The Last of Us Part I

Once you see it, it will be hard to not notice it. Look for small things moving around. Flying papers, debris, etc.

Dying Light 2, Hogwarts Legacy, MW2, Death Stranding are some examples that come to mind.

Some people are also more sensitive to it than others. Personally, I don’t notice it in most games with DLSS set to Quilty. Once I have to start dropping down to Balanced or Performance it becomes super obvious. There are exceptions, of course. I haven’t played the PC versions of DL2, MW2 or DS but Hogwarts shows issues even at Quality. At least, it did the last time I played haven’t looked at the PC version for a bit to see if anything improved.
 
I'm on QD-OLED 34" so any visual flaws are immediately obvious really, genuinely not noticing any trailing/ghosting in this, it was the same with dead Space/Wicther 3 Next gen, res Evil 4 Remake (DLSS mod), Days Gone etc.
 
3080 TI and you want fuzzy image quality. Money well spent.
Some people are also more sensitive to it than others. Personally, I don’t notice it in most games with DLSS set to Quilty. Once I have to start dropping down to Balanced or Performance it becomes super obvious. There are exceptions, of course. I haven’t played the PC versions of DL2, MW2 or DS but Hogwarts shows issues even at Quality. At least, it did the last time I played haven’t looked at the PC version for a bit to see if anything improved.

I'll take tweaked toned down settings over fuzzy image quality any day. DLSS / FSR just no thank you. I'm not paying stupid prices for graphics cards these days just to be an upscaling machine. I don't understand why people spend big bucks on their hardware just to ruin the image quality especially in single player games. If you have a 2070 or something okay I get it extend the life of your hardware but on a 3080+ c'mooooon.
 
Lol did you even look at the comparison? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Here's DLSS vs Native: https://imgsli.com/MTY1NDU4

Yeah sure looks fuzzy there...

FSR is still a gen behind, but DLSS, when implemented as it should be, works really really well and is indistinguishable from native res, in many cases actually sharper, like in Last of us, Witcher 3 and others that have it implemented well.
 
Last edited:
I like DLSS because it tends to = FPS. To me, that's the single most important thing when it comes to visual quality. Even when admiring the graphics in a game, I'm usually panning around and not just staring at a still spot. If panning around isn't smooth as butter, I'm out. Give me smoothness vs. something I'll only notice in a vs. screenshot. Sometimes turning things I don't notice down (like shadows, clouds, etc.) will provide a major uplift in performance, and sometimes DLSS does look bad, but not usually. I start with things cranked at native and if performance doesn't pan out, bring on DLSS.
 
I know what to look for as seen it on early versions of DLSS and of course on FSR, but very much not seen it on recent games inc this one. I played DL2 and Hogwarts although Hogwarts was a weird one because the engine is so unoptimised. DL2 with max settings and RT enabled all looked great with DLSS.

It doesn't look awful, but the trails are very noticeable. I have been playing the game for the past week and can easily see the trails on floating debris. There are other small things like DLSS will do. In Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy, the facial hair on Starlord becomes much more translucent and has a shimmering issue. You probably won't notice unless you look at the two side by side.

I only run DLSS at Quality except for in Cyberpunk 2077, I can that at the next highest setting.

In general, I often find the frame rate gain to be worth the image quality loss. In DL2 I got a big performance jump which was worth it overall. Going from 50-70 to 60-90 depending on the scene was well worth it. The amount of times it dropped to the low 60s wasn't too frequent. The smoothness of higher FPS does affect gameplay for me. But DLSS does have its short comings.
 
Hmm... DLSS seems slow to me for this game. I switched to the game scaler and it is faster on the ultra preset. In the area I am in now it's pretty consistently 10fps faster than DLSS. In other areas I tried, I had to turn down some option to High and Medium to get DLSS to perform the same as the game built in scaler. It seems weird considering the render scale setting is 70% (1512p) so it's rendering at a slightly higher resolution than DLSS (1440p) but running faster.
 
Good grief, so it's got to rebuild the goddamn shaders again because of a patch? 20 minutes or more every time you update a driver or the game gets a patch? And there goes my CPU just getting cooked again during the shader building process because of this unoptimized piece of shit of a game.
 
