Official Thread The Lords of the Fallen
- Thread starter Kvally
- Start date
The post was made on 4chan so take with 
:
Negatives:
:Negatives:
- Development for the game started in 2018.
- Game was originally made for UE4, the vertical slices shown in gameplay presentations were real and it was how the game was intended to look.
- CiGames and HexWorks got too ambitious and decided to upgrade to UE5 in 2022. This is shown in their marketing campaign with Collector's Edition (Im assuming it's because the game was marketed as a AAA game)
- UE5 Upgrade severly muddled the development. Lots of things had to be downgraded and cut.
- No one in the team had the experience to work properly on UE5 as it was a new engine.
- CiGames and HexWorks knew the game was unoptimized and took opportunity of the Xbox slow certification approval to release it anyways.
- Developers asked for another year of development but HexGames didn't want to risk releasing close to Shadows of the Erdtree and had to appease investors.
- Developers had to run agaisnt time to get the game functional for release.
- The PVP/co-op was working but the UE5 transition broke everything.
- Hexworks is worried with refunds.
- Development Team is working hard on fixing the game.
- There are Two Expansions Planned. One which you visit a dream realm called Morpheus and the other where it expands the world/map with two warring kingdoms (says it's mostly placeholder)
- The game seems to have surpassed 1 million units sold.
- A roadmap with QoL changes over the next few months is dropping soon.
- The dev ask people to go on the Discord for complaints and support as they are listening
Shares in CI Games Drop After Critical Reviews of "Lords of the Fallen"
Shares in CI Games Drop After Critical Reviews of "Lords of the Fallen" - Game Is Hard
gameishard.gg
Seems that CiGames put a lot of hope in the game
Shares in the Polish video game producer CI Games (CIG.WA) have dropped by as much as 18%, reaching a six-month low. This follows the release of the company’s newest game, “Lords of the Fallen,” which has received low reviews. The PC version of the game currently has an average rating of 76 on the 100-point Metacritic scale, with reviewers highlighting technical issues that need improvement. The PlayStation 5 version fares slightly lower with a rating of 73.
Despite positive comments on the game’s execution and unique features, such as the ability to swap between two versions of the game world, reviewers expressed frustration with the technical problems. IGN, a prominent U.S. video game and entertainment website, praised “Lords of the Fallen” as a great entry in the challenging subgenre of action role-playing games known as “soulslike.” However, the review also highlighted the highly annoying technical issues that detracted from the overall experience.
Analysts, such as Piotr Bogusz from Erste Group, speculate that the game’s relatively low average rating and issues with the Xbox release may have a negative impact on sales. Currently ranked third on Steam Global Top Sellers, user ratings will play a crucial role in maintaining its position, but the technical problems could deter potential buyers. CI Games has a total budget of approximately 200 million zlotys for the game’s production and marketing. Analysts estimate a sales target of 1.4-1.5 million copies, but achieving this goal may be challenging with the current ratings.
CI Games’ shares experienced heavy losses the day prior to the release of “Lords of the Fallen,” and the downward trend continued with a further drop of 13.6%. The stock price reached 3.89 zlotys, with a previous low of 3.68 zlotys. The game is set to release for PC and PlayStation 5, with the release for Xbox Series X|S following once a patch is launched. “Lords of the Fallen” has three versions available, priced at $69.99 for the standard edition, $79.99 for the deluxe edition, and $249.99 for the collector’s edition. CI Games’ most successful game series to date is “Sniper Ghost Warrior,” which has sold over 13 million copies, and the first version of “Lords of the Fallen” sold over three million copies upon its release in 2014.
That’s
Platforms with higher sales are being prioritize.
Thia is the sad reality of being lowest selling platform.
Platforms with higher sales are being prioritize.
Nothing like that going on here. I have no idea what’s going on with this game to be honest. XSX version is fine. All the s***ty reviews were on PS5.
Why do you keep saying these silly things that have no basis in reality?
It’s a brilliant game. There are some tech issues around frame rate and optimisation but they have been overly exaggerated by the media, massively so in some cases like eurogamer. The fact is if you like these kind of high intensity combat games this one is a must have.
