Glad I'm not the only one. I found it to be in poor taste, but I guess you have to satisfy people butthurt about Ubisoft. Apart from AC: Unity their PC versions are decent and have plenty of AA options.
Not like we cannot even manage to agree on whether there was an effective strike of ubisoft shit ports or not :c
If any though, I'm not sure most of people even know/care/wonder about it.
A good common test case for subjective-actually-not-so-subjective discussion could be my recent edit to ME2 page.
I totally see bogus might be a harsh word, but EVEN putting aside price (which we could even think as just another consequence of the main problem), it's batshit insane to sell points to buy stuff *limited* in a quantity that is not multiple of the amounts you can buy its packs.
We absolutely aren't here to criticize economy, monopoly, capitalism and all, but be it 1¢ or 100€, spending money to literally never see it go anywhere is a joke (and in my vocabulary, bogus was the best word that could sum up such a situation)
I would almost consider removing advantage and disadvantage keypoints, as always the users can make their own conclusions. When editing in particular I spend time pondering whether should mark a key point as a positive or information. This change could reduce the amount of low-effort positive points.
The distinction is important. Or at least this case make me think it is.
Trying to clumsy work backwards onto a definition then, and recalling this sharp observation.. I guess we are back to the point of "what people expect"?
In turn further leading: what is positively a surprise nowadays? Indeed, the more I think, the more I feel like we (and general public) are getting more and more pretending. Possibly even "being able to import music" is a complete given in any open-world game (or perhaps not, just making examples).
Modding for example is something that I could always see positive (of course to *impress* the user -that's the point in the end- you have to have a lot of stuff at stake, and that's why I guess for as much as anything BFBC2 not to completely qualify)
I see sociology (lol) might not be all that easy to find 0 and 1, but hey, we have forums to civilly discuss on purpose.
Because there are thousands of different PC configurations and even more variables, I think that performance and optimization can't be reliably rated. Perhaps link comprehensive benchmark tests in articles, that's it.
Mhh no. Because AGAIN as I was saying, if you have no damn your definition of what level of performance constitutes a shitty or optimized port.. What meaning can you give to numbers?
Said this, the only important variables I can think of when talking about performance are:
- CPU (that at most can be further specified into single-core or multi-core performance)
Of course in an ideal world developers would have already agreed decades ago on what constitutes a "minimum" or "recommended" experience.. But we are just left with keen people doing independent testing to quantify the thing.
Or professional reliable trustworthy 3rd party websites for all they matter. And then, once you have a value and you know which hardware "produced" it you can start to "weigh" just anything (for examples see low-end thread)
But I'll repeat: first and foremost you need a standard to "calibrate words".
I think steam hardware survey would be A-W-E-S-O-M-E to "set our minds".
After having a quick look, I guess like we could have an "average not-so-lucky joe" level (2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz dual core cpu, 4GB ram, *, 1024MB vram), a "really potato" level (my laptop spec -see other thread- or an even crappier eeepc fitting it).. And then of course a "lag-even-with-titan-sli" level I guess?
"Runs well on low-end hardware" key point is questionable, doesn't everything older than Crysis (2007), perhaps excluding F.E.A.R (2005, a "system hog" according to reviews), run on "everything"?
As I think I tried to point out multiple times, once you lower enough crysis details it's actually extremely lightweight.
If we have to talk about optimization though, this can't count though :p
You are more right on a problem though. Hardware evolves and goes on, while our temporally-specific judgments are fixed. And it's not like we can ask garbott to know slender details of every test and adjust them.
So, I'll drop my crazy idea:
- you benchmark or find a benchmark of a game
- you "normalize" requirements for playing, say, lowest setting or whatever "fine point" you deem valid
- we add to every game page a property like |true_cpu_req and |true_gpu_req
- we set wiki-wide specific values that when satisfied make note appear (possibly dropping them after game release date is too old of X years, or not)
But it's quite late and I guess I already talked WAY too much.
Thanks for reading.