An Exciting Dishonored 2 Performance Update

I’ve a ‘mare of a time with Dishonored 2 [official site]. You can tell because I’ve devoted an order of magnitude more words to the subject than I’ve written to my parents in the past two years. As I wrote yesterday, the latest patch has ameliorated but not solved the performance problem – however, I might now have found the sweet spot. Not without compromise.

I’ve written a lot here, to the extent that I now never, ever want to write about Dishonored 2 performance in any capacity ever again, but skip right to the last paragraph if you want a fast summary of it all and an answer to the question of whether it’s now ‘safe’ for you to buy a videogame we like a lot.

The key, for me, was 1080p. As I’ve mentioned, I’m foolish enough to own a 3440×1440 ultrawide monitor (it’s tax deductible for the self-employed! Also it’s really, honestly handy for multi-tasking!). I’m currently powering it with a Radeon R9 Nano, which has been overclocked (via increasing the power settings) to be pretty much nose-to-nose with AMD’s current flagship the R9 Fury X. No, not exactly top of the range (I wish AMD would get on with releasing the RX 490 or whatever they’re planning next – NVIDIA currently have a handy march on them with their GTX 1080), but it’s certainly high-end, and I’m going to write this in bold because it’s very important:

Literally any other videogame runs really well at high and often even max (MSAA aside) settings at this resolution and on this card.

Yeah, I’ll take it on the chin that I am playing games at a relatively rarefied resolution (and I know I’ve painted myself into an uncomfortable corner of always needing quite high-end cards as a result) and so absolutely cannot expect the hallowed max settings/60 FPS. That’s fine. But: literally any other videogame.

In Dishonored 2, it’s not even as simple as ‘my framerate isn’t high enough at the settings I’m happy with’. It’s that my framerate fluctuates severely – less so since the latest patch, which I’m grateful for, but it still roves unpredictably everywhere between 20 and 60 within the space of moments.

I certainly don’t need 60 fps, particularly since this silly monitor has Freesync and therefore gives me a fast, tear-free image at everything from 45 to 75 frames, but I’d like 45ish as it feels far less sluggish than 30. I can get 45 on 3440×1440 at Ultra settings. Then it’ll be 20 in the next scene. Maybe 50 in the next. Even on the lowest of low settings, the frames are all over the place – going as high as my screen’s (unnecessary, for me) 75, as low as 25 and everything in between.

Even with freesync, the jerky feeling is unpleasant when the frames fall to sub-45. I can lock the frame rate to 30 at a mix of Medium and High settings which gets me broadly smooth but slightly treacly feel with a distractedly washed-out, oddly blurred-seeming image (no, I don’t have adapative res turned on). That’s the best it gets at 3440×1440. Playable now, yeah, but some distance South of sweet spot.

This isn’t a principle thing. If monitors were able to display non-native resolutions without the image looking all 60s-vaseline-effect, I’d use a lower res without hesitation. But unfortunately that’s not the case, and instead non-native looks sludgey – as does Dishonored 2’s built-in ‘adaptive resolution’ option, which can lower the res on the fly to compensate for performance drops. It’s a neat idea, but it really does look awful.

However, finding the 30 fps lock a mite distracting, I tried dropping the res to 2560×1080, the lower ultrawide standard. Yes, it gave me the whole ‘playing with smudged glasses’ look, but it also did magnificent things to the framerate – I don’t care about the actual number, but I do care about a game feeling nice in the hand, which it now did. This is because the number was now relatively stable, instead of roaming all over the place. It won’t stay at 60 on any setting, but it will spend most of its time there (and often my sreen’s full 75) even at Very High, while Ultra gets me 45 almost all the time.

A choice of compromises, then. Fortunately, Dishonored 2 added several new settings in its latest patch, one of which was a sharpening post-process effect for its TXAA anti-aliasing. I whacked this all the way up to 20 instead of the default 10, and the image looked significantly less blurry. It’s still obvious it’s non-native, but it’s OK, no longer like a dog did its bum-cleaning shuffle across the screen.

Why is it so much better? Well, first some maths. We’re talking about rendering 4953600 total pixels at 3440×1440 versus 2764800 at 2560×1080 – a drop of 45%. So we might as well say I’ve effectively halved the resolution. On paper, a 50% speed boost – from 30 to 60, for the sake of argument – makes sense. But only if one takes the position that I am not entitled to expect a certain baseline of performance of 3440×1440.

Sure, if I were trying to do 4K, with its very silly 3840 × 2160 / 8294400 total pixels, I wouldn’t expect much, but I ain’t going anywhere near that foolishness. I’ve been playing games at 1440p for half a decade now (had a grey market Korean 2560×1440 before this one) and it’s always been fine so long as I had a decentish graphics card – I’ve not put myself in a bizarre niche here.

Again, I don’t expect max – but I haven’t had this severity of problem or had to use this solution in literally any other game. Sure, sometimes I’ve had to put settings lower than I’d like, but that’s OK so long as I have a non-pooey image and smooth feel. It’s the fluctuation and attendant wonky game-feel at any setting that bothers me, not being able to reach a certain maximum.

I’ll note here also that, prior to yesterday’s 1.2 patch, I was getting very poor, unpleasant-feeling performance at 2560×1080 too, and didn’t test that res yesterday because I had it my head that I’d continue to find that 2560 and 3440 were doing more or less the same thing. I was wrong, and should have tested that first.

So, couple of suspicions:

1) The performance-fixing patch has been specifically tuned to getting 1080p right. Makes sense and I don’t begrudge it, as that is the go-to res for gaming on most platforms now. D2 at launch caused problems for a whole mess of people, especially those with AMD cards, and I can totally appreciate that the priority has to be helping the majority. Maybe fixes for bigger resolutions will follow now that the baseline has been sorted out.

2) There remains an AMD issue. M’colleague John is playing the game happily on ultra at 2560×1440 (i.e. standard widescreen 1440p), using a GTX 1080. Yes, that is a real beast of the card, and clearly he’s going to do better than I will on my Nano at a wider res, but he’s also able to play at much higher settings and without the weird fluctuations that I see.

This latter could be down to ongoing AMD problems, it could be simply down to the power of the card, or it could be that it has 4GB rather than the 1080’s 8GB of onboard memory (the R9’s RAM is supposed to be much faster, but I honestly don’t know how that shakes out in practice). I’m increasingly aware that I need an 8GB card for this res in the not-too-distant, particularly in terms of max-settings textures, and if it’s that, I can accept it’s to blame – D2’s textures sure are fancy, after all. Not that lowering them makes more than a couple of frames’ worth of difference.

I think what’s needed is more granularity about minimum/recommended system requirements. I have well above Dishonored 2’s recommended spec (but even then had unplayable performance prior to yesterday’s patch), but if the official line is that they only mean 1080p by it, I’d really like them to say so in order that I can check my expectations before going in.

Or more in-game advice. For instance, a couple of recent Square Enix games, such as Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, popped up a little message when I set textures to high saying that this would require more than 4GB of VRAM, and so I duly set ’em lower and was content.

Solutions, then, are either to accept a lower resolution or buy a new graphics card. Can’t afford the latter (plus want to wait for AMD to get its act together and release something new, as GeForces can’t use my monitor’s FreeSync – I have no brand loyalty either way otherwise). I’m going to go with the first approach, as that new sharpening option makes a decent difference. I could wait it out and see if future patches help the situation, but to be honest and I’m sick and tired of thinking about this and so will take the compromise.

The point of this post? Mostly that I don’t get out much. But also to expand on yesterday’s take on the latest patch, in which I broadly said ‘good, but not good enough’. My revised take is ‘good enough for 1080p/2560×1080, but not good enough above that’.

By which I mean Arkane have done the work and now sorted out the problem for the majority – if you’ve got a 1080p screen and have hitherto held off from buying the game, I believe that you should now be safe. It is a good game, and well worth your money now it’s fixed for most folks.

As for relative outliers like me? Put up or shut up for now. But at least it’s no longer lurching all over the place even at a lower res.

From this site

55 Comments

  1. Boozebeard says:

    From reading this I’m gonna guess that it’s a VRAM issue. High resolutions are a vram hog and I looked up the R9 nano and it has 4GB right? Not bad but when you consider the res you are running and the fact the new nvidia cards are packing 8GB I can see this being the problem. I’ve got an old 780 with 3GB VRAM and I’ve certainly been finding that a bottle neck, especially at 2560×1440.

    Being a vram problem would explain the frame fluctuation nicely too, as long as you were within your vram limits you would be fine, the moment you start using more vram than you have you’re of course going to get a sudden frame rate hit.