Last edited:
worst PC release since Cyberpunk 2077...not as bad as Arkham Knight as that game was so bad it was pulled off storefronts but a very poor overall port...hopefully in a few months it'll be in good shape...no way this gets fixed after 1 or 2 patches...Horizon Zero Dawn took about 6 months to fix on PC but even that game was not in as rough a shape as LoU...the potential is there for an amazing PC port, they just need to fix it
 
Good grief, so it's got to rebuild the goddamn shaders again because of a patch? 20 minutes or more every time you update a driver or the game gets a patch? And there goes my CPU just getting cooked again during the shader building process because of this unoptimized piece of shit of a game.
I didn't have to do the shades again.
 
I'm sure you haven't played it yet for your oh so informed opinion.

are you one of those people that thinks you need to buy a game first?...so I shouldn't read reviews before buying (not just video games but any product)?...there are sites like Hardware Unboxed and Digital Foundry that I trust...certain people and reputable sites...I don't blindly buy every game and then decide if it has issues...those sites I mentioned are way more knowledgeable (and impartial) than you will ever be as far as hardware and tech info

let's see, who should I trust?, some random forum poster or a reputable site with a history of detailed technical breakdowns and hardware reviews?...I already know your response..."the game is playable...it has a few bugs but performance is fine for me"...no one is saying that the game is not playable...like being playable is some sort of barometer of a game's overall performance...Cyberpunk 2077 and Arkham Knight were also playable at launch
 
Last edited:
are you one of those people that thinks you need to buy a game first?...so I shouldn't read reviews before buying (not just video games but any product)?...there are sites like Hardware Unboxed and Digital Foundry that I trust...certain people and reputable sites...I don't blindly buy every game and then decide if it has issues...those sites I mentioned are way more knowledgeable (and impartial) than you will ever be as far as hardware and tech info

let's see, who should I trust?, some random forum poster or a reputable site with a history of detailed technical breakdowns and hardware reviews?...I already know your response..."the game is playable...it has a few bugs but performance is fine for me"
I actually have first hand knowledge of the game and you don't. So, like I said you haven't played it. Besides the first shader compilation I haven't ran into anything. Sorry you get your information from kotaku and verge.
 
Good grief, so it's got to rebuild the goddamn shaders again because of a patch? 20 minutes or more every time you update a driver or the game gets a patch? And there goes my CPU just getting cooked again during the shader building process because of this unoptimized piece of shit of a game.
Which do you hate more? Tlou or stutter knight: stuttered order? :p
 
I actually have first hand knowledge of the game and you don't. So, like I said you haven't played it. Besides the first shader compilation I haven't ran into anything. Sorry you get your information from kotaku and verge.

congratulations!...I guess everyone who does have issues is either lying or running a potato machine...also Hardware Unboxed and the upcoming Digital Foundry Tech review will also be misinformed or lying...the underlying tech of the game seems really good but the optimization and current build is not

you gotta love the people that hate when people don't buy every game on Day 1 and decide to wait for a few patches...like it's some sort of crime against the video game Gods to actually wait a few days or weeks or months to play a video game...by waiting you get more patches, sometimes more features, sometimes much better features like RT, cheaper price...like I must play a buggy unoptimized game on Day 1...I have patience, I have other hobbies, I have a life outside video games...I have no problem waiting...I prefer my first playthrough of a game to be the best possible experience

I'm still waiting for a few more patches before buying Atomic Heart, Plague Tale: Requiem, Returnal etc...I'll buy Jedi: Survivor on Day 2 if it doesn't have any major issues...otherwise guess what, I'm going to wait on that as well
 
Last edited:
LOL, so watch them "fix" all the issues by having a bunch of warnings telling people under a certain amount of VRAM not to select the "Ultra" settings. Better yet, just gray that preset out ;)
I was skipping the game because I thought something was fundamentally wrong with it. I might grab it for my birthday on the seventh of April.
 
Yeah that’s where a ton of those bad reviews are from. People with 8gb or less video cards.
 
I beat the game last night. Played on 4K, ultra preset, no DLSS. It ran great, never had a crash or any strange issues. Granted I have a 4090 so there's plenty of VRAM available. The meter in the game says 67% VRAM usage.
 
