Wolfenstein: The Old Blood, the standalone prequel for Wolfenstein: The New Order, has just been released and below you can find some comparison shots between the game’s Ultra and Low settings.
As you can see, there are very few differences between these presets. Not only that, but Wolfenstein: The Old Blood suffers from various issues due to its ‘ancient’ engine, the id Tech 5. But we’ll talk about these issues in our PC Performance Analysis.
In order to spot the differences more easily, we strongly suggest opening the images in new tabs. Do also note that Low settings affect the overall graphics filtering (which is to be blamed for most distant blurry textures).
Ultra shots are on the left whereas Low shots are on the right.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Not much of a difference.
This game runs amazing on max 60 FPS GTX 680 2GB!
as for the game and story 10/10 !!
Really was thinking about buying it getting some nice new speakers and want something new on them project cars was already bought Silviu please get back with me we seem to have similar taste when it comes to games generally
How about this difference?
Turning around you see this:
http://imgclick.net/hmbech1kkgtm/WolfOldBlood_x64_2015-05-05_19-14-06-10.png.html
After second or a bit more/less things render back to normal like this:
http://imgclick.net/q18fdstbdhiy/WolfOldBlood_x64_2015-05-05_19-14-02-85.png.html
Horrible texture popping and horrible lag with GTX 970. This card is just an nightmare.
Dude it’s the game and their horrible idtech 5 engine, everyone is having this.
Ok found some interesting topic how to fix this:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/350080/discussions/0/620712364043746268/
Going to try it out tomorrow. Also i have I7 5930k
wait did u said lag with GTX 970 ? lol
what CPU do you have?
don’t try to record this game with shadowplay !
i had a horrible memory leak my RAM was on 15.6 GB used
http://youtu.be/pW_3_GM2wwk
no difference at all, lol) Just some tiny things…
Will be interested in the performance analysis
You need to do the comparisons a bit better. Maybe have the low and high on one image next to each other so you can scan for differences. 🙂
I couldn’t even notice one change like WTF
True…well barely!
In the 3rd shot, it is fairly visible though…the texture a tad bit sharper on Ultra, but yes not a the difference you would expect from Low to Ultra.
This worries me when it comes to visual difference from low/Ultra. Only a tad more detail at the most.
And when I said it worries me. I am talking about how Doom 4 is going to turn out.
though, when we see some people bragging about pc gaming on ultra, compared to a weak ps4, we would think that the difference is as big as playing gran turismo 1 and playing driveclub.
but no.
the pic with the car… look at the awful aliasing on the car, even at ultra: a shame.
studios should create pc games with an option for using-having perfect life-like textures, perfect lights, perfect-best antialiasing processing, like a msaa 8 or 16x or whatever exists, with options for having twice the polygon count, everywhere in the game, + many other 3d objects, where possible, like a real brick wall made of 3d bricks, instead of a texture of a brick, with some simple bump mapping for depth.
ok, that pc version would be 120Gb big ? all those extra options would make the game run at 5 fps, even at only 1080p? no problem! in 1 or 2 years, the hardware will then reach 40 or 50 fps.
but at least, there would be some avatar or pixar-like graphics, at 1080p, even at only 5 fps.
but no. ultra, is just a slightly better antialising, with textures a bit less compressed, at a higher resolution.
does it justify some eventual 3 or 4K euros or dollars ? ehhh…… no.
also, for those who play on pc, that are proud of their ultra graphics that are better than a next-gen console, tell yourselves that with the hardware you have, if studios were optimizing the pc version as much as on consoles, an ultra pc game should not look “better” than a ps4, no, it should look TEN TIMES better.
when i look at gta5 pc version, does it look 5 or 10 times better than on the ps4 ?
is there 10 times more grass, more trees, more houses, more people, more cars, are the npcs 10 times better, with 10 times more polygons? do the cars look 10 times better ?
no.
it’s just “better”. that’s all. when, by today standards, with the hardware we have, any pc version should look many many times better than a ps4 version, instead of just a higher resolution, higher framerate and higher antialiasing. no. the difference should be HUGE.
is it the case ? i don’t think so. studios aren’t definitely not optimizing their pc versions and engines. at all.