UE5 has felt somewhat like a beta test that still needs to have it's core features finalised (i.e only getting nanite foliage at the end of the gen/Lumen being very unstable etc) but people are way too harsh towards it. At it's core, just like UE4 it's easily the most accessible engine and makes the job of making games much easier, especially for small teams/teams on a budget.
The fundamental issue is that the "next-gen" features are heavy, but that applies across all engines. Even in RE engine the minute you take Ray trayced global illumination into an open world you're looking at a 30fps cap (Dragons Dogma) and average image quality. Snowdrop seems more efficient as it can reliably combine RT with Virtual Geometry in a solid release (Avatar + Star Wars Outlaws) but even then Star Wars Outlaws has bad image quality and an unreliable 60fps in the performance modes. The truth is systems weren't built with achieving all these feats whilst meeting 60fps.
It's clear though that effort is being put into making these features lighter but that takes time and developers ultimately need to do be doing optimisation on their end too, as well as saying no to certain graphic features. There's a reason why so few Sony games use RT Global Illumination or Virtual Geometry, They're prioritising last gen rendering techniques to actually deliver the highest quality visuals and adapting engines to their needs (Saros is based on heavily modified UE5 for example + Guerilla and Insomniac have their own upsampling techniques).
Not every team is going have support/talent for that level of bespoke engineering but plenty of AAA games could afford it but they just don't prioritise it.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
