Support NeoGAF

[CamHostage]

Translation is accurate, but what I know, is that the Zing.cz staff aren't the brightest minds. So I would like to see the actual slides from that conference

I'd love to see those slides too (especially since they are in English). This topic has just ran rampant based on quasi-reliable translations and second-hand reporting that doesn't seem exactly to be stating what the quoters say the article says, much less what was specifically said in the room.

Here's the original article (for those who speak Czech, or just want to read in full context: )

Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 poběží na konzolích ve 4K a 30 FPS

Optimalizace by měla být mnohem lepší než u prvního dílu.

www.zing.cz

Perhaps the most interesting were the statements regarding the technical side. Klíma, like many other developers, mentioned the limitation of the Xbox Series S and its 10GB of memory. So Warhorse's goal was to make the game 25% bigger, since XSS has 25% more memory than PS4/XONE.

Reads to me that they started and set the goal of a 25% scale upgrade over the original (and that the S did at that time stand as one of their concerns on the table for initial targeting.) The scope and capacity would change over that time, though, as would tech (in positive and negative ways) Also, it's not saying that they would have had more than 25% bigger game even without Series S (it's already a big-assed and complicated spot of land,) more that they just pegged it semi-arbitrarily at 25% based on what they knew by math they could squeeze onto all platforms even before adjusting any parameters.

...That said, the RAM issue here would be one of the few cases where Series S could cause troubles at a fundamental level. The lesser box is being blamed senselessly for the lack of "next-gen leap" firepower this gen (as if RT GI/AI/Reflections/Shadows can't be thrown on top or even that virtualized geometry can't and never does fall back to traditional LODs optimised for a specific platform.) However, this type of game really need every bit memory it can use to track its complex simulation, and there are ways to replicate that complexity without taking up so much RAM as the previous game, but still, it demands resident space. Series S cut back on mostly non-essential aspects of the graphics features which can work out by scaling the demands down, but it did cheapen out on RAM, and that's not something that scales or cuts back without affecting the whole.

So it's likely that Series S was a pain in their neck and possibly even forced compromises, but that's not exactly borne out of what's quoted in this summary of the event. (It's also not supported by other details we already know about the production game size, plus I'd be surprised a developer would so candidly admit to one box in the SKU list kicking his ass and limiting his project, even if RAM was a serious challenge for a certain type of game you'd still fight to the end to get the most out of it and you'd be foolish to admit early that your primarily-PC customers were getting a lesser game than imagined because of one darned console version.)

 

[DavidGzz]

Why is this a surprise when even the first game runs at 30fps on modern consoles. How could you expect 60fps from a bigger more detailed game 7 years later.

On hardware that was $400 4 years ago. 30fps will be standard for most any game with great graphics in these weak boxes.

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

On hardware that was $400 4 years ago. 30fps will be standard for most any game with great graphics in these weak boxes.

This game doesn’t have “great graphics” and in any case, that certainly isn’t the reason it runs at 30 fps.

 

[GymWolf]

I haven't seen this incredible graphic or physics in the reveal trailer to warrant 30 fps only tbh.

Maybe the npcs ia is gonna be the most advanced ever or maybe it's just another unoptimized mess like dogma2.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

I would like for the first game to get a 60 FPS patch first, so I can finally play it before the sequel.

A while back I looked through some of their posts on Twitter and there were so many people asking for a 60 fps patch for KC1. If they don't have money/resources to do it themselves they should have asked their publisher to outsource it to some other dev studio and charge €10 for it. They would've gotten a decent amount of sales imo from people curious to play it before the release of Kingdom Come 2. The window is kinda closing though since the release date of KC2 is just a few months away.

 

[ArtHands]

I am fine with that. If I want high framerate I will just play on PC.

 

[FewRope]

All of that to sell like shit on Xbox, you cant make this shit up

 

[Dr. Suchong]

 

[dreamstation]

It's absolutely criminal that the first game didn't get an update for the new consoles. So many people have been asking but they're just like nope. Keen for the sequel but honestly 30fps is not ideal. Probably will wait for a sale unless they come to their senses.

 

[Denton]

This game doesn’t have “great graphics” and in any case, that certainly isn’t the reason it runs at 30 fps.

u wot m8

...that said, yes the main limitation is on CPU side, hence lowering resolution would be unlikely to get consoles to 60fps stable.

 

[Mister Wolf]

u wot m8

...that said, yes the main limitation is on CPU side, hence lowering resolution would be unlikely to get consoles to 60fps stable.

CryEngine is back.

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

Since they wont give us a native PS5 version, how does the original play/look on PS5?

 

[Bojji]

I don't think this was well proved, unless you take cases apart.

Even Digital Foundry keep trying to build up PCs with similar specs to mimic consoles, in some cases they can, but majority don't fair equal to what consoles can offer.

Again, optimization is key part. You could mention that in some cases the console port is terrible and in others the pc port is the terrible one.

Not to mention most of the technology was bring from consoles to PC. The Nvidia pursuit of reconstruction that created DLSS came from the initial PS4pro cb in mind. Since them many companies tried to figure out ways of their engine to offer what normally console do to archieve better frame rate at the cost of resolution.

Console optimization is a thing of the past. Console apis can be more efficient than the ones on PC but it's probably few % or something. Consoles are running PC hardware basically.

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

Since they wont give us a native PS5 version, how does the original play/look on PS5?

1080p30 on low/medium settings.

The game also feels like it has incredibly slow input latency which is only exacerbated by the 30fps.

NPC popin is particularly horrendous.

 

[Denton]

1080p30 on low/medium settings.

The game also feels like it has incredibly slow input latency which is only exacerbated by the 30fps.

NPC popin is particularly horrendous.

PS5 runs Pro version, which was 1440p

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

PS5 runs Pro version, which was 1440p

No I believe 1440p is reserved solely for the One X version. The Pro version is 1080p.

 

[Denton]

No I believe 1440p is reserved solely for the One X version. The Pro version is 1080p.

Oh right, I misremembered.

 

[StueyDuck]

Cryengine still a hog

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

This ain't running. It's more like crawling.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

First game was a huge cpu slog, remember the game not even hitting 60's on a 9900k at the time.

Lol I am playing KCD right now and yeah it still struggles to keep at 60fps with modern hardware. Cryengine is just dogshit like that.

 

[Bloobs]

Lol I am playing KCD right now and yeah it still struggles to keep at 60fps with modern hardware. Cryengine is just dogshit like that.

Hunt Showdown says hi

 

[Fabieter]

I don't even think the pro can save consoles, but I didnt expect a game like kingdom come 2 to have a 60 fps mode almost five years into the generation.

What I think would be a great idea for games with 30 fps modes is to have a option for unlocked framerates for future generations.

 

[Bojji]

I don't even think the pro can save consoles, but I didnt expect a game like kingdom come 2 to have a 60 fps mode almost five years into the generation.

What I think would be a great idea for games with 30 fps modes is to have a option for unlocked framerates for future generations.

Yep, options like that would be good.

If KC2 is CPU limited (90% that it is like the first one) PS5 Pro won't save performance of this game.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I am trying out part 1 on free weekend.

30 fps is not bothering me. Its pretty slow paced game. Enjoying it.

Definitely picking up part 2.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

You get what you pay for.

With the fidelity and things going on, I would of thought console owners would be ok with a solid 30? - btw, I own all the consoles, not an elitist pov etc.

XSS is a rubbish machine and is holding back this whole gen, why doesn't Xbox just give some games a pass now...didn't they do that with BG3? In terms of features I mean.

 

[adamsapple]

With the fidelity and things going on, I would of thought console owners would be ok with a solid 30? - btw, I own all the consoles, not an elitist pov etc.

XSS is a rubbish machine and is holding back this whole gen, why doesn't Xbox just give some games a pass now...didn't they do that with BG3? In terms of features I mean.

BG3 on Series S was content complete, the only thing missing was the local split sceren co-op. You can still do online co-op even on Series S.

Also, not sure if that applies to this games case. If Series S was the definitive limiting factor, it would have meant enough overhead to allow a 60 FPS mode on SX and PS5, which is not the case.

MS has no clause that games must run the same performance rates, plenty of games like Dying Light 2, Cyberpunk, even Halo: Infinite lacked higher FPS modes on Series S at launch.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Who is still expecting 60fps from these old game boxes?

 

[Msamy]

I like developers who are honest with themselves this console can either have game with current gen graphics, 1080p-1440p and 30fps or game with 1080p, last gen graphics and 60fps and I prefer the first option

 

[Flabagast]

I am trying out part 1 on free weekend.

30 fps is not bothering me. Its pretty slow paced game. Enjoying it.

Definitely picking up part 2.

yes for some reason the 1 on PS5 feels very smooth

 

[vaibhavpisal]

yes for some reason the 1 on PS5 feels very smooth

I think it has very low input lag. Camera moves with very little input on stick.

Also there is a minor motion blur.

All in all its a very well done 30 fps.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I am trying out part 1 on free weekend.

30 fps is not bothering me. Its pretty slow paced game. Enjoying it.

Definitely picking up part 2.

I play this at high FPS on PC and beat most of it on Steam deck at 40fps. It's amazing no matter what. I love 23k3900hz but know how to compromise.

 

[Senua]

yes for some reason the 1 on PS5 feels very smooth

30?

 

[peek]

Ewww i missed this when first talked about. Hard pass. Too many games out there to enjoy anyway. Have fun pc bros, I envy yall.

 

[Skifi28]

I think it has very low input lag. Camera moves with very little input on stick.

Also there is a minor motion blur.

All in all its a very well done 30 fps.

Wasn't it locked to something like 31fps so it constantly stuttered? I guess that was fixed.

 

[Piggoro]

Good! I'll take better graphics with 30 over 60 any day.

 

[bad guy]

The current consoles all have notebook CPUs (half the L3 cache) which also must share their RAM bandwidth with the GPU.

 

[Three]

Game size and scope doesn't correlate linearly with RAM increase lmfao. Saying that you made the game 25% bigger because there was 25% more RAM is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard from a dev in a while. These are consoles with farrrrrr better CPUs, and equipped with SSDs that can stream in and out data at a far FARRR better rate.

This shit is limited in scope because that is all they can afford.

Ah yes stating "16x the detail" and releasing tired old games with the same technical drawbacks as 20years ago is the way to go.

"25% bigger" has no real meaning without context but it's better to estimate "size" of the game using RAM than it is to claim a bigger number like 1600% because of better CPU and faster streaming.

 

[Self_Destructive]

Ah yes stating "16x the detail" and releasing tired old games with the same technical drawbacks as 20years ago is the way to go.

"25% bigger" has no real meaning without context but it's better to estimate "size" of the game using RAM than it is to claim a bigger number like 1600% because of better CPU and faster streaming.

No, it isn't. Period. It's stupid as hell. Shouldn't ever be done, no matter what other stupid thing it's compared to. I never said a developer should claim a game is X amount bigger because of CPU and streaming either... I simply stated those things being faster also changes the equation.

 

[proandrad]

First person game at 30fps, no thanks. I could confuse most of those screenshots with The Witcher 3 and that runs at 60fps on current gen console. A game has to look at least twice as good as the best looking 60fps game if you want to impress me with graphics at 30fps.

 

[keefged4]

Are people really surprised that nearly 5 year old consoles can only run these latest games at 30 to look half decent? The first game was locked at 30 too and once you get past it, its still an amazing experience.

 

[Three]

No, it isn't. Period. It's stupid as hell. Shouldn't ever be done, no matter what other stupid thing it's compared to. I never said a developer should claim a game is X amount bigger because of CPU and streaming either... I simply stated those things being faster also changes the equation.

I'm not sure what you're claiming here. You think that those things make this stated percentage higher or that it simply shouldn't be quantified in the first place? If it's the latter then I agree without context it's meaningless.

"Warhorse's goal was to make the game 25% bigger, since XSS has 25% more memory than PS4/XONE."
Doesn't state what it's referring to exactly by "bigger" but RAM usually sets the limits of what you can do including map size even with streaming, so using it as a general statement of size of your game is a lot more realistic because storage space or CPU is not what's limiting here, you can always lower the quality of what you stream to some extent.

 

[M.W.]

First person game at 30fps, no thanks. I could confuse most of those screenshots with The Witcher 3 and that runs at 60fps on current gen console. A game has to look at least twice as good as the best looking 60fps game if you want to impress me with graphics at 30fps.

30fps is straight up trash, there's no defense for it in 2024.

 

[adamsapple]

No I believe 1440p is reserved solely for the One X version. The Pro version is 1080p.

Correct.

Picked up the Xbox version of the first game, but haven't started it yet. Still putting hope that an FPS patch or something will come for it.

 

[night13x]

I cant believe we are still in an era where 30 fps is still mainstream and some of you think 30 fps is perfectly acceptable and fine.

It is pretty funny that the devs pretty much admit the series S is absolute dogshit but will base the development around that system. Honestly it is a lose lose for everyone involved with only the PC version being the (hopefully) saving grace.

 

[Self_Destructive]

I'm not sure what you're claiming here. You think that those things make this stated percentage higher or that it simply shouldn't be quantified in the first place? If it's the latter then I agree without context it's meaningless.

"Warhorse's goal was to make the game 25% bigger, since XSS has 25% more memory than PS4/XONE."
Doesn't state what it's referring to exactly by "bigger" but RAM usually sets the limits of what you can do including map size even with streaming, so using it as a general statement of size of your game is a lot more realistic because storage space or CPU is not what's limiting here, you can always lower the quality of what you stream to some extent.

I already said it doesn't correlate or scale linearly. That correlation shouldn't be made in the first place, because things simply do not scale in that way.

"Warhorse's goal was to make the game 25% bigger, since XSS has 25% more memory than PS4/XONE."

You already said it.. What does "bigger" mean? 25% more game area? 25% more cutscenes? 25% more story dialog? 25% more visual variety? Very likely a combination of those things. Everyone single one of those things COULD require more RAM... or they could not. Making the game area 25% bigger..... ok well, I could easily do that already with the assets I already have in memory... I could make an area 10x bigger and not require more RAM simply by streaming. Developers limit game and world sizes not specifically because they are bound by RAM... but because they are bound by production budgets and time and other considerations. It takes time to make the 25% bigger part feel new and interesting. 25% more cutscenes? That's not a question of RAM, that's disc storage... same goes for story dialog.. or music, or sound effects.. Making MORE of something means requiring more storage, not necessarily more RAM. Things require more RAM if you want them to be richer in detail and variety not necessarily bigger.

Visual Quality is a question of RAM + I/O
Game Size is a question of Storage

So yea, tt's just a stupid comment that isn't at all accurate. It's a simple throwaway comment they don't expect anyone to actually dig into and makes it sound like they're doing all they can to take advantage of what is afforded to them.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

well you know, it's a First Person single player game. they don't need to be 60FPS

 

[BbMajor7th]

It seems like a lose lose situation. If they prioritize 60fps, people think the game looks last gen. If they prioritize visuals but 30fps, people think it runs terribly.

I'll always take 60fps over fidelity but just in general, it seems lose lose on devs' ends.

Games like Horizon Forbidden West and Resident Evil 4 manage both.

 

[Three]

I could make an area 10x bigger and not require more RAM simply by streaming. Developers limit game and world sizes not specifically because they are bound by RAM... but because they are bound by production budgets and time and other considerations.

Disagree there, they are limited by hardware. Of course with more optimisation time some more things become possible but when setting out to make a game you set it to the limits of the hardware you want to support.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Pass on consoles and if it starts to look interesting I'll get it on PC.

 

[Self_Destructive]

Disagree there, they are limited by hardware. Of course with more optimisation time some more things become possible but when setting out to make a game you set it to the limits of the hardware you want to support.

I never said they weren't. They're always going to hit some limit.. if it's not the hardware it will be the budget... and thus it's a matter of prioritization. When you set out to make a game, you don't say "This console GPU is 25% faster, so we're going to make a game 25% more beautiful"..... because you have to figure out what will make it beautiful.. what constitutes "beautiful"? Right? How do you quantify that? You learn that as you go.. and what the technical costs are.

Again... making the game "larger/bigger" implies that there's MORE of it.... not necessarily that it's higher quality. That's why the distinction is important. If the game world is 25% bigger... maybe it has more stuff in memory at any given second... but it also may not. Game DLC and expansion packs literally make games bigger... Look at Shadow of the Erdtree. You could argue that makes Elden Ring let's say a 35% bigger game.... and yet it doesn't require any more RAM...

So again... 25% bigger, or 25% richer? More RAM allows for richer graphics, simulations, interactions.. more storage allows for more content.