Metro 2033 Performance review

[ronnn]

30fps according to metro

 

[cbn]

30fps according to metro

Is that the average or minimum? (I'm guessing average)

 

[schneiderguy]

I'd rather have a game that pushes graphical limits and runs slowly than another UE3 game that runs at 60fps on three year old hardware.

I don't know when the mentality that "if I can't run it maxed out it's unoptimized" came about, but it's annoying as hell. Metro 2033 has better indoor scenes than any other game available. Great visuals come at a cost in performance.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/sets/72157623633360472/

Those shots are in DX9 with medium settings and it still looks better than any game not called Crysis.

 

[Udgnim]

I haven't tried the game yet, but isn't depth of field something like draw distance? More detail further away?

believe level of detail is what you are thinking of

pretty sure depth of field creates a focus / out of focus effect. Mass Effect and Borderlands use it pretty heavily. any in-game cutscene pretty much uses it nowadays.

 

[ronnn]

"Olez: The 360 is always running at thirty."

 

[MrK6]

I haven't tried the game yet, but isn't depth of field something like draw distance? More detail further away?

believe level of detail is what you are thinking of

pretty sure depth of field creates a focus / out of focus effect. Mass Effect and Borderlands use it pretty heavily. any in-game cutscene pretty much uses it nowadays.

Yeah, as far as I was aware it was just a filter applied, no big deal. That's just a crazy FPS drop (~20% or so) for an effect that is most of the time an after thought. I'm curious as to what's different about it that makes it so demanding (and if it's worth it, for that matter).

Looks like a good game anyway, although I can't justify $50 for 10 hours of gameplay, especially with the backlog of games I have. First Steam sale I'll definitely pick it up though.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Looks like a good test for my new 5870. Only, the characters in the game look like they are made of clay or something... just an odd look to me.

My 5870'c core keeps climbing happily. A game like this would be fun to test the card at the stock 850MHz vs. whatever the core maxes out at. I'm curious how much of a difference core overclocking really makes.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

I remember the good 'ole days when HL2 was cutting-edge... lol.

This game is new. Driver updates and/or patches could improve performance.

 

[zagood]

I don't know when the mentality that "if I can't run it maxed out it's unoptimized" came about, but it's annoying as hell.

FEAR - soft shadows.

 

[Grooveriding]

I'd rather have a game that pushes graphical limits and runs slowly than another UE3 game that runs at 60fps on three year old hardware.

I don't know when the mentality that "if I can't run it maxed out it's unoptimized" came about, but it's annoying as hell. Metro 2033 has better indoor scenes than any other game available. Great visuals come at a cost in performance.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/sets/72157623633360472/

Those shots are in DX9 with medium settings and it still looks better than any game not called Crysis.

My thought is that yes, the game looks really nice, but like you said it does not look as good as Crysis, so why is performance worse ?

I'm sure it will improve with driver releases though.

And to the depth of field questions, I believe it's supposed to improve definition of objects in the foreground/background related to one another, not how much you can see on your screen. Whatever it does, it totally kills performance on very high settings to the point that the game is not playable.

 

[Raduque]

Gamers don't care what platform a game is on, but only the quality of the gaming experience.

Yep. True Gamers are platform agnostic.

PC gamers, on the other hand, are fanboys of the highest order - if something isn't on the PC it's garbage, if it's also on a console it's a "shitty port", even if it was developed separately. PC gamers demand billion dollar games for $30 a pop, they demand developers cater to them exclusively, to the detriment of everybody else. If you don't agree with them, play the game exactly like they do, and want the exact same features they do, you're just a "console kiddie" and they instantly dismiss your opinion.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I'd rather have a game that pushes graphical limits and runs slowly than another UE3 game that runs at 60fps on three year old hardware.

I don't know when the mentality that "if I can't run it maxed out it's unoptimized" came about, but it's annoying as hell. Metro 2033 has better indoor scenes than any other game available. Great visuals come at a cost in performance.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/sets/72157623633360472/

Those shots are in DX9 with medium settings and it still looks better than any game not called Crysis.

Maybe we are at a point that small IQ improvements, that are barely noticeable, take huge amounts of resources and that make people feel the game is not optimized.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Yep. True Gamers are platform agnostic.

