Supposedly that's why it does things this way, right? Instead of the very long compile up front they do a smaller one up front and then run it in the background.
They seem to imply that because the game is heavy by default this is what's causing people's performance issues. I don't know that I agree, but there's probably part of it.
Yeah, the process will be different depending on CPU, so I'm assuming 15 min is the upper bound they're expecting on the minimum supported spec or whatever.
My experience with it has been solid, but I do run high end hardware that is muscling past a lot of stuff.
I think as usual there is some confusion between compilation stutters and the game just being very heavy for the way it looks (which it is). People online seem to be scattershot about it.
And then there's the people talking about it who don't care but like to be mad online, which is also a thing.
And then there's the weird dev that keeps mouthing off for no reason in ways that can't possibly help.
Lots of things on this one.
Still I don't think you're expected to idle for fifteen minutes. That's the point of the background compilation. You can still play more or less fine. Particularly on first boot the first fifteen of this should be a bunch of cutscenes anyway, and those lock at 30 (which I don't like at all and so many games do now for some reason).
I swear I have no idea why they let him talk. He doesn't even own the company, surely someone at 2K could just go... you know... shush.
I don't even think the BL4 thing is that bad, on the face of it. There is really no need to make it worse.
"We have been made aware of some performance issues in certain systems in our new release, we'll be looking into performance improvements in future patches". It's not that hard. At this point just copy/paste whatever the other thousand UE5 games said, go fix the wonky precompilation boot step and stop digging a hole.
Hell, it's even easier than that, because they have actually pretty much put that out. All he really needed to do was shut up about it.
The vast majority of people to be read as "a tiny fraction of players". It's just probably the players more likely to be part of the online community around the game or to play it consistently this long after release. I wouldn't be surprised if only a very, very small percentage of the twenty thousand people playing the game right now ever had installed any mods at all.
While I don't have hard data on this, I can tell you I've played the game since the Flash days and certainly never modded it for this reason or even considered it. Wiki page open onthe side just in case? Sure. Mods? Nope.
I don't have much to disagree with there, frankly. I mean, I like GoW 3 less than you do. I'd genuinely play the Ninja Theory DMC, if I'm honest, but at that point we're splitting hairs.
To be clear, I don't hate these games, I just don't like them much and generally don't play them on purpose. We're coming at it from different angles but meeting pretty much halfway.
They definitely moved towards... I'm gonna say better references later in the franchise.
Still, there's also a reason they moved to a whole different genre.
GoW's core combat premise is that you have absurd range and can deal damage in a wide arc. It was REALLY hard to tighten that all the way via iteration while keeping the way the game plays.
GoW 3 was a huge step above its predecessors in setting up big standout setpieces, and it played... I'm gonna say "better", but it was still limited by the core framework of the series so far, and my argument is that framework was fundamentally flawed.
I don't particularly love the floaty, sloppy "just put some damage in this 180 degree arc" basis of the combat system much. I am also not at all on board with most of the early teenage edgelord narrative stuff in there. Maybe I was a bit too old by the time these came out.
The Harryhausen references are neat and some of the boss fights are cool set pieces that did set some of the groundwork for later AAA action games, but I would much rather spend time in the more expressive, free-flowing Devil May Cry side of things if I'm going for snappy, precise combat... or all the way into Musou slop, I suppose, although I'm not much into that, either.
Frankly, I don't think any of the originals are particularly good, and I was done with the new one just before the first one was over. They aren't terrible, but I've always found the praise and hype for the series entirely disproportionate to the content.
Yeah, I'm gonna say this person doesn't hate to keep knocking on Veilguard, because that seems to be the one example they can bring up. I mean, there's a cursory name check of Dawntrail, but otherwise... yeah, not sure what games this is talking about other than Dragon Age.
Clair Obscur didn't do that. It went to absolute pains to not do that, in fact, to the point where I find the deceptive twist-building a bit over the top, in retrospect. I wouldn't accuse the CDPR games of going that route. Baldur's Gate does overexplain often, but in their defense the game has a million characters, plot points you go through out of order and a runtime in the hundreds of hours, so I wouldn't change that.
What else is even doing this? I feel like we're back in "AAA sucks" territory where AAA stands in for "this one game I didn't like". Writing in games runs the gamut. I would struggle to find a single defining thing to praise or criticise across the board.
I'm struggling with this question, because these days I almost do that backwards. I will get a game and ask "what's the device I'd like to use for this"?
I mean, I've been playing a fair amount of Monster Train 2. I have no interest in sitting at a desk for that, or to put it up on a massive screen. Been playing a bunch of Tetris the Grand Master, which is not a great fit for a heavy handheld. Donkey Kong Bananza? Mostly TV, felt off on the handheld screen.
I think when you go back to emulation there's a bunch of games that are deceptively better on the go. That was the Switch's original party tirck, right? Hey, turns out Mario 64's short star runs are a great fit for sitting on the toilet. Who knew? Random JRPG being played one-handed on a tiny Android device? Surprisingly decent.
But at this point software is just this weird blob, I just pick a controller/device combo that fits for each game.
Hey, I'm all for creating a public online payment processor. An international one, even.
I'm not even pulling any punches. There are no reasons to leave this in private hands.
But this reeks of people being mad at the thing they know and feel have some influence with instead of with the actual problem, and it's a bummer because it encapsulates Internet outrage and why it's so often ineffectual.
Valve works with the same handful of payment providers everybody else does. Literally everybody else. I don't have a stance on how feasible it is to handle your own payment processing, but claiming that any company on the planet is negligent for not doing so is insane.
I am all on board for taking regulatory action against anticompetitive practices in this space from the oligopolistic few companies available in it.
My educated guess is that seems too remote for you to feel righteous by being angry at someone specific so we're talking about Valve instead.
Hell, I'm all for taking regulatory action against Valve for their own monopolistic practices. I'm just not here to posture ineffectual anger.
I'm not gonna tell you this is impossible to set up for a worldwide online company because unlike the OP I have no problem acknowledging that I don't know enough about something to understand how hard it is.
I will tell you that it's absurd to propose that by working with the three biggest payment processors in the world, covering a huge share of all online payments, Steam has somehow been negligent.
That doesn't follow even a little bit. It's an absolute non-sequitur. It's someone trying very hard to be mad at somebody they know for a thing they don't fully understand.