• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[IGNxGamer] Dying Light 2 Stay Human Performance Review - PS5 vs Series X vs PC



By Michael Thompson

Summary​

Dying Light 2 Stay Human feels very European, which I love with an RPG with a character-driven narrative that has some excellent motion capture and facial animation. Art and design are flamboyant but mixed with such a big game, and considering the simply huge delivery schedule it’s not surprising that the level of polish can vary on textures and characters. But the leap up in visual and technical accomplishment over the original Dying Light is impressive, and the PC version does offer greater choice and refinement of these assets. The only issue, I think, is that the cost will be too high for many to reach or want to spend over image quality and performance gains. Console performance, meanwhile, is exceptional and should be applauded for how well it runs in all modes across all tested consoles. The Series S does feel a rung down with no modes to choose from and no 60fps option. Even at 900P and other reduced settings that might’ve still been of benefit to some – maybe something for the team to add later, once they get a break post release. Note that the old-gen version may be another story entirely – we haven’t been able to test it yet – but for current-gen consoles and PC the choice is good and the performance is exceptional. Just be aware of the PC demands on those ray tracing options.

 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
If the big consoles are 1080p at 60fps then what settings could you possibly lower to enable a Series S to do 900p at 60fps when it's one third as powerful?
That part makes no sense to me.
Apart from that point it's a good video.

Much better to stick with 30 and try to maintain the next-gen visual line than to go sub 720 for 60fps. If they could hold 720p maybe you include that as an optional mode like in AC, but if we are talking quarter res there is just no need.
 

blastprocessor

The Amiga Brotherhood
Congrats to the team.


Techland’s team was unable to use the SSDs in any of the new consoles or PC to full effect, and they have clearly not used the PS5’s API either. The net result is that we see a very “last-gen” loading experience. In my test it took 24 seconds on both Series consoles and 32 seconds on PS5 (32% slower)
 
Last edited:

01011001

Member
Congrats to the team.


Techland’s team was unable to use the SSDs in any of the new consoles or PC to full effect, and they have clearly not used the PS5’s API either. The net result is that we see a very “last-gen” loading experience. In my test it took 24 seconds on both Series consoles and 32 seconds on PS5 (32% slower)

and people wondered in the Digital Foundry video thread why the game only runs at 1080p60 or why the Series S only gets a 1080p30 mode...

this game feels, unrefined to say the least
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Might as well not have bothered including PC in this "analysis".

P.S Are IGN forcing some sort of minimum time limit for these things now, there were random sections in the video where it seemed like it was just padding for time.
 
and people wondered in the Digital Foundry video thread why the game only runs at 1080p60 or why the Series S only gets a 1080p30 mode...

this game feels, unrefined to say the least
They have and haven't I know the install size is much lower on ps5 compared to the rest
 

01011001

Member
They have and haven't I know the install size is much lower on ps5 compared to the rest

so they compressed the files even more on PS5 without using the decompression block of any of the consoles? great move! lol


I think there were just too many versions to handle for this relatively small team. and they just were in kver their heads, so they made very drastic choices for each system just to be save.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
The sentence about dx11 made zero sense to me. Worded very oddly.
Means simply that it's old engine, which does not scale across the CU very well

Even tho that's bullshit, since DX does not even care about CU, you don't program on it like you would do on multi core CPU.
 

Sosokrates

Member
If the big consoles are 1080p at 60fps then what settings could you possibly lower to enable a Series S to do 900p at 60fps when it's one third as powerful?
That part makes no sense to me.
Apart from that point it's a good video.

I dont see why it could not do 60fps at PS4 settings and resolution.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Congrats to the team.


Techland’s team was unable to use the SSDs in any of the new consoles or PC to full effect, and they have clearly not used the PS5’s API either. The net result is that we see a very “last-gen” loading experience. In my test it took 24 seconds on both Series consoles and 32 seconds on PS5 (32% slower)


Is this even a next-gen app ? How does it show on the console dash ? does it come up as Gen9 on Series File Info ?
 