XSS sounds like it's on
- Held back by technical issues on consoles. Built only for new-gen consoles.
- UE5 game. Nanite and Lumen used extensively.
- Realm switching mechanic is impressive but game has not been stable at launch even after a months worth of patches.
- Game contains 30 FPS Quality and 60 FPS Performance mode.
60 FPS Performance Mode:
- Series S:
- Worst case scenario. 60 FPS is often too high a target despite dynamic 720p (lowest of 432p)
- 40 to 60 FPS range, can drop to mid 20's in stressful boss battles.
- Image quality is quite poor because of the very low resolution.
- Frame times can also drop and can cause game to run in single digit frames for a few seconds.
- Eventually settles at regular frame rate after a few seconds. Less frequent than at launch but the issue still remains.
- Longer play sessions can cause it to happen more frequently.
- Series X:
- Every area where Series S dropped in 30s or 40s, SX retains 60 FPS almost entirely.
- Same stress boss battle can drop to mid 40s where Series S dropped to mid 20s
- Resolution: Dynamic 1152p with lowed 684p. DRS can reach higher when looking at sky.
- Hitching and traversal stutters still present, can have full game pauses to 00 FPS for a few seconds.
- Closing and restarting the game fixes this.
- PS5:
- Identical to SX in visual setting and general frame rate testing
- Hitching and frame time spikes are reduced over either Xbox consoles on PS5
- Same areas which see bigger lurches on either Xbox have smaller/minor ones comparatively.
- 30 FPS Quality Mode: (all consoles)
- All consoles have uneven frame pacing in 30 FPS
- PS5/SX use DRS 1620p with lows of 1296p
- More pixels to work with so IQ is much better.
- Series S: DRS 972p with lows of 648p
- Quality mode generally runs at 30 FPS all the time with minor frame time spikes.
- Massive lurches seen in Performance mode are not seen in Quality mode.
- Quality mode also has higher shadow quality, higher volumetric lighting, higher quality SSR.
- Shadow and geometry LoD differences also present in favor of Quality mode.
- DF still recommends the Performance mode but clear that there's a notable trade-off.
- Game was missing foliage on PS5 at launch which has been added via post-release patches.
- Series S has visual cutbacks like worse volumetric, texture quality and geometry.
- "The price to pay to reach 60 FPS with lumen and nanite"
- Conclusion
- Still a compromised experience on consoles.
- Other quirks: No setting to disable adaptive triggers on PS5 and no way to change HUD options (which go in overscan area) on Xbox right now.
UE5 is a gen too early. Look at the base resolutions the game has to go to. It is ridiculous. Even then UE5 games tend to have performance issues.
Agreed, the exception so far is Robocop. That game looks great even on performance mode
Is it though. From what I have seen Robocop has fps drops @60fps. And as far as I am aware Robocop and pretty much all UE5 games on console use software based Lumen which is a massive step down in quality and uses Screen Space effects meaning it looks different at different angles, and games are still struggling.
Software industry, and by extension, Game industry are the least regulated and least accountable major industry. Compared to consumer electronics, automotive, civil engineering, medical etc. Software industry has no regulation, no oversight committe, no test standards whatsoever etc.
Game development is wild wild west (minus Will Smith when he was cool) runs by kindergarteners.
We, the consumers, are the regulators. But gamers have no self control or balls. Prices litetally went up while quality went down. Gamers response = Pay the $£70, make up reason to justify supporting this move, and the bitch and complain on Twitter and forums about the poor state of games.
Comical.
It is NOT of job of consumers to check if what you buy works, and it has all the features it claimed to have.
EVERY other things, we EXPECT what we buy to work, and have what they advertise, or we can refunded.
Consumer shouldn't be the one holding the burden of checks., regardless of if consumers have self control or balls, We can help but we shouldn't be the one doing this job.
EVERY other things, we EXPECT what we buy to work, and have what they advertise, or we can refunded.
Consumer shouldn't be the one holding the burden of checks., regardless of if consumers have self control or balls, We can help but we shouldn't be the one doing this job.
Yeah, lets just pass the buck instead.
FYI if the game doesn't work and isn't as advertised then you are entitled to a refund. Same as anything else.
Noticed you totally ignored the part consumers played.