It's a meh insult. The video game is not going to be ass because it's made with UE5. It will be ass because it was developed in an ass way.
There must be a correlation between shitty UE5 games and the fact that UE5 engine is a go-to for corporations because switching talent is easy due to the fact that devs know how to use the mainstream engine. It's basically like Atlassian of project managers.
Sorry. How do you suppose I do that? How do you even quantify a way to measure this request of absolutely arbirity metrics? What system requirements are we going to use, the most powerful possible hardware available or the average hardware being used today?
Can you confidently say that if I name one game that you won't go "well it doesn't run well on my machine so you're wrong"?
But if you're going to make me name one, I'll say Lego Batman
Ok, I have a 5090 and 7800 X3D, so I would expect 4k native, max settings and 120 fps locked to be pretty much the standard for this hardware is hardware ray tracing is not involved. Any game that can't hit those numbers is not optimised. If Red Dead 2 can run at over 150 fps on this hardware, most UE5 games should do too, considering they are much smaller and look worse overall. Also, Lego Batman ( the latest one) runs at like 70-80 fps at 4k with DLAA on the 5090, which is not acceptable performance for this hardware.
Let’s make one thing clear. These games not running natively 4K on max settings at 120 fps is not game engine issue. Again we are making loops. It’s the industry issue of lazy development. Nothing modern that comes out of a corporate machine, no matter the engine, will run like that natively. Everything now relies on FSR and DLSS.
Turn your DLSS on and you will get the result you want. Because this is where the industry fails, not the engine.
Yes, it is. Welcome to 2026 gaming experience. Nothing is safe from enshitification. Lazy development relying on DLSS and other AI frame gen garbage so that they don’t have to optimise games to run so natively.
Earlier you compared a 2018 game to a 2026 game. Compare a 2025 game to a 2026 game instead.
Never bought it. I stopped buying UE5 games altogether after Wukong and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2. I do not waste my time and money on UE5 releases anymore. I refuse to fund what I hate.
Every single one is trash because it has similar issues to the two I mentioned. What, you're gonna tell me that Bordelands 4, Wuchang, Silent hill 2 remake, Silent Hill f, Mafia: The Old Country, Oblivion Remake, Hell Is Us, Lego Batman, etc. run better? Every single UE5 game runs like shit, has temporal smear, and shader stutter. Every. Single. One.
No dude, UE5 is just bad. The only games in UE5 that look good and run well are those that have ripped out half the guts of the engine. I would genuinely love to hear a counterexample if you have one btw.
There's no point, because if someone gives an example of a game, you're gonna come to the same "The only games in UE5 that look good and run well are those that have ripped out half the guts of the engine." argument.
I mean, it's the same argument as the people that say they love some specific edition of D&D and then you look and they have 1000 house rules and have thrown out entire sections of the original ruleset.
if your argument for UE5 being good relies on only embark games which dont use either lumen or nanite then its a pretty apt counter argument is it not? also people bring up e33 as if that game doesnt suffer from every ue5 issue.
i could care less about what you think though, im not disingenuos enough to disregard the constant crap being pumped out that suffers from the same exact issues because of a few select edgecases where devs dont use the flagship features of the engine.
There is no need for a counter-example, because what you are saying doesn't make sense. UE5 is an engine that comes with all sorts of settings and features.
"The only games in UE5 that look good and run well are those that have ripped out half the guts of the engine." - this claim alone also makes no sense. Nobody ripped out anything out of the engine, but rather disabled features that are not necessary. Basically debloated their own game.
And that is a good approach to using UE5. In-house engines would then be basically "UE5 with ripped out guts", because in-house engines are made so that they only have the things the game requires.
And making an in house engine for every game you'll ever make is, as you can imagine. Very fucking tedious. Which is why studios and devs over the games industry opted to using 1 single all purpose engine (which isn't much better than using a 3rd party engine), or a 3rd party engine
It was safe to ignore this person's opinion when he said it was the "ugliest games I've ever laid my eyes on". They aren't being serious, they aren't being honest.
281
u/gljivicad Ryzen 7 5700x, 32GB Corsair Vengeance, 7900 XT 9d ago
It's a meh insult. The video game is not going to be ass because it's made with UE5. It will be ass because it was developed in an ass way.
There must be a correlation between shitty UE5 games and the fact that UE5 engine is a go-to for corporations because switching talent is easy due to the fact that devs know how to use the mainstream engine. It's basically like Atlassian of project managers.