Means simply that it's old engine, which does not scale across the CU very well

Even tho that's bullshit, since DX does not even care about CU, you don't program on it like you would do on multi core CPU.
The way it was worded seemed to me like he was saying old engine so dx11 is better for it. Nothing about cu's. Go back and listen again. Its worded in the oddest way. Like it's a typo.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
The way it was worded seemed to me like he was saying old engine so dx11 is better for it. Nothing about cu's. Go back and listen again. Its worded in the oddest way. Like it's a typo.
I read it from the article, I haven't watched the video. If you click on that link and search for DX11, it seems like weirdly worded "it's an old engine"
 

mrmeh

Member
so they compressed the files even more on PS5 without using the decompression block of any of the consoles? great move! lol


I think there were just too many versions to handle for this relatively small team. and they just were in kver their heads, so they made very drastic choices for each system just to be save.

Reduced PS5 game sizes are not always to do with the enhanced compression, Xbox asset packaging seems less efficient or maybe does not mandate separate packages for the Series S/X, Time constrained Devs may also just use the PC version asset packs which usually include duplicate assets.

Sony has been on point with asset delivery (and compression) where as Microsoft needs to sort out its Direct storage shit.
 

NXGamer

Member
The sentence about dx11 made zero sense to me. Worded very oddly.
Very simple, older engines with no A-sync Compute based development will not fill CU's as well for jobs that can. Moving to DX12 they can add these and the first boost would be things like RT and Particles but I suspect air gaps still remain. But having more CU's means you can push resolutions higher as you have a wider GPU, much simpler on resolutions. This can and will vary, but resolution and RT would be aspects that will benefit with more ALUs as simple to bump up the resolution here.

The PC aspect is not the DX11 renderer, it is the AMD DX11 GPU driver as it has huge wasted performance on GPU and CPU meaning the GPU stalls or is never full. As I clearly show in the video, with the 31% increase just moving from DX11 to DX12 at the same settings. Nvidia is the reverse, but not as bad, with the DX11 driver being much, much better than the AMD one but in DX12 it is not the case.

Read the IGN article if that helps.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Gold Member
Very simple, older engines with no A-sync Compute based development will not fill CU's as well for jobs that can. Moving to DX12 they can add these and the first boost would be things like RT and Particles but I suspect air gaps still remain. But having more CU's means you can push resolutions higher as you have a wider GPU, much simpler on resolutions. This can and will vary, but resolution and RT would be aspects that will benefit with more ALUs as simple to bump up the resolution here.

The PC aspect is not the DX11 renderer, it is the AMD DX11 GPU driver as it has huge wasted performance on GPU and CPU meaning the GPU stalls or is never full. As I clearly show in the video, with the 31% increase just moving from DX11 to DX12 at the same settings. Nvidia is the reverse, but not as bad, with the DX11 driver being much, much better than the AMD one but in DX12 it is not the case.

Read the IGN article if that helps.
Other than rtx, what are the performance killer settings on pc?!
 
NX Gamer- what are your thoughts on this being 1080p/60 on next gen consoles? This is a cross gen game, shouldn't the consoles be capable of running this at 1440p/60 at least, even if that meant lowering a couple settings?

Everyone compares Ps5 to a 2070/2080, but I keep consistently buying games that are not performing as good as those cards would on the same games. Like this game, control, greedfall, Alan wake remastered, and many more examples, I've bought them all and 1440p/60 is typically the best to expect (with settings lower than the 30 fps fidelity mode). Even Uncharted 4 remastered, GoT Directors Cut, etc are not being improved much beyond the 2x framerate increase. Perhaps that's why Sony doesnt bother to make native ps5 versions for games like God of War,, Horizon, Last of Us 2 and Days Genesee? Seems Death Stranding was the only Sony remaster to improve settings and framerate while keeping a high resolution.

At what point can we admit that these consoles (ps5 from my experience) are not up to the task of delivering on the performance level we had hoped? Sure, maybe Sony first parties can deliver something impressive at 1440p/60 but for the average developer who's not going to optimize the same way, seems we're getting some disappointing options. Don't you think developers have to know that performance modes are not always ideal? We get great settings and res but at 30 fps OR we get 60 fps at 1080p. For most people I think it sucks to have to choose one or the other. I'll play games at 30 fps to get that next gen visual experience, like Ratchet and Guardians of the Galaxy but I don't want to be playing at 30 fps.

