I have no idea how they pull this off though, because Rise looks damn near about as good as World does IMO, with faster and crazier gameplay, and runs at 80 higher FPS. Either their “fancy PC game” team is trash or their mobile team is legendary, because I don’t see how a minor change of art style and small drop in the number of individual grasses per map made such a huge change.
Now, Wilds does look a little crazy and I can understand how exactly the Deck might struggle on that one. But the playability difference between World and Rise without losing much graphical fidelity genuinely blew my mind. World limps along at 14 FPS on the Deck and Rise plays smooth as butter on the Switch as well as the Deck.
Don’t start your comment with blatant lies like rise looking “dam near about as good as world”. I don’t have the time to take my own pictures of both games to clearly show how much simpler rise is in comparison to world, so these google image pics will have to do for now, but for anyone who played both games your comment is laughably wrong
Nice cherry picking of the densest area of detail in World vs an empty open field in Rise.
Rise looks great when you aren’t looking for ways to dunk on it.
Besides which, World was such a sluggish beast that I was running the game on minimum settings anyway just to play the damn thing. So uh, I never got to see how beautiful it looks in your photo. Sure, it’s detailed, it looks good, it also runs like shit so maybe 10% of players got to actually see that. My point here was that Rise was a very impressive gain in performance for a relatively small loss in graphical fidelity. Good job Capcom, well done.
But here’s a more direct comparison between the model of rathalos on monster hunter world vs monster hunter rise (I couldn’t upload the image for some reason so here’s the link to the reddit post)
The real question is what resolution. My 6900 XT with no FSR and no raytracing, at 1440p, could do 63fps average but sadly stuttered at times. I forget the exact graphics settings but generally high / ultra because I was pushing it to see if it would do it.
Sounds more like a Capcom problem than a Valve problem. Don’t build mobile optimization into your games, don’t make mobile sales.
Capcom specifically does two releases of Monster Hunter by two different studios, sort of alternating, for this reason.
MH World and Icebreak were the “fancy PC / Console games”
Then MH Rise and Sunbreak were the “mobile” releases.
Now MH Wilds is another “fancy PC / Consoles” release.
So Capcom does actually account for this.
I have no idea how they pull this off though, because Rise looks damn near about as good as World does IMO, with faster and crazier gameplay, and runs at 80 higher FPS. Either their “fancy PC game” team is trash or their mobile team is legendary, because I don’t see how a minor change of art style and small drop in the number of individual grasses per map made such a huge change.
Now, Wilds does look a little crazy and I can understand how exactly the Deck might struggle on that one. But the playability difference between World and Rise without losing much graphical fidelity genuinely blew my mind. World limps along at 14 FPS on the Deck and Rise plays smooth as butter on the Switch as well as the Deck.
Don’t start your comment with blatant lies like rise looking “dam near about as good as world”. I don’t have the time to take my own pictures of both games to clearly show how much simpler rise is in comparison to world, so these google image pics will have to do for now, but for anyone who played both games your comment is laughably wrong
Rise
World
Nice cherry picking of the densest area of detail in World vs an empty open field in Rise.
Rise looks great when you aren’t looking for ways to dunk on it.
Besides which, World was such a sluggish beast that I was running the game on minimum settings anyway just to play the damn thing. So uh, I never got to see how beautiful it looks in your photo. Sure, it’s detailed, it looks good, it also runs like shit so maybe 10% of players got to actually see that. My point here was that Rise was a very impressive gain in performance for a relatively small loss in graphical fidelity. Good job Capcom, well done.
Here’s a video of someone just playing rise, you can clearly see how low definition the models, map and textures are. Link to the reddit post since I can’t upload the video
And here’s another video, on youtube this time and I did take the tracking off, of a person walking through the ancient forest.
But here’s a more direct comparison between the model of rathalos on monster hunter world vs monster hunter rise (I couldn’t upload the image for some reason so here’s the link to the reddit post)
Lmao it’s not even close
It’s not a Linux problem my gaming Linux PC can do 60 at max settings with ray tracing turned in with AMD card
They didn’t say it was a Linux problem; they said it was a mobile problem
With what hardware, a 7900XTX?!
The real question is what resolution. My 6900 XT with no FSR and no raytracing, at 1440p, could do 63fps average but sadly stuttered at times. I forget the exact graphics settings but generally high / ultra because I was pushing it to see if it would do it.
At 4k I’d probably get half that.