

No doubt I'll be labelled a bad guy for this post but it'd be ironic considering how many people follow a 'survival of the fittest' mentality in all other areas of their lives... As long as they make the cut of course lol, otherwise it's just 'unfair'.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Mitigate

[L3s7ing]

:facepalm:
Games aren't made to be played ONLY at ultra. That logic complete ****. So, you can't play fo4 at max settings. Fine. I'm on a 1080 sli setup and drop below 60 fps sometimes.
Therefore are the graphics settings from low to ultra. Back in the days when Crysis came out nearly no one could play it with good fps at ultra ... so no one should have played it? Great idea.
Don't really know what to say...
Graphics aren't the most important thing in a game... yeah, I like them, but hey, story? the feeling of playing a game? gameplay?
fo4 is badly optimised... true, but many games aren't. If you can play a game on low with 60 fps... then do it. Even if you drop below 60 and play around 30 it's fine for some games.
And that's not holding developers back ... the exact opposite. If many players do not have a high end rig the game must be better optimized. Direct12 -> more performance for less power.
Maybe you should stop thinking that if you buy a high end card you can play all games at ultra with 60 fps. What should I do then? I couldn't play most of my games, like Witcher 3 (completely maxed out i'm around 55). Oh and wait... 4k? nah, maybe when you got titan x pascal in sli.
You can even play games with hardware lower than the minimum advises ... no problem.

And everyone has problems with Boston... it's just a mess. Live with it.

And even if your pc is only as powerful as a console... you still want to play on a pc. Maybe just cause you hate Controllers and love mods (like me).

But hey... everyone has his opinion. I just can't understand the logic if yours...

Edited December 5, 2016 by L3s7ing

[steve40]

At 30fps the game only has 33ms total to do all the things it needs to do during that frame, including running scripts and controlling actors and npcs. At 60 fps the game only has 16ms per frame. If the game needs longer to do all its stuff, the frame rate slows down accordingly. The more mods and scripts you are running, the more your framerate will suffer. It has NOTHING to do with consoles.

[CreatureGyrl]

Let me guess. Trump much? :kiss: :no: :whistling:

 

I feel your pain but I not much of a scorched earth kinda gal in real life. And when you move from settings to hardware, you're drifting from fantasy to real life. In real life there are real people who are not all created equal & like it or not, there are some things that require adjustment for that reality to prevent us from losing our humanity & its contingent quality of treating others fairly & in consideration of our differences.

 

I too would prefer improvements in Fallout 4's performance in some respects, but I have to say I don't experience nearly the degree of performance frustration in games from most companies other than Bethesda. And yet I love Fallout & some of their other games so much that I play them despite wanting to punch someone real at times when I've experienced yet another freeze or shut down out of the blue without any recognizable provocation on my part.

 

But they are masters of creating characters & story lines of fantastic depth set in delicious environmental smorgasboards to entice the eye. And so I grind my teeth as I reboot the game & get right back to it. Still, I swear I sometimes think Bethesda holds some deep seated & mysterious rage against their customers which drives them to interupt near perfection with the most annoyingly repetative irritants. I mean really. What's with all the droning, migraine instigating, ulcer developing noises that grind at your very soul - some idiot pounding a nail that never seems to quite go in for unknown reason or a door that's never answeredno matter how long he goes on pounding on it never missing a beat of his stupid little rhthym as if a non-existant occupant will eventually develop out of thin air if only he knocks long enough frequent enough to turn passive strangers into raging maniacs? while I'm at it, Not to mention the stupid bits of dialogue repeated word for word by every character of a certain class. :wallbash:

 

And while I'm at it. And speaking of Rage. I was & remain SOOOOOO very psssd that Rage was cut so short & the ending so sudden & even more outraged & saddened that there was a decision made not to pursue the series, to just drop a jewel with such potential never to be seen or heard from again. There's just something so wrong about that Yet again they torment the ones who love them most. I silently wish for a magical hearing & reconsideration of that decision every time I return to that gorgeous landscape & the marvelous faces & voices of its of its residents. :facepalm: :down: :sad:

[Mitigate]

:facepalm:

Games aren't made to be played ONLY at ultra. That logic complete ****. So, you can't play fo4 at max settings. Fine. I'm on a 1080 sli setup and drop below 60 fps sometimes.

Therefore are the graphics settings from low to ultra. Back in the days when Crysis came out nearly no one could play it with good fps at ultra ... so no one should have played it? Great idea.

Don't really know what to say...

