This was a genuine concern to me before my switch. I game a lot and this was a main thing keeping me back.
I eventually decided, well I’ll at least dual boot and can just switch to Windows if I want to play a game there.
But that kinda turned out to be a pain in the ass. Things like Bluetooth devices would need to be switched each time (I know there are ways around this, don’t @ me), and more.
So… I just stopped using Windows to avoid that annoyance. And it turns out I don’t miss the games I could only play on Windows that much, because I haven’t booted into Windows in months. I’m fact I’m not really sure why I still have the partition.
Playing Hades 2 on desktop, Hollow Knight on deck, and Anno 117 is coming out in a month… Not to mention the five other games I added to my backlog this year and haven’t touched yet.
That doesn’t really seem to contradict the other person’s claim that much? In fact like your said if just a few other things are running on that person’s pc and eating some resources, their claim seems super believable in the context of what you just said so I’m not sure what your point is.
A reviewer/tester is going to be benchmarking in a best case scenario environment. Real people using their real computers will be experiencing a huge variety of other environments. Different temps, hardware settings, programs running, etc. None of that context excuses the performance, and makes that person’s performance claim believable.
Yes there’s a story, and it’s decent. At release you wouldn’t have even experienced the full story, iirc. So if that interests you, you could try it out again.
I will, respectfully, still disagree with that assertion. Just because Assassin’s Creed, Call of Duty, and the like are on their umpteenth entry, does not mean that no more unique and novel games are being made.