Fires continue to be put out by Naughty Dog and Iron Galaxy as they fix up The Last of Us, with a new patch landing with lots of fixes.
Available in v1.0.3 are these changes just for the Steam Deck:
- Fixed an issue where the native UI overlapped the ‘Look’ prompt.
- Fixed an issue where the DualSense™ motion sensor function may not register the player shaking the camera to fix the flashlight when prompted.
- [Left Behind] Increased the size of the Arcade’s mini-game button user interface.
Performance hasn't really been fixed up yet for Steam Deck, with it still pretty messy in lots of places and it's currently rated as Unsupported by Valve through Deck Verified. As Naughty Dog's Neil Druckmann said previously "Getting VERIFIED isn’t a priority. Optimization & stability (on the Steam Deck & other pc platforms) is!".
So eventually, once it's had more optimizations and fixes across the whole game, it might eventually be a reasonable experience on Steam Deck. At least on desktop Linux last I checked it worked reasonably well and this patch does include numerous crash bug fixes, texture problems and lots of other fixes.
You can buy it on Humble Store and Steam.
If you're playing it or attempting to, how has your experience been?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
14 comments
My guess is that Naughty Dog will lose or have already lost the window of zeitgeist to convert tv series fans to game fans. What tiny portion that may be will probably not wait to play this and move on to whatever the hip new thing may be. Most people I’ve discussed the topic with really don’t play games and only watched the show, another small portion have only played the game 10 years ago (and most have no incentive to return) and the rest have never played or watched the show.
The more you fumble a release the odds are that no one cares about the game that’s known for enticing cutscenes and okay game play. Those who will pick it up are going to be die hards (honestly never met anyone jazzed about the series) or casually interested who manage a back log.
> As Naughty Dog's Neil Druckmann said previously "Getting VERIFIED isn’t a priority. Optimization & stability (on the Steam Deck & other pc platforms) is!".
Sorry Druckmann but that’s pretty much the same thing.
Last edited by itscalledreality on 15 April 2023 at 6:40 pm UTC
The more you fumble a release the odds are that no one cares about the game that’s known for enticing cutscenes and okay game play. Those who will pick it up are going to be die hards (honestly never met anyone jazzed about the series) or casually interested who manage a back log.
> As Naughty Dog's Neil Druckmann said previously "Getting VERIFIED isn’t a priority. Optimization & stability (on the Steam Deck & other pc platforms) is!".
Sorry Druckmann but that’s pretty much the same thing.
Last edited by itscalledreality on 15 April 2023 at 6:40 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
rustigsmed Apr 16, 2023
Don't give these fools your money. How many years did they have to get the launch right?
4 Likes, Who?
> As Naughty Dog's Neil Druckmann said previously "Getting VERIFIED isn’t a priority. Optimization & stability (on the Steam Deck & other pc platforms) is!".
Food for thought Naughty Dog!
Do the optimisations and stability testing before release
7 Likes, Who?
Man, please stop suggesting that they improved this game. 5 patches and counting, and still constant 100% cpu usage, huge vram and ram numbers, crashes and stutters.. this port is still the worst..
1 Likes, Who?
Man, please stop suggesting that they improved this game. 5 patches and counting, and still constant 100% cpu usage, huge vram and ram numbers, crashes and stutters.. this port is still the worst..
100% CPU usage is not necessarily a bad thing, though.
I always compare it to workers: If you hired some workers, you do want them to work if there's still work to do. (Of course, it's not useful if they're just running in circles.)
Last edited by Eike on 16 April 2023 at 6:38 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Man, please stop suggesting that they improved this game. 5 patches and counting, and still constant 100% cpu usage, huge vram and ram numbers, crashes and stutters.. this port is still the worst..
100% CPU usage is not necessarily a bad thing, though.
I always compare it to workers: If you hired some workers, you do want them to work if there's still work to do. (Of course, it's not useful if they're just running in circles.)
It’s bad because there leaves no room for any process to use the CPU, not even itself. Your comparison would be closer to RAM usage.
0 Likes
Just announce a Bloodbourne port already! No one wants midgrade Naughty Dog games.