    Edit: So it may be worth fiddling with any of the settings that are vram hogs, you might find you can up the res again if you turn down some of those specific settings. I definitely would not recommend trying to use any AA at that res (maybe something really cheap like FX)

    • Boozebeard says:

      Oops, I gotta admit I only read half the article, just skimmed it and notice you mention this near the bottom. Apologies.

    • Unclepauly says:

      Dishonored 2 uses over 7gb ram at 4k, 1440p, and even at 1080p. Weird, I know. They only deviate about 2-300 mb per resolution. It’s definitely a VRAM issue.

      • naomha says:

        I haven’t seen D2 use anywhere NEAR 7GB of RAM at ultra-wide resolutions. I’ve been playing it on trip mons at 5760×1080 and I’ll be lucky if my RAM is hitting 80% full tilt. That’s with everything on Ultra, resolution set to 100% and TXAAx1. I haven’t messed around with the new settings yet as I’ve been dipping into The Division the past few nights but stoked to check them out.

        I’m running Win10, Asus Sabertooth 990FX Gen3, 16GB of Gskill, AMD 8350 BE @4.4 Air, dual Sapphire Tri-X R9 290s in Xfire and Eyefinity, trip 28″ IPS monitors in Eyefinity, 1200w Thermaltake PS and Logitech G510, Logitech G502 and Logitech Z5500.

        I’ve yet to see this maddening fluctuations people seem to be having all over the place. I also noticed that it seems to affect more Nivida users than AMD users. I’m thinking that Nvidia’s Gforce Experience is a lot to blame also. In Eyefinity on trip mons with everything maxed, DOF off and Bloom off (I hate that) I get between 35-55 fps with no hiccuping. Playing in 1080 gives a smoother experience with a constant 55-60 fps almost always. And, that’s using FRAPS to garner my fps in game.

        I’m hoping this new patch that came out is helping a lot of people because D2 DESERVES to be played at the highest settings your rig can handle. It’s not Crysis3 beautiful but the art style is second to none and the gameplay and story is just off the hook. Sound design in this game DESERVES to be cranked and played in full 5.1-7.1 surround audio. It’s THAT good.

  2. gbrading says:

    Well, good to hear that at least 1080p sounds more stable now. That was all I was personally looking for as that’s all my monitor can support. I saw the giant 4GB patch downloading last night but I didn’t try it out. It still disappointing that those with powerful systems can’t crank up the settings though.

  3. jellydonut says:

    With a GTX 760, I think I will still pass.

    • Jay Load says:

      Screw your courage to the sticking place, good sir/madam/non-determinate. I’m happily gaming on a GTX 670 and think my rig will do just fine with this.

      • mvar says:

        greetings fellow adventurer! turn down the details a bit here and a bit there, use a lower res. monitor, witcher3 was fine at 1600×900 on my 550ti I dare say! but still, D2 is a pass until those f***ers stop treating PC gamers as 2nd class citizens. Enough with the stupid ports already.

        • Premium User Badge

          Aitrus says:

          It’s not actually a port, all three versions of the game were developed side by side by Arkane. They just did a terrible job on the PC version.

          • Fenixp says:

            They did a pretty good job on the PC version actually, they just did a terrible job on PC optimization. Sad times. Great game tho.

    • FLoJ says:

      GTX 760 here and getting a stable, locked 30fps with everything turned up to medium on 1080p (Nvidia’s recommended settings are significantly lower – including playing at a reduced resolution).

      Downscaling to 720p and staying on medium seems to be the only way to get up to a stable 45 fps (the next locked framerate option).

      I don’t really expect a huge amount more since the 760 is fairly comparable to a console box in terms of grunt – maybe a smidge more power so 30fps and medium sounds about right.

      i5-4670k and 8 GB of ram if that also helps you at all :)

  4. JSoi says:

    I have a GTX 1080 and play at 1080p for most of the time, but the game still doesn’t manage a stable 60fps when everything is set on ultra. It’s completely playable and it performs better than Quantum Break, but it does suffer from little hiccups still. Hopefully they fix the issues soon.

  5. reality3ites says:

    R9 390x/8GB, 3.5 i5, 16GB, been running on ultra @ 2560/1080 without hiccups with the latest patch. That said, the last patch not only had my machine running at over-easy egg frying temps, but my monitor suspiciously died during a run through Karnaca (was hiding on a ledge, monitor blinked out, sound through my headphones of Emily running wildly down the street waking up every Overseer around). That also marked the end of my monitor (Dell, bless em, sent a new one next business day). All’s well that ends well with a game like this though. Phenomenal.

