90
submitted 1 day ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

I specifically held back getting this at launch due to early performance reviews. I still haven't picked it up because apparently all those same performance issues still exist or have gotten worse.

[-] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 21 hours ago

I've found if a game has performance issues at launch it's not going to get better later on, maybe slightly, but generally it's an issue that won't get fixed.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 hours ago

Btw, how's Cities Skylines 2 now?

[-] Ulrich@feddit.org 7 points 19 hours ago

I've not found that at all. Usually there are significant improvements in the following weeks/months. Recent examples are DOOM and SpiderMan II.

[-] apprehensively_human@lemmy.ca 7 points 19 hours ago

This is why we do not pre-order.

[-] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 18 hours ago

I mean among other reasons, yes. A lot of shady shit going down now like removing Denuvo for reviewers and then adding it back on launch day.

[-] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 18 hours ago

Not in my experience. I typically don't buy AAA titles, but more smaller or indie games. If they got performance issues at launch, and there are no crashes or they were fixed, performance is the next issue getting tackled.

Also these days there's really no excuse for buying and keeping games that aren't playable for you. There's zero reason to pre-order anyway, so just watch reviews when they release. Or test the game yourself and just refund in the refund window if it doesn't run properly. Check back after a few months (or years, depending on patience and/or size of backlog).

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I my experience, games with performance issues at launch end up not having performance issues after about a year, but everyone has already forgotten it because of the performance issues at launch.

[-] Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

ok.. why?

Edited: Almost none of the things mentioned are new for either the game or how Capcom in general has pretty much always operated.

The one plus side of this whole thing is that I was made aware I needed to clear my shader cache for the game so it runs better, and after checking in game it certainly does.

[-] Jontique@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The game moves on rails, doesn't encourage exploration, doesn't have any side content or freedom or sidequests until post-story..which also is lacking in content.

To make it better: the game runs terribly even on the latest hardware, matchmaking with friends is a hassle, confusing and doesn't have an online hub.. This is all a deviation from previous MH games, and some features from previous games just don’t exist in wilds.

The story and are combat fine, but the game just forces the story too much and doesn't give the player much freedom until it's finished.

Also denuvo.

[-] the_artic_one@programming.dev 1 points 18 hours ago

They added an online hub in the first major update but the rest is still true afaik.

[-] chunes@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

Judging by the reviews,

  • too easy
  • too short
  • too costly
  • bad performance
[-] apotheotic@beehaw.org 12 points 1 day ago

Apparently it crashes a bunch, doesn't boot at all, poorly optimised. So basically its slightly worse than the average AAA game in the modern era.

[-] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

I see a whole bunch of low effort negative reviews from Chinese players that seem to be hating on Capcom. Not sure if something triggered that.

But there are also a lot of player concerns that have basically just surfaced with about 4 months into the life of the game:

  • bad performance and optimization continues to plague the game
  • constant crashes for a lot of people
  • too little content, and people really don’t seem to like the slow release of new contents, and wonder why aren’t they just putting em all out at once (though many big titles are trying to go for a cadenced content release cycle to keep people interested in the game, and it’s always a bit of a debate on whether that’s good or not)
  • story is too low effort (but MH has never really been a story-centric game; and imo the story in Wilds seem to contradict with the gameplay itself: talks about the cycle of life and the ecosystem around it, but here we are just hunting everything down)
  • the monsters are too easy
  • older players of the MH series find that the game has made itself too easy and not punishing enough: rare items are easy to get so there’s no satisfaction to be found there, builds are too shallow, etc
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
90 points (98.9% liked)

PC Gaming

11458 readers
197 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS