Metro Exodus - Reviews

I am surprised the scores where not higher actually.
Will be interesting to see what the public opinion will be apart from the rage over the game not being a steam exclusive instead of epic.

Will buy for sure when it comes to GOG and who knows when I'll actually have time to play it.

Most people got over over the epicshitstore thing, now everyone is angry since it seems its a shit port on pc, as expected though.

Seems you're correct:
https://www.pcgamer.com/metro-exodus-settings-performance-ray-tracing-dlss/

Starting with the graphics card benchmarks, all testing was conducted using an overclocked i7-8700K processor, in order to reduce any other potential bottlenecks. (CPU benchmarks are down below, or will be soon enough.) Even though I wouldn't normally include testing of every 'preset,' the benchmark utility makes it relatively painless so I have seven different charts. The results of my testing also back up the Metro Exodus system requirements, which are quite beefy. Plenty of GPUs can do 30fps or more, especially at 1080p low, but for 60fps at 1080p medium and above, you'll need a reasonably high-end graphics card.

Click to expand...

I didn't see anything betterlooking than TW3 on screenshots which means only one thing: unoptimized bullshit of a code. Did they license some Ubisoft's engine?

All the Metro games have had shit optimization, that's to be expected.

What all. Never heard of any before.

ChienAboyeur said:

No. Not every product is streamed and not every product is streamer friendly.

Click to expand...

But this one is streamed, though.

Steamed, streamed and dry-cleaned!

Any time gamers can't get 60fps on the highest setting nowadays they automatically cry bad optimization.

I can't speak for Exodus yet, but 2033 and Last Light were cutting edge in terms of visuals when they were released. As a result, you needed high-end hardware to play them on high settings, and they still look good almost a decade later.

The original release of 2033 did have some optimization issues imo, but Last Light and the Redux versions were vastly improved.

JDR13 said:

Any time gamers can't get 60fps on the highest setting nowadays they automatically cry bad optimization.

Click to expand...

Well, personally speaking, I recently bought a 2560x1440 144Hz Dell Monitor - and I ran the new Doom at an average of 120fps w/ my 1070gtx barely breaking a sweat. Now, I'm not asking that these guys compete with the technological genius that John Carmack helped establish, but if a game struggles to run even 60fps at a now increasingly antiquated 1080p, it is a warning of things to come for the shoddy optimization of the game. It's an FPS first and foremost, afterall; it needs to perform as such.

Drithius said:

Well, personally speaking, I recently bought a 2560x1440 144Hz Dell Monitor - and I ran the new Doom at an average of 120fps w/ my 1070gtx barely breaking a sweat. Now, I'm not asking that these guys compete with the technological genius that John Carmack helped establish, but if a game struggles to run even 60fps at a now increasingly antiquated 1080p, it is a warning of things to come for the shoddy optimization of the game. It's an FPS first and foremost, afterall; it needs to perform as such.

Click to expand...

Doom doesn't represent the average AAA game in terms of framerate. We could only wish every engine was as supremely optimized as id Tech 6.

That said, I'm interested in seeing how Exodus runs on my GTX 1080. I'll drop some impressions after I spend some time with it.

I think that there have always been different types of FPS game - the highly efficient, high framerate, competitive twitch shooters, and the other tradition, of games that push the graphical envelope and demand a hefty machine to get the best out of them. I don't know if this is badly optimized, or just an example of that latter type.

Well, to me it's relatively simple. I look at what a game does "behind the scenes" and I look at its visuals - and it's from there that I determine if the frame rate is appropriate, based on my experience with thousands of games.

I've played the two previous Metro games - and they both looked good. To me, it was more about having a strong atmosphere than being particularly impressive, technically. They have strong lighting and such - but they didn't wow me or anything.

That said, they both suffered rather severe framerate issues on my high-end PC around the time of release, and they didn't qualify that kind of poor performance. Especially not considering the rather simplistic gameplay.

I haven't played Metro Exodus - so I can't really say how bad it is.

But 60 FPS average won't cut it these days. There's a reason I'm on PC and not on console, and there's a reason I have a GSync monitor with a 1080 21:9 resolution - as I deliberately targeted a lower resolution for performance reasons.

I mean, few games can maintain 100+ FPS at all times - and I'm fine with a few dips below 60 here and there. But the average FPS better take advantage of my 144Hz screen - or it's not going to feel right, and feel is everything in a pure shooter.

Again, it's really about what's going on and whether the game looks good enough to justify such dips.

I will wait until I actually play it to comment on performance, but I certainly don't expect it to be great - simply based on their past couple of games and what I'm hearing from reviews.

I hear stealth is an option in the game, and that means I can probably deal with a somewhat shaky performance in some cases.

If you were having framerate issues with Last Light then either you weren't running it on a high-end PC or your memory is a little foggy. Last Light didn't have the optimization issues 2033 had. In fact, it actually had lower system requirements despite being released 3 years later.

As I said, it had frame-rate issues on my high-end PC. That said, I always play on max settings - or something very close to that. There can be any number of reasons why it ran better for you - including some of its infamously expensive AA settings or the PhysX implementation, which can cause issues on certain cards.

I haven't compared it to the first Metro - and I have no interest in system requirements, as they're meaningless in this context.

What matters is that it didn't look good enough to justify the performance issues.

In my opinion, that is.

It's just odd that you were having performance issues at all. That was never a thing with Last Light. It didn't even need top-end hardware to run at high settings. I had a GTX 470 at the time.

It might have been conflicting with something else on your system.

I can't rule that out. I didn't play for very long - and I don't remember if I went through my usual settings experimentation routine.

Typically, I spend ages trying to get a game to run just right if it's giving me trouble - but that's only for games I really want to play.

For the sequel, I was just curious if it was any different from the first one. As I recall, I couldn't detect much of a difference - so I decided to give it a pass at the time. I actually believe I got the game key from a graphics card bundle or something like that.

I always meant to go back and give it another shot. I'm not a big shooter fan, but I really liked the atmosphere and setting of Metro - so I will probably do that for both games before I try Exodus.

I'll test performance again at that time

I'd recommend picking up the Redux versions if you want to give them another shot. The changes are more subtle for Last Light but especially worthwhile for 2033 imo.

Among all the minor tweaks, they also added weapon customization and stealth takedowns. You can even do completely non-lethal runs through the levels with human enemies if you want.

Sounds good, I will keep that in mind.

Ragnaris said:

But this one is streamed, though.

Click to expand...

That is the case.

12 months of patching and tweaking, and I'll be ready to buy it on Steam... for a discount... sale, whatever.