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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I have to admit that I'm biased. I started console gaming in 1978, having played pinball the previous seven years. I switched to the PC platform with the release of the first Tomb Raider, my last console having been unceremoniously thrown in the dumpster in 1991. The letters are worn off of my W, A, S, D, and E keys. KB/M feels more "natural" to me, and reassigning control elements is easier.
That matters for two reasons:
1. The Metacritic user score is skewed lower by the huge number of people who experienced major performance and stability issues with the DX 12 Windows Store release, and review bombed the QB Metacritic score. The Steam user score doesn't reflect this review bombing since the DX11 Steam version was released later and generally performs much better than the Windows Store version.
2. About the Metacritic Critic's score: this represents a group of people who went into the game blind and didn't know what to expect (i.e., the pro reviewers). The Steam user score is likely higher because, once again, the Steam release was delayed. That means that people who bought it on Steam had *already* had several months of reviews about the game coming out, and knew what they were getting into.
In other words, it has a mediocre critical score on Metacritic because basically every review was, "Decent shooter, weird TV show interpolated into it, weird story, performance issues (if it was a PC specific review." Consequentially, when it was released on Steam, everybody who actually purchased it on Steam was the sort of person who looked at that description in the critical reviews and said, "hey, that sounds like the kind of game I'd like anyway!" So they are the ones who bought and reviewed the game. Everyone who looked at the critical reviews and said, "Hey, this sounds bad" just never bought the game on Steam.
So, in short, the Steam review score represents a group of people who were already biased in favor of the game based on what they saw in early reviews, while the Metacritic critical score represents a more general and neutral group of gamers.
WITH THAT IN MIND
This game is a decent third-person shooter paired with a pretty good time travel story. If you're just wanting to shoot some dudes with a flashy, fun combat system, and don't care about it being super innovating or anything, this game is for you.
It is also quite demanding and you have to be wiling to compromise and leave upscaling ON unless you have top-end hardware like the GTX 1080 or better.
I've just finished it today and for what it's worth I have mixed feelings about it.
The shooting is good but I felt it was at odds with the story (which I rather enjoyed and which did a few things right).
I don't know if that will help you make a decision but my opinion is that you may enjoy it more than I did if you go in for the shooting (in which case you should increase the difficulty as most of the fights are just too easy on normal).
Still you should know that it's not a very long game and that including live action cutscenes it will probably take you around ten hours to complete.
Of course if you're in the game for the shooting alone the cutscenes will probably be a nuisance (the episodes can be skipped but the story won't make much sense without them).
The game is a bit broken if you use a keyboard and mouse, there is a very noticable amount of lag/ stutter when turning around. Apparently it's all nice and smooth with a gamepad controller but then how you get fast reflex head shots etc. Devs don't seem the slightest bit intreseted in fixing the issue. Google this game and lag/stutter to see hundreds of people with the issue.
I played Alan Wake for two evenings. Then abandoned it for having incredibly monotonous gameplay. While the story was good, gameplay pace was too slow for such "monotonouseness", so I have abandoned it. I still keep it installed since May. I try to force myself to come back to it for a good story. Even bought a steam controller with that in mind. But still haven't launched it again since May. That's almost half a year from now.
But from what I saw in the QB gameplay vids, combat is okay. Still not a Max Payne level, but okay.
Another concern I am starting to have is my hardware. My laptop is far from brand new, although I do play all new games no problem, this one is said to be having optimisation issues. And laptop is a laptop, despite i7, 12 gig ram, 3 gig GPU, and ssd drive, its still a laptop.
I'd be happy to play on low though, as ling as I get average of 30+ FPS on Full HD resolution with Anisotropic Filtering.
Alan Wake is a nearly 8 year old game, its recommend specs are lower than the minimum required for Quantum Break. OP, what specific GPU do you have? This game is mostly GPU bound, it's not that CPU heavy.
Eh, it's not the open world that really hits the GPU hard. The GPU only renders what's on the screen at any given time. Open worlds are going to be more demanding on the CPU, not the GPU. What hits the GPU is resolution, lighting, shading, and particle effects, and QB has very very advanced effects in that department, far more advanced than were possible in 2009 when AW came out.
I'm sure your laptop can run this fine, that's not what I was saying, I was saying that you can't make the claim that "it'll run QB if it runs Alan Wake" because that's definitely false.
CPU and RAM
GeForce GTX 960M