Replace “wasn’t” with “is” and you’re correct. I still love XCOM 2, play it to this day. But it’s a buggy mess and sometimes it feels it’s just held together with software-ducttape and positive thoughts lmao.
Because people like us in the tactics genre really are used to incredibly buggy and laggy games. XCOM, anything made by paradox - all of that suffers from performance issues and gameplay bugs. It’s a bit like buying something from bethesda - you just expect those kinds of problems, which is why it doesn’t really influence our rating.
Also, it isn’t that big of a deal in a turn based tactics game to have all the animations be silky smooth or responsive like it is in games with real-time combat. The quality doesn’t directly affect the play experience for the most part.
A turn based game at 30 frames plays the same as it does at 60 or 120. It only doesn’t look as good. Can’t say the same for other genres.
That’s not really detrimental to a game this like though. Some pop in and occasional hitching isn’t going to cause a character death or a missed shot, it’s just mildly annoying. It’s definitely no kotor, but it’s fun as hell.
I would still say it’s worth buying at least from my personal experience. I’m still really enjoying the game despite the performance but it’s probably heavily dependent on your system.
Can’t remember any particular performance problems with ET - it’s no more flickery than any other 2600 game, sound plays fine, screen changes when you fall in a hole are prompt, all that kind of thing. Now, utterly bizarre and unintuitive gameplay, yes; it has that in spades. Also quite unfinished, but Howard Scott Warshaw only got five weeks to develop it so I’m prepared to point the blame at Atari for that.
This game has absolutely horrendous performance problems.
It baffles me that people are rating this higher than games like KOTOR and Republic Commando.
Well the gameplay is very different, and maybe people like the way star wars feels when applied to XCOM type strategy games?
People are not looking at the performance in isolation when rating games.
Steam reviews for other games says otherwise. Plenty of games with reviews only on performance.
I guess because it’s new? Xcom has s big fan base too
And wasn’t xcom buggy as shit too? Lol
99% chance of no bug
99% chance to uninstall and never go back.
Replace “wasn’t” with “is” and you’re correct. I still love XCOM 2, play it to this day. But it’s a buggy mess and sometimes it feels it’s just held together with software-ducttape and positive thoughts lmao.
The carry unit mechanic still needs a mod to work properly, otherwise the carried unit’s position is only updated on the visuals, not mechanically.
It’s ass given how important it is.
Performance is a stinking mess but gameplay is a joy. It’s not XCOM but it’s great in its own right.
Because people like us in the tactics genre really are used to incredibly buggy and laggy games. XCOM, anything made by paradox - all of that suffers from performance issues and gameplay bugs. It’s a bit like buying something from bethesda - you just expect those kinds of problems, which is why it doesn’t really influence our rating.
Also, it isn’t that big of a deal in a turn based tactics game to have all the animations be silky smooth or responsive like it is in games with real-time combat. The quality doesn’t directly affect the play experience for the most part.
A turn based game at 30 frames plays the same as it does at 60 or 120. It only doesn’t look as good. Can’t say the same for other genres.
Can’t even play with your wookie in this game
Meh, i can tolerate shitty fps and even some stutter on turned based games. It’s not ideal but not as much of a deal breaker.
That’s not really detrimental to a game this like though. Some pop in and occasional hitching isn’t going to cause a character death or a missed shot, it’s just mildly annoying. It’s definitely no kotor, but it’s fun as hell.
I would still say it’s worth buying at least from my personal experience. I’m still really enjoying the game despite the performance but it’s probably heavily dependent on your system.
Not worth buying with how they have treated the dev team with these lay offs but it’s a perfectly reasonable game to pirate if one wants to play it.
Games having dodgy performance on release is effectively normal now.
It makes more sense to rate based on the gameplay otherwise 99% of releases would be 1 star.
But how likely is any optimisation going to be forthcoming if there’s no-one working on it?
I imagine that’s the difference the majority and all?
I expect the remainder are the department heads planning out the next game.
Now?
The first video game I ever l played was Pong.
Dodgy performance on release has always been the case. Would like to hear the tale of the Atari ET game?
Being able to remotely update games after release definitely lowered the bar for release considerably.
Im not saying there were no bugs before that, definitely not.
Can’t remember any particular performance problems with ET - it’s no more flickery than any other 2600 game, sound plays fine, screen changes when you fall in a hole are prompt, all that kind of thing. Now, utterly bizarre and unintuitive gameplay, yes; it has that in spades. Also quite unfinished, but Howard Scott Warshaw only got five weeks to develop it so I’m prepared to point the blame at Atari for that.
Like any good train wreck there are always many reasons why they happen.
performance is not everything