Wow. People giving bad review because of performance.

[Falcon]

I don't get it. The game gives you a free benchmark tool before you buy it. It gave a beta testing for people to try. Why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly. I agree the game is not optimized, so for now i did not buy it. But i was well informed. I'm not going to buy the game then complain about performance when they gave me the tools to try it before i spent money.
Now if the game benchmark ran it perfect for you and the game did not that is fear enough. But for the rest why buy a game that everybody knows you need a high end computer before you even try the FREE benchmark tool. Crazy.

The benchmark tool max players was 16,726.
7,069 in the last 24 hours. More people need to test.
Edit
I have a high end computer but use 4k. I refuse to use frame generation. I decided not to get it. But the amount of players in the last 24 hours playing it compared to the benchmark tool is staggering. I'm not sticking up for the company. They are not getting my money but everybody should at least use the free tool before they buy this game.

[Zoopy]

Originally posted by Falcon:

I clearly said why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly then complain about it. Whats wrong with saying that? Test before you buy. If your test is good then it was bad after you buy it of coarse complain. If the game is bad leave a bad review. I'm talking about performance.

People are allowed to leave a bad review for whatever reason they want. If you think it's unfair, then report the review and see if Steam removes it.

But complaining about negative reviews in the forum is just a very weird look. The devs will survive negative reviews, and so will you.

Using the benchmark tool beforehand or not doesn't change the fact that the performance is unnacceptable and any negative review about the performance is perfectly legit.

[Petersona]

Originally posted by Falcon:

Originally posted by Elric of Swoleniboné:

"Wow! People leaving bad reviews for a totally legit reason."

Who could have EVER imagined?

I clearly said why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly then complain about it. Whats wrong with saying that? Test before you buy. If your test is good then it was bad after you buy it of coarse complain. If the game is bad leave a bad review. I'm talking about performance.

The problem is people are getting worse performance than the beta and benchmarks. Somehow optimization got worse.

I mean, it's Capcom so it isn't surprising. Their PC ports are ass. I'm replaying RE6 and somehow that's got worse performance than RE2R.

[ShiroPirro]

Originally posted by Riukensei:

Originally posted by Sex:

I miss the days when I could just plop the disc in / install the game and it just.... worked

I basically did that with this game, People are lying and misrepresenting the issues here. Walmart laptops for 200 bucks can't run this game. Anyone who built an actual PC from 800+ can run this game, anyone at 2000+ can run this game on Ultra (Maybe cheaper if you know what you are doing).

My average ass PC can run this at Ultra. If you are worse off then me, you either suck at properly spending money, or you shouldn't be online and need to get a job.

No, stop talking and stop saying this crap. Having a top end PC and being okay with the bare minimum of 60 fps or lower is unacceptable. Stop acting like you should have to spend 2-3k on a pc to barely get above 60 fps and thats okay. Spending that much on a pc should mean you are being granted EXTRA performance not the bare minimum and Im sick of people acting like people are trying to play on a chromebook when thats not even remotely the case. The game looks like hot garbage if you lower ANY settings at all to improve performance. This game doesnt even slightly warrant its god awful optimization and before you even try to talk I 100% have a better pc than you and still find this game unacceptable. I bought a 14900k and a 7900xtx to play games at what my monitors allow for frames, not 70-90 fps without 4k on poorly optimized garbage.

[exiledangel420]

I held off on buying it for pc till I seen how it performed. Runs beautifully on the ps5, you'd think if they got it right for the ps5 they could get it right for the pc, I have a somewhat high end pc, proably would handle the game just fine. but will wait till either they fix there game on pc version or I won't buy it. I have 4080 super, 98137 Mb ddr 5 5600 ram, and intel i9 14900kf 24 core version. 70$ is too much for a game that hasn't optimized it's graphics for pc.

[codemasterv]

People are giving this a bad review because of the gay ♥♥♥♥ in the game.

