Optimization rating for games

[[#0]LePewDeLaPew]

Could we add an optimization rating by users for games? Maybe a bar below user reviews.
Think it would be really helpful to know and improve quality of games in the long run.

Lies of P, Hades 2 etc. for example run exeptionally well even on a gaming laptop and look great/have good frame rates without the fans ramping up to full speed. They are more than playable even in balanced mode.
I don't notice these things when gaming on my desktop.

It's just a weird feeling of dissatisfaction when a "non demanding game" uses up so many ressources unneccessarily and wastes performance.

What do you guys think?

[Hi Im Swat]

By users? No thanks. Reviews are already abused to show false information

[TBS AlexDK]

Originally posted by ShootyMcBoomBoom:

Could we add an optimization rating by users for games? Maybe a bar below user reviews.
Think it would be really helpful to know and improve quality of games in the long run.

Lies of P, Hades 2 etc. for example run exeptionally well even on a gaming laptop and look great/have good frame rates without the fans ramping up to full speed. They are more than playable even in balanced mode.
I don't notice these things when gaming on my desktop.

It's just a weird feeling of dissatisfaction when a "non demanding game" uses up so many ressources unneccessarily and wastes performance.

What do you guys think?

Way too many variables for it to be really useful, and people can already just say that it's badly optimized in the reviews

[pckirk]

Not possible, way too many setups of hardware to take into account, not to mention drivers and other software installed.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by ShootyMcBoomBoom:

It's just a weird feeling of dissatisfaction when a "non demanding game" uses up so many ressources unneccessarily and wastes performance.

What do you guys think?

I think that's entirely pointless, since people do not agree on waulity, optimisation, "demanding" and such.

I also think people should stop looking at stuff like RAM and CPU usage and go "it's wasted resources" when most of the time people don't actually understand what the ♥♥♥♥ they're talking about.

No, RAM being used is not "wasted", for example. Especially when you still have lots of GB RAM not in usage.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Not that there isnt an "optimization" problem, generally speaking, but my anecdotal observations are that many people buy low to midrange disposable gear and wonder why dey game dont run right.

There are exceptions, like the issues with UE5 and Intel recently.

Meanwhile, gear that is 10-15 years old that was top shelf when new can still hold its own today with an upgrade here or there.

[[#0]LePewDeLaPew]

Yeah, you guys are right. Always assume that people know what they are doing don't misuse things.

So, ladies and gentlemen at Valve:
You don't happen to have any data/statistics that provide the neccessary information? You factually have all the hardware and tools in house right?!

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Hi Im Swat:

By users? No thanks. Reviews are already abused to show false information

Doesn't help that most gamers have no clue what optimization means.

[[#0]LePewDeLaPew]

@Amsterdam:

Battlefield 6 - runs on a 1080 like a dream. Just how games are made. They left out RT.
Some games don't give you the choice to turn things off.

[CATCH PHRASE]

I actually like the idea of a user-based optimization rating. It would encourage differentiation from the quality of the game's designs and intentions.

Is it a good game? Do the rules make it fun?
Yes.

Does it run half as well as it should with denuvo throttling it?
No.

The only prospect downside is that you'll have deviation from the point in the form of people who just suck at the game, and while that's seldom more than maybe 5-10%, it's not unreasonable to say that a function-based parallel to review bombing would be dishonest or any kind of misrepresentation. Besides, that same proportion exists in reviews, anyway.

I do get that reviews pretty much already serve this function, but I like the particularity of it.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by ShootyMcBoomBoom:

@Amsterdam:

Battlefield 6 - runs on a 1080 like a dream. Just how games are made. They left out RT.
Some games don't give you the choice to turn things off.

That's when you refund the game, or not buy it in the first place.

[Ettanin]

Originally posted by ShootyMcBoomBoom:

So, ladies and gentlemen at Valve:
You don't happen to have any data/statistics that provide the neccessary information? You factually have all the hardware and tools in house right?!

Liability. To the customer:
Steam would have to offer much more loosened refund options if they overestimated the capabilities of your system setup, be it drivers, interfering software or just misjudged hardware.

Liability. To the publisher:
Steam would be liable for missed sales if they underestimated the capabilities of your system setup, be it outdated hardware lists, misjudging benchmark results or due to interfering software.

The system requirement info fields are form free text fields instead of static fields in which to add or select hardware components from.
Valve would have to have a perfectly written and ranked database in which components are compared and benchmarked, something no vendor, not even specialized sites that benchmark hardware, can provide accurately due to exotic outliers.

No, Valve wouldn't do that.

[[#0]LePewDeLaPew]

I don't really mind not having any RT. Happy when a game is fun, decent looking (which are subjective) and runs well (which is not subjective). 600watts high end graphics aren't that important to me.

[[#0]LePewDeLaPew]

Originally posted by Ettanin:

Steam would have to offer much more loosened refund options if they overestimated the capabilities of your system setup, be it drivers, interfering software or just misjudged hardware.

Liability. To the publisher:
Steam would be liable for missed sales if they underestimated the capabilities of your system setup, be it outdated hardware lists, misjudging benchmark results or due to interfering software.

The system requirement info fields are form free text fields instead of static fields in which to add or select hardware components from.
Valve would have to have a perfectly written and ranked database in which components are compared and benchmarked, something no vendor, not even specialized sites that benchmark hardware, can provide accurately due to exotic outliers.

No, Valve wouldn't do that.

You don't happen to know a solution that helps consumers detect and point out crappy programming on a large enough scale?

[[#0]LePewDeLaPew]

And giving credit to devs that do their work properly of course.

[Ettanin]

Originally posted by HO#Blacktail:

You don't happen to know a solution that helps consumers detect and point out crappy programming on a large enough scale?

It would involve illegal practices such as reverse engineering without access to the source code, not to mention that Valve would have to get access to the game itself as well (in contrast to just distribute the content the publishers commissioned Valve to do so), so no.

"The credit to great devs" is an Overwhelmingly Positive review score on their products.