645
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
645 points (96.4% liked)
Games
32366 readers
1223 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I remember hearing even some high specced pcs were having issues and you had to essentially be lucky that you had a configuration that they had the time to optimise for. Just having the best gpu wasn't enough, for example
thats was just a loud minority talking about super max setting with Raytracing and 4k
Weren't they specifically advertising for that? The criticism is valid if they were.
Not that I remember, true that it didn't handle the last gen consoles, and that it was marketed as quite demanding
Sadly "minimum" or "recommended" just tells us the game runs, not that it runs well
Recommended is absolutely meant to be "the game runs well on this" not just it runs
The thing is what is the consensus of "runs well"? Is it a FPS constant? No glitches? Fast loads?
My point is, a game can come shitty and run a constant 30 fps under the "recommended" since that's what they thought was appropriate
Is a gray area that should be more descriptive, not sure why downvote me
I had a decent AMD card which ran it very well, but still had a bunch of artifacts like Judy's head blocking reflections for the whole lake.