Graphics aren't the most important thing in a game... yeah, I like them, but hey, story? the feeling of playing a game? gameplay?

fo4 is badly optimised... true, but many games aren't. If you can play a game on low with 60 fps... then do it. Even if you drop below 60 and play around 30 it's fine for some games.

And that's not holding developers back ... the exact opposite. If many players do not have a high end rig the game must be better optimized. Direct12 -> more performance for less power.

Maybe you should stop thinking that if you buy a high end card you can play all games at ultra with 60 fps. What should I do then? I couldn't play most of my games, like Witcher 3 (completely maxed out i'm around 55). Oh and wait... 4k? nah, maybe when you got titan x pascal in sli.

You can even play games with hardware lower than the minimum advises ... no problem.

 

And everyone has problems with Boston... it's just a mess. Live with it.

 

And even if your pc is only as powerful as a console... you still want to play on a pc. Maybe just cause you hate Controllers and love mods (like me).

 

But hey... everyone has his opinion. I just can't understand the logic if yours...

As I understand it, a lot of the issues with performance us PC gamers get hit with are because of the games being console ports.

 

And instead of Bethesda fixing this game's performance, they figure we can just lower our settings to match the 'majority'... Not cool.

 

Ultra at 60 frames is the minimum I should be running all modern games. If a console can handle them at all, I certainly should be able to meet that standard.

 

Crysis is an interesting point. But why should a game exist that exceeds the current top-tier tech available at the time? It shouldn't. And, if at that time, there was a rig that could have run it properly, then yeah, only those who owned that rig should have played the game. There's never been a game as ambitious in graphical fidelity as Crysis since because of the fact that only a select few could actually run it. They were the top of the food chain and should never have had to settle for games the majority could run too. They should have been specially catered for. There should be levels, not a one-size-fits-all model. If you can't meet a certain level, then you're excluded from it. And no level should be held back by any below it.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mitigate

[Reneer]

Don't feed the troll.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Reneer

[jones177]

Hi

 

I use a 1080 in one rig & 2 980 tis in another.

 

With this game & Skyrim SE the 980 ti is doing a better job. It is a driver thing.

 

The 1080 runs my game at 3440 X 1440 & 60 fps most of the time. The old i7 2600K in that system struggles sometimes. Not in the cities but approaching settlements at higher levels(70+). All my City stutter is i/o.

 

Even with the OS & game on the same SSD, i/o stutter is a big problem at higher levels with modded settlements. My game was unplayable when I put it on a HD.

 

The performance hits came along with the DLCs. Before them I played the game for 1100 hours at 4k resolution with a single 980 ti averaging 57fps. Back then I used WD Raptors. They were much better at dealing i/o stutter than the Sata SSDs I use now.

 

At the resolutions I play, I leave AA off. Shadows at medium & God-rays on ultra along with everything else.

 

Playing widowed mod causes stutter on both systems. ShadowPlay robes more fps the Godrays.

 

This game is hard to configure now & driver updates usually make things worse.

 

I played Crysis on ultra when it came out. I could do it because even then my gaming rig was designed to play modded games. It had nothing on MS Flight Simulator & Train Simulator with mods/addons. Oblivion with mods brought that rig to its knees not Crysis. Back then I updated CPUs & GPUs 2 to 3 times a year.

 

When it comes to GPUs & CPUs I am happy with the level of performance I am getting now. I am not happy with my SSds with this game.

 

Later

[Fatalmasterpiece]

Mitigate, by your logic, an out of shape person shouldn't buy running shoes because they could never keep up with Usain Bolt.

How about you stop worrying about what other people do for enjoyment and mind your own business? There are plenty of people who run games just fine in potato mode and enjoy it. If that's what they want to do, who are you to tell them otherwise? It's simple economics, the income from console game success funds your multi-platform PC games. If not for that funding, sorry, you wouldn't be enjoying nearly as many PC games. Don't get me wrong, I don't own consoles and have no love for them, but it's the sales from the plebs that make your PC master race campaign possible. Enjoy it for what it is, a game. Your post makes you come off as a tart. If you're busy putting your nose up other people's butts, don't be surprised if you end up saying a lot of crap. :thumbsup:

[bmt12]

You complain about poor optimization but then browbeat people who play with weaker hardware? I don't think irony means what you think it means.

[Dukoth]

I dont feel any sympathy for you, not with an attitude like that

 

your problem isn't Bethesda, Fallout 4, consoles, lesser PCs, or other players

 

your problem is YOU, and your unwillingness to reconcile your expectations with reality

 

get over yourself, you'll be happier for it