PC gamers, on the other hand, are fanboys of the highest order - if something isn't on the PC it's garbage, if it's also on a console it's a "shitty port", even if it was developed separately. PC gamers demand billion dollar games for $30 a pop, they demand developers cater to them exclusively, to the detriment of everybody else. If you don't agree with them, play the game exactly like they do, and want the exact same features they do, you're just a "console kiddie" and they instantly dismiss your opinion.

PC gamers are humans. Console games are humans. Pit some PS3 players vs some 360 players and see if they aren't fanboys just as bad as PC ones.

I do think though, that PC gamers, or at least a part of them, want something that consoles doesn't provide.

PC gamers, or some at least, seem to want huge games that will be played for hundreds if not thousand of hours.

PC gamers also seem to want more customization.

Different markets and different target audiences (although players can enjoy both styles of gaming).

 

[schneiderguy]

FEAR - soft shadows.

I remember struggling to run FEAR maxed out at 1280*1024 with soft shadows on with my 6800nu. It took upgrading to a 7600gt to be playable :awe:

 

[Headfoot]

PC gamers get tired of console ports because we like technology. I don't like seeing everything get put on hold for years until Microsoft and Sony decide to make a new console.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

And to the depth of field questions, I believe it's supposed to improve definition of objects in the foreground/background related to one another, not how much you can see on your screen. Whatever it does, it totally kills performance on very high settings to the point that the game is not playable.

Don't the options describe what the hell the setting does? Seems like most of these extra eye candy options are trivial fluff implemented to hurt performance but sound "cool" enough to make the player think he/she needs new hardware.

It'd be nice to know exactly what to look for since the change is usually subtle at best.

 

[SHAQ]

PC gamers get tired of console ports because we like technology. I don't like seeing everything get put on hold for years until Microsoft and Sony decide to make a new console.

+1. Why should we wait 7 years for updated graphics/gameplay? New hardware is available every 6-12 months.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

+1. Why should we wait 7 years for updated graphics/gameplay? New hardware is available every 6-12 months.

Every once in a great while a PC game comes out and taxes the newest hardware, but that's not good enough. So ATI and Nvidia decided to give us Eyefinity and Vision Surround to spend money on...

 

[nitromullet]

Looks like a good game anyway, although I can't justify $50 for 10 hours of gameplay, especially with the backlog of games I have. First Steam sale I'll definitely pick it up though.

GoGamer had it for $36. Sold out now.

I was tempted, but I'm still trying to decide which platform to get it on. I need a new video card if I'm going to play it on PC. Definitely not buying a video card until the whole Fermi/Evergreen debate is settled.

 

[SHAQ]

Every year basically...
2004-Doom 3
2005-F.E.A.R.
2006-Don't remember
2007-Crysis
2008-Crysis:Warhead
2009-Empire:Total War/Cryostasis
2010-Metro 2033/Crysis 2?

 

[Dorkenstein]

This game is kicking my computer's butt. Q9550 @ 3.6, 8gb 1066 and a 5870. I'm trying to run it in DX11 mode and when I get in a firefight it feels like I'm swimming at the bottom of the ocean, things feel slower and floaty, not smooth enough. Anyone with a similar setup have recommended settings and tweaks?

 

[MarcVenice]

So, this game kills a HD 5970 at 1680x1050, with all settings maxed out. The volumetric smoke lowers fps considerably, but besides that I didn't really play long enough to notice any consistencies. I think the game looks pretty sweet. I took some screenshots which I will upload in a hour or so.

 

[toyota]

This game is kicking my computer's butt. Q9550 @ 3.6, 8gb 1066 and a 5870. I'm trying to run it in DX11 mode and when I get in a firefight it feels like I'm swimming at the bottom of the ocean, things feel slower and floaty, not smooth enough. Anyone with a similar setup have recommended settings and tweaks?

turn off depth of field and tessellation and it will be much faster.

 

[Lonyo]

Anyone tried 10.2's vs 10.3a Catalysts?

 

[Dorkenstein]

So, this game kills a HD 5970 at 1680x1050, with all settings maxed out. The volumetric smoke lowers fps considerably, but besides that I didn't really play long enough to notice any consistencies. I think the game looks pretty sweet. I took some screenshots which I will upload in a hour or so.

I'm not surprised. I don't even have a 5970 and I was getting pummeled. Graphics are still above average with my settings.