Doesn't shoulder the blame, though. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2016/11/11/dishonored-2-poor-performance/1
AMD pushed a hotfix yesterday. I'm running ultra at 5100x1050 60-100fps so does seem to be very system specific. A great game none the less.
First they don't allow any pre-release reviews and now they can't release the game in working order for my chosen platform. I can't think of an industry with so many "players" who keep shooting themselves in the foot. Don't they want my money? ;-) P.S. Yet another example of why I would no longer pre-order.
Seriously, after the PC releases of Fallout 4, Skyrim, New Vegas, Fallout 3, Oblivion and Morrowind how can anyone expect anything else than a colossal pile of bugs and issues from a Bethesda release? It's part of the charm to sit there installing mods and fixes for the first three hours of a Bethesda RPG, no two player's installs are exactly alike.
Its only my love for the Fallout series that made me buy Fallout 4 on release, I did like dishonoured but will never by a Bethesda game on release again (even the next Fallout) until Bethesda pull their fingers out and treat the PC Market with as much love and respect as other platforms.
Three 1680x1050 monitors for 5040x1050 which was the "default" resolution of cheap TFTs before they all went 1080p would be my guess.
well 5100 is 3 1700x1050 monitors. Which I suppose is the 16:10 aspect ratio equivalent. But still, its just not a resolution I've seen out in the wild.
I've just postponed my purchase until they patch the frikkin thing. Seriously, 1070 or better for 1440p? You can eff right off.
1680x1050 was the standard for the first really affordable widescreen monitors (back then all 16:10) monitors that sold in near infinite quantities which replaced the old 4:3 monitors before manufacturers ditched 16:10 in favour of 16:9. But there was never a 1700xwhatever, most likely the person you responded to simply rounded up those 20 pixels.
With the current gen of games I would imagine a patch won't miraculously make it run well. Every game released for the past six months has stunk performance wise. (apart from Doom) This is what happens, though. Nvidia keep pumping out super powerful GPUs so the devs can be lazy. If they actually made them work with what they had for longer games would run far better than they do. These high end cards are just an excuse for crap games.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterra...designer_of_dishonored_2_recommends_very_low/ The tweet was deleted apparently. But he said with a 1070 @ 1080p you need to run on very low settings to get around 60 FPS. Assuming you need SLI 1080s to run it at 1440p med settings. Here is an image of it though.
I don't think devs are lazy. In fact game developers might be the hardest working class of software developer (maybe). Its more likely that you will find a speed vs quality issue driven by those in charge, where they want the product out as quickly as possible and good enough is good enough in terms of quality. From a business perspective they might well be right too, is this issue going to put much of a dampener on sales?
If the game stinks people won't buy it. A 1080 to get 60FPS on low settings? lmao, not a game I will be buying.
Anfield is correct - it's three 1680x1050 monitors, almost certainly with what nVidia call 'bezel correction' (forget what AMD call it) which basically makes the triplewide view render pixels 'behind' the bezels, so that you don't get the weird alignment effects between monitors. Here's a quick example of how it works.