Completed it earlier, got the DLC left to play though but main story took me 15 hours 18 minutes including exploring a bit and stuff. Overall satisfied with the PC version,was everything I recall from OG PS3, and enhanced in virtually every way. Mouse/keyboard is the definitive way to play, too, even without haptic feedback.
 
I think I've figured out the crashing, my RTSS was specifically configured to only show a game's RAM and VRAM use, so whilst I had a idea of what the total system use would have been inc OS VRAM etc, the total expense painted an accurate picture of the situation. Now I've added total VRAM and RAM use.

That's not to say the game isn't at fault too though because memory management exists for a reason, if VRAM limits are reached then it should be polling to pagefile/system RAM (where available) - I have 64GB of RAM, so you'd expect data to be sent there instead of a crash to desktop!

CGCXNrG.jpg


Check this out, during the start of my New Game+ the total VRAM use is 11.2GB, that's with ultra everything at with DLSS set to Performance, so that's an internal resolution of 1720x720 then AI reconstructed to 3440x1440. Setting DLSS to Quality puts at least a 250MB cost on top of that 11.2GB, and I fully suspect that during gameplay, at random points whether it's the game or Windows DWM itself (since the game runs in a borderless window and does not have a fullscreen exclusive mode) will spike the VRAM even slightly resulting in VRAM limit being reached and then you have a crash to desktop. Whereas DLSS Performance keeps the VRAM use below whatever the safe limit is before a crash happens.

I've already shown that DLSS Performance vs Quality has virtually no image quality difference, so I would recommend staying on DLSS Performance for the sake of VRAM use alone if you must use ultra settings. For the record, I played basically the entire 2nd half of the game with DLSS Performance with no issues, yet the moment I enabled DLSS Balanced, got a crash. Before the latest patch I was getting the crash on any DLSS mode - So they have addressed some of the issue, just not all.
 
https://twitter.com/Naughty_Dog/status/1641943183826509825

"A hotfix addressing jittering on mouse-controlled camera movement, some crashes, and more for The Last of Us Part I on PC is slated for Tuesday. A larger patch with additional fixes will be deployed later in the week."

I will wait until the larger patch at the end of next week before fooling with this game again.
 
conflicting info out there on whether Iron Galaxy or Naughty Dog was the lead developer on the PC port...
 
conflicting info out there on whether Iron Galaxy or Naughty Dog was the lead developer on the PC port...

In a blog post on their site talking about the PC's versions launch, ND directly state that it was developed in-house. They've called Iron Galaxy a "partner" in other places. This, very likely, means that ND was the lead dev with IG providing assistance. Since the two studios worked together on the port of Uncharted I imagine the Last of Us port team worked with some of the team from that project in order to use their experience.
 
It's more likely the IG were given the handover at a later stage I would say, which explains why the initial spec image for sys reqs etc did not contain the IG logo, then weeks before release it was added on. IG did the Uncharted port themselves from what I've read.
 
IG did the Uncharted port themselves from what I've read.

that's what made it confusing...they were the lead developer on the Uncharted PC port so everyone assumed the same applied to LoU PC

AMD is bundling codes for the game along with their 7000/6000 series GPU's so I was able to buy a code online for a great price ($25)...but I'm not going to touch it until a few more patches are released
 
In a blog post on their site talking about the PC's versions launch, ND directly state that it was developed in-house. They've called Iron Galaxy a "partner" in other places. This, very likely, means that ND was the lead dev with IG providing assistance. Since the two studios worked together on the port of Uncharted I imagine the Last of Us port team worked with some of the team from that project in order to use their experience.

Naughty Dog played it beautifully...they have such a good reputation that everyone will blame Iron Galaxy for the shoddy port...even if IG only worked on 10% of the port they will get 100% of the blame ;)
 
The Last of Us Part 1 PC vs PS5- A Disappointing Port With Big Problems to Address



I gotta say, watching this video - the amount of crap (in a good way) and abundance of small items/details everywhere is impressive
 
Yeah that's true, it's more than any other game I have played, and I thought Days Gone had a lot of litter and stuff cluttering up the streets and buildings, but this is on a whole other level. My next playthrough will be a slow one just walking around looking at all the details, once it's all patched of course.
 
Back
Top