It does to me, because it’s an example of a game released with an rtx3080 as a recommendation and it looks like shit. It’s a representation of a broader industry trend where the moment a game is capable of running on a GPU costing $600 they shove it out the door.
It runs like shit even on the 3080 and also doesn’t actually look any better raising quality from low to high, so for this one I think it was less using high specs as crutch and more just throwing some random specs out and shipping whatever they had by the deadline.
Some of the textures get progressively lower quality the higher you raise the quality settings lol.
Developers want time and don’t get me wrong CS1 has been out for what 7 years now and it’s been a great 4-5 years since I’ve played it, but the publisher Paradox was shoving out pretty mediocre DLC until May knowing the engine that CS1 was built on was not robust enough to support the features CS2 was trying to bring to the table.
Paradox wanted a money grab from their extremely loyal fanbase and in return didn’t put enough resources or forced a hard deadline on the devs for October. The only thing they couldn’t do was push for the Console release because Xbox and Sony mandated a 60FPS minimum at 1080p and even a 3080 although advertised couldn’t push that out.
Not them but it seems that they don’t list a specific target res and framerate anymore, at least for the public facing documentation. They only mention that the game shouldn’t have any major frame drops which I’d assume would be a bit difficult with this game.
Xbox Quality Standards: Games on Xbox consoles must function correctly across game modes in a variety of scenarios to meet player needs.
Title Integrity: Users must be able to complete all game modes and the title must provide a consistently playable experience for players. A playable experience varies per title, but generally means no severe drops in frame rate, no freezes, impasses, bugs causing major progression hindrances, or graphical corruptions.
It does to me, because it’s an example of a game released with an rtx3080 as a recommendation and it looks like shit. It’s a representation of a broader industry trend where the moment a game is capable of running on a GPU costing $600 they shove it out the door.
It’s downright wasteful.
It runs like shit even on the 3080 and also doesn’t actually look any better raising quality from low to high, so for this one I think it was less using high specs as crutch and more just throwing some random specs out and shipping whatever they had by the deadline.
Some of the textures get progressively lower quality the higher you raise the quality settings lol.
Developers want time and don’t get me wrong CS1 has been out for what 7 years now and it’s been a great 4-5 years since I’ve played it, but the publisher Paradox was shoving out pretty mediocre DLC until May knowing the engine that CS1 was built on was not robust enough to support the features CS2 was trying to bring to the table.
Paradox wanted a money grab from their extremely loyal fanbase and in return didn’t put enough resources or forced a hard deadline on the devs for October. The only thing they couldn’t do was push for the Console release because Xbox and Sony mandated a 60FPS minimum at 1080p and even a 3080 although advertised couldn’t push that out.
I know this is a good news but would you mind sharing the source of fhd resolution with 60fps mandatory for current generation console?
Im pretty sure that there already are consoles games that fail to maintain that numbers anyway
Gotham Knights, Redfall and Starfield all shipped with 30fps caps only.
Not them but it seems that they don’t list a specific target res and framerate anymore, at least for the public facing documentation. They only mention that the game shouldn’t have any major frame drops which I’d assume would be a bit difficult with this game.