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 -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Weren't they specifically advertising for that? The criticism is valid if they were.

[–] hswolf@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Recommended is absolutely meant to be "the game runs well on this" not just it runs

[–] hswolf@lemmy.world 1 points 5 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 1 points 5 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.