But they were completely transparent about it before release. That’s more than you get from any other studio in the same position. Preordered it? You’ve been told for years to not preorder. At this point, you’re just an idiot.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
31 points (80.4% liked)
Paradox Games
1114 readers
5 users here now
A general community for everything by Paradox Interactive.
Rules:
1. Don't be an asshole.
2. Keep posts on-topic. ie. Posts have to be either about the company itself or games made/ published by Paradox.
3. No NSFW content.
4. No spamming.
5. No advertising.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As much as I hate the DLC bloat Paradox suffers in most games, goddamn do they do a lot of right listening to their base and being a generally good company. The CS community is so insanely well supported by the company, I honestly wish it was more prevalent (like R* !!!).
Ohh don't get me wrong, it's good that they are transparent about this. I know that if it was up to the devs, they probably would have loved to have more time for optimization before releasing the game. It's just sad that this is the state the game is being released in.
Cool they were transparent about releasing an unfinished game. But they still released an unfinished game. They could be transparent and then wait until it's finished before releasing.
Yeah, but then the internet, being a buncha toxic-ass shit patties it is, would complain about that, maybe not as much, granted, but there’s still going to be a shit-humping dork out there that so pissed off they start seeking emails to send death threats to. I know how you people act. Reddit, Twitter, Lemmy, all o’ ya’s.
Being transparent is good. The need to be transparent is bad.
and we don't see medium tested here by this outlet it looks like at least going up to the high settings basically makes the game almost unplayable
To quote a comment I made some hours back on the Fediverse:
https://lemmy.today/comment/2708891
Also: If there are graphics presets available, if there’s one that’s called “highest” or “max” then that should actually crank everything to the highest possible setting.
While I can understand where you’re coming from, one thing I wonder about – I think that a lot of people want to use the max setting and expect it to work. It’s not unreasonable for a developer to choose ranges such that a max setting doesn’t run reasonably on any current hardware, as doing that may provide for scalability on future hardware. Like, it’s easy for me to make a game that can scale up to future hardware – e.g. try to keep more textures loaded in VRAM than exists on any hardware today, or have shadow resolutions that simply cannot be computed by existing hardware in a reasonable amount of time. But maybe in five years, the hardware can handle it.
If a game developer has the highest-quality across-the-board quality setting not work on any existing system, then I think that you’re going to wind up with people who buy a fancy PC, choose the “max” setting, and then complain “this game isn’t optimized, as I bought expensive hardware and it runs poorly on Ultra/Max/whatever mode”.
But if the game developer doesn’t let the settings go higher, then they’re hamstringing people who might be using the software five or ten years down the line.
I think that one might need a “maximum reasonable on existing hardware” setting or something like that.
I’ve occasionally seen “Insane” with a recommendation that effectively means something like that, “this doesn’t run on any existing hardware well, but down the line, it might”. But I suspect that there are people who are still going to choose that setting and be unhappy if it doesn’t perform well.
Paradox have been known to not optimize their games
Oh, boy, I can't wait to buy a cryptofarm and server tower to run Stellaris 2 on.
City Planner Plays did a comprehensive set of benchmarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNiXYC9eoM