[Elim Garak]

The optimisation is pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bad. Benchmark tool or not, this kind of release is just unacceptable. Good rigs getting frame drops and pop ins constantly on lower settings? Ridiculous. The DRM sure isn't helping either, it's getting cracked in a month or two. Pretty much every cutscene looked like a PS2 game at some point. If that's the best they can do running moderate settings on a 3080? McDonald's is always hiring. Game optimisation has gone down the drain the last few years. It's not a hardware problem.

[Roland's 2nd]

Originally posted by RubyCante:

because the benchmark tool is a lie, it's padded with 80% cutscene vs the horrible fps in gameplay especially in open field

Benchmarks. Always. Lie.

Take any game that comes with one bundled with it, Like Borderlands 3, Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, Dying Light 2, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Watch Dogs Legion, even ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Hitman.
Every single one of them tells you different numbers in it than what you will experience while playing the game. And those aren't even separate and are bundled with the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ updates the game has!

If you believe benchmarks, you have no experience with gaming outside of Final Fantasy. (FFXIV is one of the very few games with well made benchmark tools)

[ShadowDrakken]

Yeah I can't imagine why people would complain about such a well optimized launch

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3435740504
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3435740576
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3435740678
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3435740547

[United_Strafes]

Imagine people wanting a quality game for their $70 at launch, what entitlement.

[Budoshi]

i cant argue with that. at best wait for couples of patch before buying, THAt would send a better MSG then buy and post a bad review, you in the end still buying the product.

[Oonue]

Originally posted by Falcon:

Originally posted by D E T T E R:

i can understand the people. I was able to play the beta without any problems, but now when i manage to get the game running, 90% of the environment are missing

Thats fear enough. If your getting different results you cant argue with that. I just dont think overall enough people are using the tool.

5800x3d
4070 Super
Samsung 990 Pro
64GB DDR4 CL16 ram

Played the open beta, it ran OK but not great with medium to high settings on 1440 with frame gen off.
Did the benchmark before buying, got a score of 25449 with an average of 74.58 fps at 1440 high, frame gen and upscaling disabled.
Retail launch I was getting drops under 60 and stutters during the first fight on low settings with DLSS and frame gen enabled on the February 27th Nvidia drivers.

Something in the released game is tanking framerate on certain machines.

[Gigadesu!]

Originally posted by DryFer:

What did you expect when they add frame gen as a requirement when it should be for low end PC only, mid range PC cannot even reach 30 FPS

That should seriously be against steams TOS to even put frame gen in the recommended specs.

[BurntOutBulb]

Originally posted by Riukensei:

Originally posted by Sex:

I miss the days when I could just plop the disc in / install the game and it just.... worked

I basically did that with this game, People are lying and misrepresenting the issues here. Walmart laptops for 200 bucks can't run this game. Anyone who built an actual PC from 800+ can run this game, anyone at 2000+ can run this game on Ultra (Maybe cheaper if you know what you are doing).

My average ass PC can run this at Ultra. If you are worse off then me, you either suck at properly spending money, or you shouldn't be online and need to get a job.

Love your constant whale falecy. "I'm not experiencing it so clearly it's on them." Nah the game is bloated and runs like ass. Stop D riding crapcom.

[illage2]

Originally posted by Falcon:

I don't get it. The game gives you a free benchmark tool before you buy it. It gave a beta testing for people to try. Why would you buy a game if the benchmark tool ran it poorly. I agree the game is not optimized, so for now i did not buy it. But i was well informed. I'm not going to buy the game then complain about performance when they gave me the tools to try it before i spent money.
Now if the game benchmark ran it perfect for you and the game did not that is fear enough. But for the rest why buy a game that everybody knows you need a high end computer before you even try the FREE benchmark tool. Crazy.

The benchmark tool max players was 16,726.
7,069 in the last 24 hours. More people need to test.
Edit
I have a high end computer but use 4k. I refuse to use frame generation. I decided not to get it. But the amount of players in the last 24 hours playing it compared to the benchmark tool is staggering. I'm not sticking up for the company. They are not getting my money but everybody should at least use the free tool before they buy this game.

The benchmark tool performs differently from the final release. It gives you an idea of how the game should run, but only within a specific section.

[Swole Diccus]

yea that happens when the game looks like ♥♥♥♥ and some how runs even worse then it looks.