Games with poor optimization?

We're being fed all of this next-gen, and increased VRam talk and people (at least that) I know are starting to be left behind when it comes to playing the latest games.


Do you think companies are not doing a good job with optimization of graphics in games? or that there is an actual need to upgrade as frequently as we do.


My personal thoughts are, that there are a lot of easier ways to optimize certain games so that they are playable, there is an obvious need for upgrading from time to time because certain things get outdated...I know people with computers they bought last year, that are barely preforming this year.

I feel like the lack of optimization (when it occurs) also comes from the fact that there may be some business agreements preventing optimizations, I mean, how else to you force people into buying new GPU's, the phasing out helps them sell.

What are your thoughts?

 

If you ask me, it's that we've hit a point where increases in resolution (remember when 800x600 and 1024x768 were standard resolutions for years and now we're getting towards 4K displays slowly but surely) and the increase in graphical quality requires said amounts of VRAM and horsepower. There's a limit to how much optimization you can do without running into astronomical costs and going to bare metal. Speaking of going back to coding for bare metal, trust me, you don't really want to go back to the old days of games only working on a fixed amount of video cards because they were coded specifically for those card's architecture rather then going through an API like DX or OpenGL. Yes, there are some games that are poorly optimized, but I highly doubt there is a conspiracy out there. Look at ti from the perspective of a game developer, the more people can play your game, the more money you'll make. Why would go out of your way to lock your game to the highest hardware tier and prevent potential revenue. Gamers expect a certain amount of detail, but they also expect to be able to play them on a certain hardware range. Some games will be developed with the purpose of pushing the envelope of what you can achieve graphically, the first crysis is a good example of this, but there will also be a lot of games made to play on mid to high end hardware.

Upgrading your GPU every 2-3 years to be able to keep up with high settings in games is nothing new, I can't remember when that wasn't the case really.

Also, this quote is rather unclear if we don't know the specs:

I mean, my 2011 gaming desktop is still performing quite well, not running maxed graphics at 1920x1080, but definitely still capable of playing new games. i7-2600K/16 GB RAM/GTX570, it wasn't modest at the time, but neither was it top of the line and going 3 years without a GPU upgrade is pretty respectable.

Oh and a note of warning: this is likely to become a rather controversial topic prone to trolling and flaming. I will personally lock this thread to oblivion if the next warning (if trolling or flaming occurs) is ignored.

 

I am in no way hinting at a conspiracy or anything, I'm hinting at the point that you kind of verified here with the point about the first Crysis, some games are meant to push the envelope of what you can achieve graphically, that point leads straight into the conception that a person should upgrade if they'd like to achieve such a standard. Consider it an appeal to commodity at most

There were a couple different ones, but it's because of their processer focused approach to buying laptops.

 

The word is complacency or laziness.
I had not gamed since November last year and waited in earnest for one of the big releases this year in watchdogs.
However upon playing it I noticed poor code and stutters.
Graphically it was ok nothing leading edge but I soon realised that this game has not learned anything from the past and not pushed the boundaries.
Starting to think back when I got my first notebook gaming machine in 2011 some of the best games were released back then namely crysis and metro 2033.
Lots of games have since come and go but in no way should vram be an issue in today's games cause of patchdogs. If users are going to be upgrading to 4GB+ gpus then this feeds the poor coding by game developers and they maximise their $$ and so too do the hardware manufacturers.
At the end of the day gaming programmers have to look at themselves long and hard in the mirror and ask what does this product deliver?
Even from the reviews I have read of Wolfenstein and this is another big release for 2014 is a flop graphically speaking for 2014 standards and uses an engine from 3-5 years ago. And 40+GB textures is ridiculous.
Back to that word again - "complacency"

 

Basically any Ubisoft game.

 

I think you forgot EA as well...

and my favourite series as well... total war...

 

Nope, EA's not even close.

Sony Online Entertainment is also a master of pushing out buggy and unoptimized games. Also Bethesda, er, I mean "Bugthesda."

 

the last game I bought from ubisoft was from dust.... because of the activation policy and thankfully I have avoided a lot of that...

anyway, its been a long time I don't buy bugged games, such a lie I just bought EU4

this reminds me the worst game in terms of optimisation was Hearts of Iron 3, this... is unbeatable. Meaning that you can't actually finish a campaign on the first code, your pc will gag... and even on the last patch for the base game... it will still gag when reaching the war...

the only option? to buy the dlc that are actually patches.

 

Sorry baout the conspiracy theory comment, it was prompted by this, which I personally find unlikely.

My own guess as to why push the envelope is more to demonstrate graphical design skills or something similar rather than secret agreement with nVidia, AMD, etc.

If the people you know were too focused on CPu specs to get something with a GPU that was gaming capable, then I'd put that towards making an uninformed purchase decision more than anything else.

As for plain laziness toward coding the game, yup, that one I can definitely see as a common cause of bad optimizations. Another might be the range of hardware for which you code the game, making console like optimizations a no go (consoles having fixed hardware specs make for the possibility of better optimization). Large texture files is likely laziness combined with large hard drives making for lower compression of textures when they are stored on the drive.

 

I don't think that, in general, the state of game optimization has gone downhill. My late 2011 desktop (specs in sig) is still doing quite well. To be fair, most of what I play is released for PC only, and not a console port, but I've felt no need for an upgrade. Whereas in early 2006, when I had a mid-2003 computer that cost about the same as my current desktop, I was definitely noticing it not being able to keep up with all the latest titles (most notably Civilization IV, which was starved for main memory). There will always be examples of poorly-optimized games, but are there more now than usual? I don't think so.

I played EU4 with the release-to-manufacturing code (before any patches), and it was quite fine. You could argue balance points, but I didn't encounter a single outright bug. Or if I did, it was minor enough that it wasn't noticeable.

That is on Windows, however. I did hear that the Linux and Mac initial releases weren't quite as smooth. But the fact that it was released on the same day on Linux and Mac is in itself somewhat unusual.

EU4 also plays surprisingly well on my laptop, despite my 8600M GT with 256 MB of DDR2 VRAM being well below the official minimum of a GeForce 8800 (desktop) with 512 MB VRAM. I played for several hours last Saturday on my laptop without issues. Even the 8800 is pretty old by now (IIRC the desktop 8800 came out in late 2006), so I would not consider it to be a poorly optimized game.

Hearts of Iron 3, though, I did hear was pretty bad on its release. I didn't get it until For the Motherland plus a number of patches. At that point, I was able to play through a whole campaign, without performance issues (on my desktop, specs in sig - haven't tried that one on my laptop). As I understand it, it was really with Crusader Kings II that Paradox started releasing games with high quality and quite playable on release without any expansions, and, having played both CKII and EU4 without expansions, I'd have to agree they're pretty good that way. And at least in CK2 and EU4, the patches themselves keep coming even if you don't have the expansions, and it's only the new features that you won't get (and even some of them you get for free).

Hearts of Iron 3 is definitely my least favorite Paradox game, having played Vicky2, CK2, EU2, EU3, and EU4. I didn't have issues performance-wise, but there's way too little in the way of feedback to the player, and I basically feel powerless to change the course of the war once it starts. My game as Brazil was okay, since then I could manually move each army as I sought glory in South America, but as someone like the USSR, that's not at all feasible. It was mildly satisfying stopping Germany with a strict Stalin Line policy as the USSR, but it still felt like I couldn't do anything beyond hope my defences there were strong enough. Vicky2 could use some improvements in the UI feedback area, too (such as prices of goods over longer periods of time), but at least there you have some influence over the economy, and you aren't out of luck if you lose one war.

 

i agree, this is why nvidia has gameworks. basically, they already did the coding and all the developer has to do is more or less drag and drop a simulation. however, gameworks could be argued that its only optimized for nvidia hardware. i think nvidia and amd needs to get in an agreement and make an ide where effects from both nvidia and amd can be both featured. this way, the amd vs nvidia battle only happens on the hardware side as it should be.

 

even with the patches the base game will slow to a crawl, that is in HOI3

EU4 had several bugs, but with CK2 they implemented a new patch policy (thank god!) and now fixes and other stuff that are need are going to be incorporated in the base game not only on the DLC.

given that I don't own the historical character simulator that is CK2, though I will buy it one day, they say good things about it now.

 

Why give an advantage to the competitor? Business is business.... while I agree with you 100% in ideology, it's not realistic. Either side will take any advantage they can take period, be it software or hardware. Profit, that's why we get better hardware

 

Optimization is fine on multiplats as long as it's not some piece of trash made by ubisoft.

 

And more unoptimized gameworks pieces of trash by Ubisoft incoming: Ubisoft and NVIDIA Team Up On Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4 And More | techPowerUp

 

HAHA brilliant

 

Ubisoft is becoming a MAJOR contender in the gaming market right now.

 

It already was and still is a "major contender". Nothing has really changed in that sense as far as I know.

 

You're right.