Saying a game runs well is like saying a meal at a restaurant won't make you sick: it's the bare minimum, not a praiseworthy aspect.
2 weeks ago
| 167
Dynasty Warriors Origins not only looks gorgeous while still being optimized. I have never seen so many models on screen running at a flawless 120 fps. It helps that the game wasn't made with unreal engine.
2 weeks ago | 26
If I'm paying $70 for a game yes, it should run well in every single machine it releases
2 weeks ago | 71
The Game Is Supposed To Come Optimized. It used to be if a game came out broken they would just sit on shelves so we need to start boycotting games that aren't Optimized on release
2 weeks ago | 72
It has always been a metric. I remember how Sonic unleashed on the PS3 got badly reviewed not just because people didn't like the werehog, but also because the game ran poorly in certain day stages and lots of night stages.
2 weeks ago | 16
Sonic Racing CrossWorlds was actually surprisingly very well optimized while looking really pretty. Sonic Team pulled off the impossible using UE5
2 weeks ago | 4
It's infuriating to see so many devs release poorly optimized games (stutters, crashes, bugs...) and expect players to wait months for them to be fixed. This trend started in the mid 2010s. I remember when games didn't need a day one patch just to be playable.
2 weeks ago | 12
Remember when you just went to best buy and picked up a FINISHED game for 60 bucks? A game that, despite technical limitations, usually ran at a bare minimum of locked at 30fps? There were exceptions. And the game had to be INSANELY good to excuse 20fps gameplay. But you got the whole game. Even what we would call "DLC" today just came stock with the disc as unlockable content after finishing the game. We used to criticize mechanics, controls, sometimes graphics. Now it seems like all anyone has to say is "does it run at 10,000 fps at ultra settings on my $3,000 gaming PC that 99% of people can't afford?!?"
2 weeks ago
| 1
"Running games at a stable framerate is overrated." - Modern AAA *publishers probably Edit:- not the devs, the publishers.
2 weeks ago (edited) | 8
It depends on the definition of 'running well' to me. Some people expect 120fps at 4k and are unwilling to compromise on that. I'm happy if I can play it on a smooth framerate at all, and then the cost of the hardware I'm on matters too. I ran Deep Rock Galactic on an Intel N100 on low settings, and most people would turn their nose up at it, but I was just happy my $120 PC could play the game.
2 weeks ago | 1
We need measurable standards of graphic fidelity that can be compared with performance. Also objective metrics for fairness of pricing and any extra monetization versus overall value provided to the customer. The industry will not regulate itself and will, in fact, lobby, petition, beg, borrow and steal to avoid being regulated at all costs, which is exactly why it needs to be done.
2 weeks ago | 0
I miss the days when games looked okay but we're enjoyable. I don't remember what their goal was exactly but I remember the guys that made Halo one had the right idea when it came to making a great game!
2 weeks ago | 0
At a minimum given today’s technology and costs for everything a game should be running super smoothly. Especially when opening the menu. The fact these games are bloated, tens to hundreds of gigs and poorly optimized show that companies either don’t care or aren’t good at their jobs.
2 weeks ago | 16
Anything involving the experience is reviewable, if the game stutters during cutscenes and such, that should be accounted for in the review as the stutter hinders the experience
2 weeks ago | 0
Its easy to break down. If you buy a hammer, and the head falls off every 5th swing, its a bad hammer and it should not have been released to the public. Is it usable? Sure, you could tape the head onto the hammer or something. But why would you ever buy a hammer from that company again, especially when you can get a used hammer for half the price that doesnt have that issue. Gamers need to start taking this approach with games. If a game comes out and its barely playable, stop buying games from that company. Do not give good faith to any company by default, they should be working to earn it, and working even harder to keep it. If they violate that trust, they shouldnt deserve your good will just because everyone else is just as bad. Consumers, as a whole, need some sort of moral code. Currently, we are perfectly fine with buying any shiny object because it appeals to us. Apple built their empire off the backs of outsourced slave labor, and sell their products at a markup that would probably give those slaves a year or more of stability, all so people get to be elitist and feel special about the products they own. There is no morality in that, only ignorance and greed
2 weeks ago | 7
12 reasons why the retro game market is booming (and why that's a good thing)
1 week ago | 0
Unfortunately thats a selling point now a days Most people do the bare minimum and expect to be priased Its sad
2 weeks ago | 2
It absolutely should be a thing, A game running well is the bare minimum and if the Studio didn't even bother with that? The quality of the product is usually similar in effort
2 weeks ago | 1
I think it's a fair metric for reviews. If I'm paying $70-120 for a game, then I expect it to run smoothly. Because that's a lot of money to part with, especially these days. It doesn't matter how great the game is. If I can't play it because the game runs at a jittery 15 FPS, then I will not praise it. It is up to the developers to make their game run well. There is no reason why a person running the game with say a 4090 should have performance issues. And someone like Randy Pitchford might tell the consumer to try making their own engine, but that is deflection. And they feel like they have a God given right to your money.
2 weeks ago | 3
Mr. Sujano
What are your thoughts about a game "running well" seemingly being a metric for reviews nowadays?
2 weeks ago | [YT] | 438