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 really can't wait for any users constantly crying about optimization to learn software development, specialize in optimizing programs and along way get a handle on how it's way more complicated than just being able to utter an overused five syllable word and not a magical process developers are just ignoring because they're lazy or stupid.
Of course the number of users constantly fussing over optimization will always exponentially grow beyond any who actual learn what it entails and how sometimes the cost and time involved just isn't worth the benefits users imagine. And short of cutting content, features, systems and completely re-writing the game there's not always endless performance to gain by "optimizing".
Sometimes programs are just more demanding than a user assumes and sometimes user assumptions are just wrong. And this isn't some kind of new thing either, I think people are fond of remembering stellar past examples throughout history and they forget how the other 90% of games were nothing special performance-wise.
That's not to say software is ever perfectly tuned. But I am saying it's a lot easier to win the Super Bowl from the comfort of your favorite chair than it is to be on the field doing the work.
No more needing of hiring experience devs, let AI do most of the work, and ship game without testing. 10/10 would do it again.
Thats why smart pc gamers seldom ever by AAA stuff on launch day. They wait an extra week or month which is usually enough time to see what the actual non shill feedback is.
This type of gaming release is common place today, Since even consoles have such a short life span 4 or 5 years, and Pc hardware is quickly outdating existing operating systems.
its no suprise that quick release games for a money grab happened.
we have choosen 1000's of low quality games over quality gems, also keep in mind that steam makes more money selling 2 or 5 dollar games then they make selling top of the line grade A games that most people can't afford pc's to run right.
Do yourself a favor and start exploring more AA and indie developers.
The gaming world has so much more to offer, it's certainly not going downhill.
And rest assured this has been going on for a long time. NES games are littered with bugs if you know where to look.
The simple truth is the bigger the advertising blitz around it, the less flexible that release date os. It gets even more complicated when you realise that release dates aren't plucked from a hat. They're usually positioned quite deliberately and when you also factor in that a change in the release date of one game can impact the release date of another project.. yeah..
Things are complicated.
Quick? given the development time of these games...yeah.. quick isn't the term i'd use.
Because it's not like quality in the context of entertainment is predominantly a subjective metric unique to each individual and people just don't like the games you consider gems.
This is true. but only because there are so many of them in that category. AAA games make up a very small percentage of the game releases in any given year. at best they count for 10%.
This has always been the case.
Pretty much. I mean if you only look at the AAA space. yeah. it's a mess. but if you look at the rest of the gaming world. well.. there's always something fun new and interesting to try. Well done games with high production are not uncommon.
Look for good games, you;l,l find good games. Look for chjeap games and you'll find cheap games.
And yes, PC gaming has been going down hill for a loooong time now. Sad fact is that big companies only seek your money in the recent past it seems, and make it a point to bring you the worst possible product possible until you still buy it. Lowest possible effort.
Another sad fact is that since they seek to maximise their profits, they actually plan games for the lower end systems which are mobile or consoles. Then they scale up. This end up with both unoptimised games and games with no soul and/or complexity. I've personally been complaining about only having 3 buttons (after WASD) to use in almost every frigging game for well over a decade now.
I've just recently seen a video of a guy making a review of a gem of a game named X-Wing. Obviously the reviewer had no clue about most of what he was talking about but in the video he shared all the keyboard shortcuts which were required to be used in the game, which were shown in the manual (as was standard back then). There was so many it was incredible. That's exactly what I'd like to have again for real PC games. We have well over a hundred buttons on any normal keyboard with an almost infinite amount of possible combination... Add to this modern gaming mouses with sometimes over two digit new options... Every single time I play a game which has like 5 different actions bound to the "E" key and nothing is rebindable, I die a little more inside... -_-
I remember being attacked and ♥♥♥♥ on for pointing out how horriblely optimized a game called Stonehearth was optimized. I was told that it wasn't optimized badly and that it was just made for different hardware.
Hardware that was about 10 years old at the time of it's release.