  6. DThor says:

    Virtually every time I hear a million gamer’s voices cry out in terror and then all was silent I also see the same acronym – AMD. I’ve had not a single positive experience with them, primarily because despite their hardware being interesting and providing some pressure on nvidia to stay honest, with varying results, their software sucks donkey balls. I’m ever so grateful all you AMD fans out there exist and continue to go back to that buggy, bloated driver well to draw more fail, since I like them around to keep prices down, but seriously, people, why do you bother?
    Sure, I get it – it’s the dev’s fault for releasing a buggy product, and I don’t doubt there are issues on nvidia too, but isn’t life too short to be constantly fighting something as low level as graphics drivers?

    • hollowroom says:

      I’ve been on the green team for a while (the last GPU I had from them was when AMD was still called ATI), but from what I hear from my AMD owning friends, the Radeon drivers are much better than they used to be.

    • Asurmen says:

      Because we’re not? Never had any problems with AMD drivers.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      I tend to alternate between nVidia and AMD for my graphics cards, and I’ve had problems with both their drivers.
      That said, the recent AMD drivers are fine. They install ok, you get an option not to install most of the cruft, and things generally work.
      On the other hand I’ve heard something about needing to register an account to download the nVidia drivers, so right now I think AMD might have slightly better drivers.

      The reason that you’ve seen more problems with AMD rather than nVidia is down to several reasons. Mainly it’s because there’s more nVidia users out there, so that’s where developers concentrate. Also, nVidia have a larger developer outreach project than AMD, providing more support to devs to get games to play well on their hardware.

    • Zenicetus says:

      I settled on Nvidia cards years ago for the same reasons. A casual survey of problems with various games and flight sims over the years has always seemed to favor Nvida as the more stable product. Whether it’s down to innate stability, or just a larger market share so it gets more game dev testing and feature targeting, is irrelevant to me as the end-user.

      I’m glad AMD is out there to provide competition and pricing pressure, but it would take more than a less expensive/more powerful card at this point to make me switch teams.

    • Chorltonwheelie says:

      I too was lulled to years of Radeon cards by the siren calls of price, “nearly as good” and “bang per buck” claims from gaming oracles.
      I managed to inherit a GTX560ti and, oh my, what a difference. I’m never going back and am more than willing to pay through the nose for nVidia gear.
      I take all claims of “the peoples card” with a massive pinch of salt. Alec, you’ve made a mistake tying yourself to freesync, it’s not very good…get out and put it down to experience.

    • KenTWOu says:

      I’ve had not a single positive experience with them…

      Please, cut the thing, we all know that’s simply not true.

    • Premium User Badge

      PoulWrist says:

      Utter nonsense. AMD cards are just fine and I’ve had them on and off for the past 15 years. Just recently switched to a RX 480 from my old and trusty GTX 680 and have had nothing but great experiences with it.

      Drivers are fine and in less of a shit state than modern nvidia drivers.
      Each manufacturer has had multiple issues with their cards over the years, and drivers. The smear campaign against AMD for no good reason is only hurting consumers. Nvidia cards are only increasing in price every time and while sure, the 1000 series are pretty good, then they’re really not that good compared to the 900 series and the increase in price that came with them.

      Oh and I’ve built around 20 systems over the past 5 years using mixed AMD and nvidia cards for people here and there – noone is complaining about performance anywere.

    • Ynairo says:

      Fanboyism much huh? Well, since you’re talking from personal experience, let me share mine: I’ve used GPUs from both brands for the last 15 years (Riva TNT2, 9600 Pro, 8600GT, HD 4850), my last Nvidia card was a GTX 560Ti, and that was simply the WORST experience I’ve ever had with drivers. Try googling “Nvidia TDR bug” to get a glimpse of the nightmare I’ve had with this card with the never-ending CTD, freezes and BSODs. Luckily for me, when I saw that I was simply unable to play Battlefield 4 due to the CTDs, I gave up and bought my current R9 280X, and what a difference, driver-wise it’s the most stable card I’ve ever owned.

