This is pretty normal behavior in response to any game published by an AAA studio.
Intel is trying to break into the home GPU market, and you’re surprised that they’re trying to make sure a game that has a lot of interest is able to be run on their GPU?
People who buy or recommend GPUs expect to be able to use them to run any software that relies upon a GPU. It’s already a bad look for Intel that this is a problem. The article says you can’t even launch the game at the moment.
Imagine if Word or Excel or Chrome failed to launch because of the GPU you had installed?
They always do. The main reason graphics drivers are so fucking huge is that they contain tons of game specific patches. Nvidia has what they call “game-ready” updates which are supposed to increase performance of popular games or patch specific bugs.
Why? They do that pretty much with every major release, especially for demanding titles. People tend to build PCs specifically for a specific game, so the major GPU vendors want to fill that high end need.
In terms of looks, I will say the rocky textures are pretty nice. Also they managed to map actors faces without getting that weird bugeye effect so many other games suffer from.
The character models seemed pretty simple for such a demanding game. I was hoping at least major characters would be a little more detailed. Then again, this was from watching a stream on my phone, so maybe it looks better in person.
Aside from looks, the voice acting I saw seemed a little odd. It could also just be a poor script, but it just didn’t seem all that great.
But overall, the game seemed pretty good, but not something I’m dying to run out and buy. I’ll have some more time this fall, so I’ll probably wait for a few patches to land.
This is pretty common. A graphic card company bragging it can now run X game. Cyberpunk did this. Doom eternal. Hell, I remember when Dishonored 2 from a few years ago was the highlight.
Remember back when triple AAA games were released and didn’t need to be patched immediately so you can play because the game devs actually decided to make a proper functioning game instead of going for greed?
I lived it and fucking NOPE so many broken games. Check out AVGN or any Games Done Quick glitch speed run for many examples.
Games had less moving parts back then so they seemed like they worked, until you find out that there were entire spells that didn’t work in Final Fantasy or how you can jump just right and enter a game breaking bug thay required a reset (SMB1 minus world). Or how uninstalling the game would uninstall Windows (Kohan? And Pools Of Radiance 2)
Plus now they can make patches in between the time they start pressing discs (gone gold) and release, hense the “day 1 patch”. Personally I’m glad games can be fixed post release although I would prefer it to be more complete/fix at launch than usual.
Yeah, a mix of both would be ideal. The fact that we’re surprised that Starfield and Baldur’s Gate 3 were solid on release is a problem, all AAA releases should have that level of quality at a minimum on release.
If games are consistently solid at release, I’d probably preorder like I used to. Now I wait and see because, more often than not, it’s a buggy mess the first few weeks.
I remember those days as having no Internet let alone high speed, I recall reading old ads for some PC games. So they don’t seem as great as you’re implying because at least the game will most likely be fixed with an accessible patch these days. You’d have to do a lot more work to get one before or completely wasted your money in rare cases.
Also usually publishers set the release date, though in this case I’m not sure if it was in house or not so may not be a point, though you called out developers so figured I’d add it in.
Dodaj komentarz