• MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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

    • hswolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      thats was just a loud minority talking about super max setting with Raytracing and 4k

        • hswolf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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

            • hswolf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.