3 ms·

Both GTA 5 and RDR 2 have optional first person cameras, in addition to third person. They handle streaming pretty much seamlessly, and with no apparent bugs. T

Both GTA 5 and RDR 2 have optional first person cameras, in addition to third person. They handle streaming pretty much seamlessly, and with no apparent bugs. This game is just incapable. Objects sometimes don’t get streamed in. Sometimes it takes 20 seconds for them to transition from low LOD mode to high LOD model. Sometimes the high LOD model loads but the textures remain of the low LOD model. And that’s even when walking on the street, with an SSD. Driving exacerbates the issue further.

golergka 6y ago
> Both GTA 5 and RDR 2 have optional first person cameras, in addition to third person. This is technically true, but these are not cameras that players primarily use, and these are not cameras that art assets and their quality, texture resolutions and LODs are primarily optimised for and benchmarked by. > They handle streaming pretty much seamlessly, and with no apparent bugs. Yes. This, I completely agree with. But they are built by a studio that has built and QAed these systems for 20 years (or longer, if you include 2d GTA games). And in game worlds that are significantly less visually complex than Cyberpunk. Don't misunderstand me. RDR 2 and GTA 5 are fantastic, stunning games. I loved these worlds. But from strictly technical standpoint, Night City has drastically more completely different assets next to each other.
- LeoNatan25 6y ago
  I don't necessarily agree. 2077 fails at streaming at the macro level, not just the micro. Entire basic structures fail to load sometimes. And if modding has thought us, at least on PC, the Rockstar streaming engine is capable of streaming many more assets than initially designed (or optimized) for. W3 was OK at streaming, but obviously not at this scale. So, in my opinion, what is going on is that they stressed that system to the breaking point, and instead of rewriting it, or at least optimizing it, they called it "good enough". In my book, streaming open worlds is a solved solution in modern times. Certainly in the days of GTA3 and Driver, it was a novel concept and there was a lot more leeway for LOD issues and streaming problems. Consoles and PCs also had much less memory and slow spinning disks. But we are not at those times anymore, so I don't see any reason why we should give them slack just because they dreamed big bug failed completely at the technical level. It all boils to the overall issue, which is why they released it at all, if it's so completely broken, and so completely cut of promised content. Just delay it until it is done; it's not like the Witcher cash cow didn't provide enough cash.

golergka 6y ago

> Both GTA 5 and RDR 2 have optional first person cameras, in addition to third person. This is technically true, but these are not cameras that players primarily use, and these are not cameras that art assets and their quality, texture resolutions and LODs are primarily optimised for and benchmarked by. > They handle streaming pretty much seamlessly, and with no apparent bugs. Yes. This, I completely agree with. But they are built by a studio that has built and QAed these systems for 20 years (or longer, if you include 2d GTA games). And in game worlds that are significantly less visually complex than Cyberpunk. Don't misunderstand me. RDR 2 and GTA 5 are fantastic, stunning games. I loved these worlds. But from strictly technical standpoint, Night City has drastically more completely different assets next to each other.

LeoNatan25 6y ago
I don't necessarily agree. 2077 fails at streaming at the macro level, not just the micro. Entire basic structures fail to load sometimes. And if modding has thought us, at least on PC, the Rockstar streaming engine is capable of streaming many more assets than initially designed (or optimized) for. W3 was OK at streaming, but obviously not at this scale. So, in my opinion, what is going on is that they stressed that system to the breaking point, and instead of rewriting it, or at least optimizing it, they called it "good enough". In my book, streaming open worlds is a solved solution in modern times. Certainly in the days of GTA3 and Driver, it was a novel concept and there was a lot more leeway for LOD issues and streaming problems. Consoles and PCs also had much less memory and slow spinning disks. But we are not at those times anymore, so I don't see any reason why we should give them slack just because they dreamed big bug failed completely at the technical level. It all boils to the overall issue, which is why they released it at all, if it's so completely broken, and so completely cut of promised content. Just delay it until it is done; it's not like the Witcher cash cow didn't provide enough cash.