The mid gen refresh is now kinda the only hope I have to get a near PC like experience. I've bought and played all the ps5 upgrades, only Metro and Doom 'delivered the goods.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Gyro doesn't fix claw grip, L3/R3, weapon wheels and aim assists that we can't turn off in options...

Plenty of games allow you to disable aim assist, and the rest you're saying I mean... I guess you're just bad with a controller?

Anyway, you have your preference. Key word is preference. I like the mouse, but the using a keyboard? Trash to me, hate the feel of it.
 
Last edited:

rodrigolfp

Member
Plenty of games allow you to disable aim assist, and the rest you're saying I mean... I guess you're just bad with a controller?

Anyway, you have your preference. Key word is preference. I like the mouse, but the using a keyboard? Trash to me, hate the feel of it.
Haha. Dual stick controllers and their deficientes and workarounds have nothing to do with skill. Do you think gyro and back buttons on Elite/Scuf controllers are made only for people that are bad with a controller or to try to fix some deficientes that default controllers have???
 
Last edited:

VFXVeteran

Banned
NX Gamer- what are your thoughts on this being 1080p/60 on next gen consoles? This is a cross gen game, shouldn't the consoles be capable of running this at 1440p/60 at least, even if that meant lowering a couple settings?

Everyone compares Ps5 to a 2070/2080, but I keep consistently buying games that are not performing as good as those cards would on the same games. Like this game, control, greedfall, Alan wake remastered, and many more examples, I've bought them all and 1440p/60 is typically the best to expect (with settings lower than the 30 fps fidelity mode). Even Uncharted 4 remastered, GoT Directors Cut, etc are not being improved much beyond the 2x framerate increase. Perhaps that's why Sony doesnt bother to make native ps5 versions for games like God of War,, Horizon, Last of Us 2 and Days Genesee? Seems Death Stranding was the only Sony remaster to improve settings and framerate while keeping a high resolution.

At what point can we admit that these consoles (ps5 from my experience) are not up to the task of delivering on the performance level we had hoped? Sure, maybe Sony first parties can deliver something impressive at 1440p/60 but for the average developer who's not going to optimize the same way, seems we're getting some disappointing options. Don't you think developers have to know that performance modes are not always ideal? We get great settings and res but at 30 fps OR we get 60 fps at 1080p. For most people I think it sucks to have to choose one or the other. I'll play games at 30 fps to get that next gen visual experience, like Ratchet and Guardians of the Galaxy but I don't want to be playing at 30 fps.

The mid gen refresh is now kinda the only hope I have to get a near PC like experience. I've bought and played all the ps5 upgrades, only Metro and Doom 'delivered the goods.
Yours like many other gamers on these boards have too high expectations of console hardware. These graphics engines don't get rewritten just because it's a new generation of hardware. The low bandwidth of these consoles will absolutely restrict it from having both settings (4k/60FPS). I told people early on last year that this is about as good as it's going to get for this entire generation. Also, I wouldn't expect any mid-gen hardware that's going to modify the hardware profile of these consoles. Last-gen was an exeception to the rule. Mid-gen refreshes were never intended to happen "from now on". It was only introduced last gen because the hardware was severely underpowered to last 7yrs.

In short, stick with a PC for the best results for speed, resolution and featureset.
 
Last edited:

01011001

Member
Reduced PS5 game sizes are not always to do with the enhanced compression, Xbox asset packaging seems less efficient or maybe does not mandate separate packages for the Series S/X, Time constrained Devs may also just use the PC version asset packs which usually include duplicate assets.

