Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (fallen order sequel)

Thankfully I am able to more or less brute force my way through the performance issues with my specs, however, it is so frustrating that the release has been tarnished by the performance as behind all that (although only 3-4 hours in) there is clearly a fantastic game and experience to be had.
 
You can't brute force your way thorugh dips to 40/50fps :p

I am on a 4090 and that's the situation we see in areas of gameplay.

65% GPU utilisation during those moments are un-brute forceable simply because the GPU isn't being used beyond 65% of its potential in order to be able to brute force lol.
 
Last edited:
Such a shame about the performance as there's a fantastic game underneath it all. I tend to get most of my Star Wars fixes from the games these days as I feel that after Disney acquired the IP the oversaturation of it all has kind of killed my love for it.

By the by, I've just left it at epic settings, RT on, FSR2 quality and I'm trying my best to ignore the wild fluctuations in performance, which can be anywhere between 40-70 fps. 5120X1440, 3090, I9900k, 32gb ram. I tried arsing around with different levels of FSR, Low/High/Epic settings, RT off ad nauseum and it didn't really seem to make any real world difference either way, at least nothing tangible.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
I didn't like the first game because of too much platforming and too much tediousness. this one is actualy more fun, less platforming and combat is cooler.
Click to expand...

The reviews I saw seemed to say there was  more platforming in the second game.

I'd definitely recommend the first one to you again if you never finished it. The more annoying platforming was nearer the start where it's still teaching skills to you.

It's a great game.
 
mrk said:
You can't brute force your way thorugh dips to 40/50fps :p
Click to expand...
True, but when you were raised on games often running at 25fps because of PAL TVs or sometimes even below 20fps (Goldeneye, Banjo-Kazooie) you can put up with 40-50 FPS (especially with variable refresh rate technologies enabled)

Edit - Which isn't to excuse the release of the game, I would very much prefer to play it at locked 120fps like the first one
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: mrk
Hudzy said:
The reviews I saw seemed to say there was  more platforming in the second game.

I'd definitely recommend the first one to you again if you never finished it. The more annoying platforming was nearer the start where it's still teaching skills to you.

It's a great game.
Click to expand...
Which reviews! I watched one reviewer (forgot name, I just know the voice lol) who said it had less platforming but more technical wall running etc which was fine, it was the relentless wall climbing like Lara Croft or Uncharted that annoyed me about the first, and this new game has less of that than the first.
 
VincentHanna said:
True, but when you were raised on games often running at 25fps because of PAL TVs or sometimes even below 20fps (Goldeneye, Banjo-Kazooie) you can put up with 40-50 FPS (especially with variable refresh rate technologies enabled)

Edit - Which isn't to excuse the release of the game, I would very much prefer to play it at locked 120fps like the first one
Click to expand...

Wait a month or two and you will once mrk has done all the beta testing for you :D
 
mrk said:
Which reviews! I watched one reviewer (forgot name, I just know the voice lol) who said it had less platforming but more technical wall running etc which was fine, it was the relentless wall climbing like Lara Croft or Uncharted that annoyed me about the first, and this new game has less of that than the first.
Click to expand...

Gameranx comes to mind.

I have to agree there was a fair amount of wall climbing in the first one though.
 
mrk said:
Lol I'm only playing this a month to make use of the EA Pro 1.month sub and no more.
Click to expand...

Ooh. I forgot about that. I did want to try dead space also. Might be worth getting it to play both games if this one is any good. But I would have to watch a review and see if it is something I would want to play because I found the first one a bit boring. Not enjoyed a Star Wars game in like around 15 years I think.
 
VincentHanna said:
True, but when you were raised on games often running at 25fps because of PAL TVs or sometimes even below 20fps (Goldeneye, Banjo-Kazooie) you can put up with 40-50 FPS (especially with variable refresh rate technologies enabled)

Edit - Which isn't to excuse the release of the game, I would very much prefer to play it at locked 120fps like the first one
Click to expand...
vrr doesn’t help with inconsistent frame delivery and traversal stutter of which in this game is plenty.
Also when you are running fastest possible hardware for gaming you expect more than 40fps especially when not running maximum settings.
 
z10m said:
vrr doesn’t help with inconsistent frame delivery and traversal stutter of which in this game is plenty.
Also when you are running fastest possible hardware for gaming you expect more than 40fps especially when not running maximum settings.
Click to expand...
Yes of course.

I just meant, I can put up with it as the gameplay is good enough to persevere.

I don't play with the Afterburner/ruvatuner OSD enabled, but my TV has a built in frame rate display so I occasionally check it.

I know G-sync doesn't help with shader stutter and frame delivery but it still smooths out the big drops.
 
Darujhistan said:
And?
Click to expand...

You said it was broken, he said it works fine. Who to believe… oh maybe the fact it works perfectly for me is what I should believe. Also it cost me £40 from CD Keys for the EA app version.

So not broken and not £60. Was any part of your statement accurate, or are you just repeating the hyperbole? Do you have the game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom