I seem to have struck a nerve there, apologies.
I don’t think it’s a shit example. It’s the latest I experienced. It’s a good game but hampered technically. Nobody needs to tell me, I’ve been gaming since before dos and grew up with it; I’ve also been working in it for a few decades.
Look; you could just have a bigger or more gpus with more ram in a pc but if the end result does not significantly look better the question is for what all the effort is.
And that’s what happened with UE5.
Yes, maybe in a few years it might look different but it’s also been some time and hasn’t really been worth any of the performance impact.
And - as said - I see quality impact in UE5 games which I personally can not comprehend in an supposed upgrade.
However, feel free to disagree.
Maybe it’s my background in datacenters: of course you can always meet demand with more raw power but it’s a losing fight and the intelligent progress is to optimize and use resources in a clever way.
SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 4 hours ago
While UE5 is a one size fits all for game dev, it does not mean all games have to try to have the highest quality graphics possible. CO took that route. You can do whatever you want and optimize as much as you can. You are correct, studios are just going ham on the capabilities and not caring about the hardware requirements. Having a min requirements of a 12th Gen intel, 32GB RAM and 3060 is fucked up. And you need 64GB of RAM for good performance. My biggest gripe on the UE4 vs 5 opinion is that you can still make a low-fi game that runs at 200fps. It’s a design choice not an engine choice.