Sony has been on point with asset delivery (and compression) where as Microsoft needs to sort out its Direct storage shit.

while that can make a difference, I think seeing that the Series S loads way faster than the PS5 is pretty solid evidence that suggests that the PS5 version is more compressed, which results in longer loading because the CPU has to do all the decompression
 
Last edited:
If the big consoles are 1080p at 60fps then what settings could you possibly lower to enable a Series S to do 900p at 60fps when it's one third as powerful?
That part makes no sense to me.
Apart from that point it's a good video.
Yes 1080p 30 on a machine with a 3rd the power is very good, if you want Ray tracing and 4k then clearly you arnt going to be buying a series S. For a smaller TV or older TV that only does 1080p its a great machine. Maybe a 720p 60fps mode could have been done but devs decided not too for what ever reason.
Seems like techland need to upgrade their tech for the new generation of consoles really, rather than any issue with series s or indeed Ps5 or series x
 

01011001

Member
If the big consoles are 1080p at 60fps then what settings could you possibly lower to enable a Series S to do 900p at 60fps when it's one third as powerful?
That part makes no sense to me.
Apart from that point it's a good video.

lowering shadow settings alone often frees up a shitton of render time. lowering the resolution to 900p is a more than 30% lower pixel output compared to 1080p.

there should be a way to have a decently looking 60fps mode on Series S for sure.
 
Yours like many other gamers on these boards have too high expectations of console hardware. These graphics engines don't get rewritten just because it's a new generation of hardware. The low bandwidth of these consoles will absolutely restrict it from having both settings (4k/60FPS). I told people early on last year that this is about as good as it's going to get for this entire generation. Also, I wouldn't expect any mid-gen hardware that's going to modify the hardware profile of these consoles. Last-gen was an exeception to the rule. Mid-gen refreshes were never intended to happen "from now on". It was only introduced last gen because the hardware was severely underpowered to last 7yrs.

In short, stick with a PC for the best results for speed, resolution and featureset.
You have spoken the truth. Although I think once people realize we're in a similar situation to last gen with underpowered hardware, we could see mid gen refreshes happening again.
 

stranno

Member
To be honest, the XBOX One and Playstation 4 tests will be much more interesting. I guess we will have them tomorrow.
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.

Last gen versions look very low Res. Also at least three shots have vegetation missing on PlayStation consoles in this video, they talk about one but you can see it in other scenes also, odd bushes missing.
 

JRW

Member
3060ti is typically on par with ps5 or ahead and pretty much always ahead with RT games. Its never a ton ahead so play it where you most comfortable honestly.
PS5 is around RTX 2070 & 2080 performance depending on game and 3060 Ti sits above a 2080 Super & a little below 2080 Ti in benchmarks.

EDIT Ok well guess its even a little faster than 2080 Ti in 1 game in this review:
 
Last edited:

Dream-Knife

Member
video of dying light 2 running on a 1660 super , very decent performance i must say
The 1440p custom settings area looks exactly like the HL: Alyx Steam VR Home...

You have spoken the truth. Although I think once people realize we're in a similar situation to last gen with underpowered hardware, we could see mid gen refreshes happening again.
Consoles will always be underpowered to high end PC parts. Developers need to do a better job with their games.

But if you keep comparing the performance of a console to high end PC parts, you'll never win. Consoles come out, and a few months to a year later PC has something 3x as powerful.
 
Last edited:
PS5 is around RTX 2070 & 2080 performance depending on game and 3060 Ti sits above a 2080 Super & a little below 2080 Ti in benchmarks.

EDIT Ok well guess its even a little faster than 2080 Ti in 1 game in this review:
I have a quite fast 3060ti. Some games though like Valhalla show different results.
 

VFXVeteran

Banned
You have spoken the truth. Although I think once people realize we're in a similar situation to last gen with underpowered hardware, we could see mid gen refreshes happening again.
Mid-gen refreshes have to already been in the design pipeline before the first consoles come out. Sony/MS don't "react" to the public and gaming companies after the fact. This stuff takes years and years to design/fab/produce.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?

Last gen versions look very low Res. Also at least three shots have vegetation missing on PlayStation consoles in this video, they talk about one but you can see it in other scenes also, odd bushes missing.

Base PS4 is supposedly SUB 900P going by what Alex said in the games PC video.

Guessing Pro/One X will be 1080p/30 or thereabouts.
 
Top Bottom