Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It's about the comparison to an ideal optimization. Not the comparison to Red Dead 2 in particular.
so again, wait 6 years and then compare?
His point still stands. Its badly optimised. We shouldn't have to wait 6 years as you suggest.
Sorry, you don't get this post and I don't think you even make an effort to do so.
The 6 years are irrelevant.
The game is badly optimised. Who cares how long it took Rockstar to fix their stuff. It doesnt make it ok that this game runs like poop for A LOT of people.
You can try to compensate for dumb. But most times it's not worth it.