2 Likes, Who?
Man, please stop suggesting that they improved this game. 5 patches and counting, and still constant 100% cpu usage, huge vram and ram numbers, crashes and stutters.. this port is still the worst..
100% CPU usage is not necessarily a bad thing, though.
I always compare it to workers: If you hired some workers, you do want them to work if there's still work to do. (Of course, it's not useful if they're just running in circles.)
It’s bad because there leaves no room for any process to use the CPU, not even itself. Your comparison would be closer to RAM usage.
If there's enough useful stuff to compute, it should take 100% CPU. The alternative would be leaving CPU unused despite having calculations to do, and thus needlessly running too slow. If you don't agree, imagine a dual or even single core: The game must make full use of it. And if it's for enough to do for say 12 cores - still use what you need.
A bad thing would be using all resources just to run at 1000 fps. (Yes, I did see that, on a point and click.)
Last edited by Eike on 16 April 2023 at 7:37 pm UTC
0 Likes
If there's enough useful stuff to compute, it should take 100% CPU.Correct me if I'm wrong. My take is: If the frame rate is locked, there is a high probability that it should be < 100% load.
0 Likes
If the frame rate is locked to a value that your CPU can do without stress, yes, your right.If there's enough useful stuff to compute, it should take 100% CPU.Correct me if I'm wrong. My take is: If the frame rate is locked, there is a high probability that it should be < 100% load.
Modern games are usually GPU or CPU limited on a given system - or the system is strong enough on both ends to cope with what's asked for. But if it's CPU limited, CPU should be used 100%, if it's GPU limited the GPU. (Ideally. Especially for GPUs, 100% usage of all those different parts is probably hard to reach.)
0 Likes
Modern games are usually GPU or CPU limited on a given systemCan you have good frame timing if you hit the limit on the GPU/CPU?
0 Likes
Just announce a Bloodbourne port already! No one wants midgrade Naughty Dog games.
Monkey's paw: "Sure, Iron Galaxy is on the job!"
2 Likes, Who?
If a game uses the APIs correctly, it should not be highly CPU bound. Have a decent video card and you can still game on an older CPU. (any 3 GHZ+ 4 core CPU, pretty much... if not for gimmicky instructions that won't run on it)
GPU is a different story, you don't want that under utilized. It might be idle if it's got no work to do, but when it does, you want it engaged at 100%. That can hurt too, with clever drivers trying to save power.
When I first got an AMD R9 380 card, there was this clever power management with dynamic GPU frequency, as needed. This was on Windows, I only played a few old and open source games on linux back then. (and when I first got that card I had to use fglrx <insert barfing "emoji" here> )
Well, it caused some games to lag and hitch, because they weren't getting the GPU processing that they needed. I could have been in a closet inside a house in Fallout 4, and performance was horrible when I moved. I found a workaround in this (stupid) software that came with my MSI card that took over clocking profiles and somehow overrode with the old clock control behaviour. That caused the GPU to be back at 100% in those games. I was never so happy to load a piece of vendor shitware at startup :-)
Eventually AMD fixed that in the drivers, and it became optional, non default behavior. It was a long time ago, I forget what they called it.
GPU is a different story, you don't want that under utilized. It might be idle if it's got no work to do, but when it does, you want it engaged at 100%. That can hurt too, with clever drivers trying to save power.
When I first got an AMD R9 380 card, there was this clever power management with dynamic GPU frequency, as needed. This was on Windows, I only played a few old and open source games on linux back then. (and when I first got that card I had to use fglrx <insert barfing "emoji" here> )
Well, it caused some games to lag and hitch, because they weren't getting the GPU processing that they needed. I could have been in a closet inside a house in Fallout 4, and performance was horrible when I moved. I found a workaround in this (stupid) software that came with my MSI card that took over clocking profiles and somehow overrode with the old clock control behaviour. That caused the GPU to be back at 100% in those games. I was never so happy to load a piece of vendor shitware at startup :-)
Eventually AMD fixed that in the drivers, and it became optional, non default behavior. It was a long time ago, I forget what they called it.
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me