  7. dahools says:

    I think Alec you just have to accept it. Its the unfortunate way of PC gaming nowadays.
    Dishonored 2 is a nVidia gameworks game so its highly probable it will just run better on their hardware, you see this all the time go look at reviews before the patches and a 4gb GTX 980 is nearly 10% faster than your nano in D2!* so it has nothing to do with amount of RAM on your card as you said your HBM should be much faster/better.
    In BF1 your Nano is 10 -15% faster than a GTX 980* but thats seen as a game that generally prefers or gets the most out of AMD Hardware.
    I am not being a fanboy for either side but I often find it most frustrating when its a game i like or want, that runs sub par as to what I am expecting and it runs much better on cheaper/lesser (subjective) hardware from the other team.

    It does not however make poorly optimised games acceptable nor explain wild fluctuations in a given scene or random changes and should not be used as an excuse for when performance is bad for everything.

    *I looked on guru3d at the 1440p results to get the figures above

  8. brucethemoose says:

    Dishonored 2 added several new settings in its latest patch, one of which was a sharpening post-process effect for its TXAA anti-aliasing. I whacked this all the way up to 20 instead of the default 10

    2016, and RPS staff are still limiting themselves to in-game post-processing? Its SMAA would’ve solved that problem long ago.

    If I ever visit the UK, I’m tracking down where all the writers/editors live/work and spray painting “RESHADE!” on their cars.

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you :P

    • Paul says:

      TXAA actually combines MSAA with post-process AA to achieve completely jaggy-free image even during movement – there is no edge shimmering. It is fantastic.

      • brucethemoose says:

        That is interesting.

        SMAA can use the depth buffer and previous frames as well, but it’s not hardware AA and I’m not sure what kind of performance hit it has compared to TXAA with all those extras turned on.

        • Unclepauly says:

          TXAA can be better than SMAA sometimes but around half the time it’s not. TXAA costs about twice the performance of SMAA but sometimes more. I always try the in game options 1st and if they aren’t satisfactory I fall back to SMAA. The ole’ beaut never fails to deliver.

    • Premium User Badge

      Grizzly says:

      One could also argue that in 2016, just like every year before and every year after, a person whose job it is to assess the game as delivered should asses the game as delivered and not have to resolve to third party tools like ReShade. Fully realizing that ReShade is awesome, but it should remain optional.

      • brucethemoose says:

        Indeed they should, in the initial article.

        However, if there’s a 3rd party tool that can solve problems, it’s worth mentioning in a follow up article. RPS makes plenty of “mod” posts, after all.

  9. Plastic Legs says:

    My RX 480 absolutely hates certain parts of this game. Might be because I have the 4gb version but I can’t see that making a difference at 1080.

  10. Suits says:

    I don’t know.. it’s still not great with 970 unless I put that adaptive resolution either completely on or off

    • blur says:

      FWIW, I was playing around with settings yesterday after I installed the new patch, and got fed up with adaptive resolution making me able to count the pixels by hand.

      I turned on triple buffering, not expecting much, and somehow that fixed everything. Like, dipping to 45, typically running at 60. I’ve got most settings on high, except for a couple on very high and water at medium.

  11. Menthalion says:

    With a large frame buffer like that, be also sure to turn off triple buffering and pre-render frames (flipqueue on AMD) as well, since all of those take multiple screen sized bites (in Alec’s case ~240MB) out of your vram as well.

    If you can’t do that from game or driver settings, there’s the RadeonPro app, more info at link to radeonpro.info

    • Menthalion says:

      Correction, should be 29MB. Still, it could mean >120 MB VRAM saved. Also, RadeonPro OSD should give an insight if the framerate hits are VRAM related.

  12. LazyAssMF says:

    Harvey also teased that this latest patch (1.2) is releasing alongside a new AMD driver which is, supposedly, gonna be huge-Catalyst Omega huge (not in size mind you :D). So any day now performance could be even better for AMD owners, if AMD decides to release the driver. :)

  13. causticnl says:

    wow, okay, so you are comparing your nano to a 1080? thats your problem, right there. a 1080 is optimised for running at 4k res.

  14. Zanchito says:

    How do you change from 3440×1440 to 2560×1080? I don’t have that option, if I want to keep the 21:9 aspect ratio, I have to go to native resolution

    • neems says:

      Have you tried enabling dsr in the drivers? I typically have many many resolution options, including lower than native (I haven’t played Dishonored 2 though).

  15. BluePencil says:

    Correction:

    “(and often my sreen’s full 75)”

    ~~ screen’s

    ” Yes, that is a real beast of the card, and clearly”

    ~~ “a card”. Not “the card”.

    “I could wait it out and see if future patches help the situation, but to be honest and I’m sick and tired of thinking about this and so will take the compromise.”

    ~~ cut the second “and”.

  16. Zenicetus says:

    Okay, so you’ve discovered what us flight sim fans have known for years, that if you push the monitor resolution far enough, you either won’t be happy with the frame rate or you’ll need beastly hardware to support it. Got it. :)

    And yes, I understand that you’re able to run other games on this resolution, but I still think it’s unreasonable to expect every new game to work like that. Sometimes, you have to keep a bit ahead of the software by making sure you’re running beastly hardware that can handle anything. Again, something us flight simmers have known for years.

  17. AgingGamer says:

    The struggle described in the article sounds familiar to me… from five years ago.

    I’m a professional IT guy, but when I have some time to play a game I just want to play. the. game. I don’t want to spend hours/days playing the *other* game: make your PC play the game.

    You either like the ‘make your PC play the game’ game, or you don’t. The problem with PC gaming is also its greatest strength: awesome customizability. Every PC is different, and no game can test every combination of features. Your best hope is to run the same processor/GPU/OS/driver version/display resolution as the ‘majority’, but then… isn’t customizability why we all want to use PCs?

    Can developers do better? Absolutely: I don’t want to make excuses for them, but the sheer number of combinations of differences that can be found in the modern PC configuration is staggering.

    I decided several years ago to get off the PC master race merry go round in respect to games. The consoles aren’t great, but if the game works, it works. I sometimes miss having the best resolution or the fastest frame rate… then I read an article like this, and go ‘oh, yeah… that sucked.’

    • njursten says:

      What about windowed mode, in lower resoltuion? Or is it too annoying to get a smaller screenspace?

    • RichUncleSkeleton says:

      Except there’s no question that the game works in this article, or in general. Even extremely hard cases like Arkham Knight at launch worked, and with hardware as powerful as Alec’s, getting console-comparable performance and image quality is almost a foregone conclusion in any situation. The *other* game, for PC players, is not “make it run”, it’s “make it run while tweaking settings to squeeze a few extra frames per second or play at a higher resolution”, which is of course not to everyone’s taste. Anyone willing to settle for less can land on one of the lower presets and never give the matter another thought (and still, in all likelihood, get a better presentation than the console equivalent).

  18. napoleonic says:

    Nah, still going to wait for it to be in a sale.

  19. nomilarac says:

    Last time I take seriously any performance complaint from RPS.

  20. suibhne says:

    I’m trying to run this game on a 1080, at 19×12, but the recent patch made things far, far worse. I previously got smooth framerates dialed in (after a few hours of tweaking) with good settings – nothing on Very High, but quite a bit on High. Post-patch, I’m back down to extremely uncomfortable spikes and bad mouse control. Congrats, Bethesda – you’ve made things even worse.

    At this point I’m regretting my early purchase, and I’m not so sure I’ll ever give Bethesda another pass. I assumed performance issues would be ironed out within a few days of release, but this is a fetid joke. It’s especially angering because I got through half the game and loved it, and now I’m stuck back in a cesspool of terrible performance solely due to Bethesda’s patch.

    Oh, also, loading times are over 5x as long post-patch. No, I’m not kidding. Yes, I run everything on SSDs and I have no idea what’s going on. This patch is bollocks.

  21. Uninteresting Curse File Implement says:

    Well, Bethesda themselves strongly encouraged me to wait for my favorite reviewers to share their thoughts before spending my money, so I think I’m gonna hold off for a while, since Alec is my faves.
    After all, “everyone, including in the media” must enjoy their games at the same time, and Alec doesn’t seem to be enjoying himself just yet.

  22. nanotechnics says:

    Optimization woes, what can i say. It’s a shame because the game is fantastic, but no way i can play this on Very High on my GTX 980.

    I can best play this with a mix of Medium and High Settings like Alec said. The game is clearly suffering from a myriad of issues.

    I also upped the TXAA sharpness following Alec’s advice and the image looks better now, not kidding the pre-patch Dishonored 2 looked proper ugly, like for real. But it’s tolerable now.

    Hopefully everyone enjoys this game, the bitterness of bad PC version notwithstanding.

  23. Xispa says:

    Taking in consideration the patch 1.2,how is the game performing on a rig similiar to this one:

    i7-5820K 6-Core 3.3GHz//
    GTX 980 MSI Gaming 4GB Edition//
    16GB(RAM)

    Thank you.

  24. Malrick says:

    Ew, I turned the sharpening down to 5. Even that was pushing it.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>