Current Events > Am i going god damn insane or does Monster Hunter Wilds not look good visually?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm an og fan of MH since the original on PS2. It's literally my favorite game franchise. If anything I should be forgiving of it, a MH boot licker, if you will.

Visually, I don't think it looks good. It feels like a downgrade from World. Why is the frame rate so bad and choppy? And everything has a blurry layer of Vaseline over it. I feel like I'm playing without my glasses.

This is honestly the first time I've been a bit weary of a new MH game. Other things about it are questionable too. The game menus and infrastructure are pretty bad. Multi-player is more confusing than ever. Character creator is a huge upgrade though. I made a gerudo looking muscle mommy.

The demo is an old build with atrocious optimization, the devs say the game has much better performance now.

The benchmark tool at least seems better.

I never touched the demo but I used the benchmarking tool and it looked great to me.

I'm on PS5 to clarify.

spanky1 posted...

I'm on PS5 to clarify.

As mentioned, the demo's an old build. The actual release should be better off.

spanky1 posted...

I'm on PS5 to clarify.

It looks good on ps5

The demo looked great on my ps5. I'm thinking this might be one of the few games to have a noticable bump on the pro.

I've heard from someone at a preview event that the full game on PS5 runs and looks quite better than the demo does, at least.

But yeah, it might just be RE Engine stuff that's making it appear blurry in some areas. IIRC it's the first Monster Hunter to take full advantage of the engine.

Demo =/= full game

I think wilds looks OK with fsr native. It just seems too demanding for how it looks.

I do think the benchmark suffers that modern-gen issue of colors being weirdly washed out, but otherwise it looks good?

From the clips I've seen, the character models look amazing but I think the palette they're using just looks kinda muddy and blurs things together but that might just be me.

It doesn't look nearly as good as it should releasing in 2025, and it performs pretty atrociously relative to how good it looks.

I've heard the demo ran like hot garbage on PS5 Pro (40 FPS or so), but at least on PC you can brute force it into a decent framerate.

The game was apparently designed with the use of frame generation in mind. Unfortunately, my 3080 doesn't support that, but I can at least get over 60 FPS. I'm considering doing a new build if I can get my hands on a new GPU this year, but right now that's virtually impossible.

compare wilds to world on og ps4 and come back

I hope the full release is a lot smoother than the demo.

For those saying it looks fine, you do realize it sometimes runs at 30 fps on console right? That is in no way okay for a modern console game. It objectively runs poorly.

It looks awesome imo

spanky1 posted...

I hope the full release is a lot smoother than the demo.

For those saying it looks fine, you do realize it sometimes runs at 30 fps on console right? That is in no way okay for a modern console game. It objectively runs poorly.

I've never cared games are 30FPS. I played FF16 in quality mode because performance mode looked like Vaseline covered dog ass. I'm playing Pantheon Rise of the Fallen at like 25 - 30FPS on PC as well because I love the game. Every single console will go from 60FPS to 30FPS throughout the life cycle because developers will learn to push them. It never has bothered me so long as it is consistent.

PraetorXyn posted...

I've heard the demo ran like hot garbage on PS5 Pro (40 FPS or so), but at least on PC you can brute force it into a decent framerate.

Yeah, no it didn't. It stayed around 60 consistently on performance mode, and on resolution preference the framerate is unlocked (which is probably where that "40 FPS or so" comes from).
https://youtu.be/F-_JeRB07dY?t=265

Also the beta didn't have any kind of PS5 pro enhanced patch on it so it was just running the same same settings the base PS5 would (it did push the fps higher than the base PS5 was running the performance preference).

When the game comes out proper with the day 1 patch the PS5 pro is going to have 3 modes:

Balanced
3840 x 2160 (2496 x 1404)
40 FPS
Yes (Ray-tracing)

Prioritize Framerate
3840 x 2160 (1920 x 1080)
60 FPS
No

Prioritize Resolution
3840 x 2160 (3072 x 1728)
30 FPS
Yes (Ray-tracing)

Mad-Dogg posted...

Yeah, no it didn't. It stayed around 60 consistently on performance mode, and on resolution preference the framerate is unlocked (which is probably where that "40 FPS or so" comes from).
https://youtu.be/F-_JeRB07dY?t=265

Also the beta didn't have any kind of PS5 pro enhanced patch on it so it was just running the same same settings the base PS5 would (it did push the fps higher than the base PS5 was running the performance preference).

When the game comes out proper with the day 1 patch the PS5 pro is going to have 3 modes:

Balanced
3840 x 2160 (2496 x 1404)
40 FPS
Yes (Ray-tracing)

Prioritize Framerate
3840 x 2160 (1920 x 1080)
60 FPS
No

Prioritize Resolution
3840 x 2160 (3072 x 1728)
30 FPS
Yes (Ray-tracing)

Balanced matches what I heard. It was a recap of a performance livestream. One of the creators I follow did livestreams all weekend with different hardware configs testing it.

The game is very CPU limited. Oddly enough, the config that ran the best was a Threadripper workstation with a 4090, because Threadrippers quad-channel memory gave it a lot of system memory bandwidth.