AC: Unity works well!
AC: Unity works well!
This response addresses the original discussion in a more measured tone. It clarifies technical points about performance and encourages constructive dialogue. The author emphasizes that game optimization varies by settings and hardware, and stresses the importance of separating facts from opinions. They also highlight personal experiences with bugs and express a desire to view games objectively rather than react emotionally.
Main reason for dissatisfaction is poor performance on AMD GPUs, I believe
It's been discussed often, but it looks like the issue might lie elsewhere. People still wonder if Nvidia shares responsibility, even though questions keep coming up about AMD and developer partnerships.
You might argue for the flaws in optimization because it highlights the importance of buyer awareness. The game doesn’t seem impressive, and its performance is poor, making any defense difficult. Sure, Crysis 3 needs a powerful machine for top settings, but that doesn’t excuse the lack of visual quality. Ignoring the reported problems so far isn’t helpful—many others have faced similar issues, pointing to weak quality control. It’s not worth defending a product with such shortcomings, especially when it feels like the company is trying to push a flawed offering. This situation resembles damage control, suggesting the developers were aware of the game’s issues and deliberately hid them. Any major company should be held accountable; defending their mistakes only serves to reinforce distrust.
My friend's experience with BF4 is really poor, especially at high settings and on consoles. It struggles even with medium and still feels like a lot of issues. They've made this game multiple times, yet it keeps breaking down.
Previously, I had the right to share my thoughts and support any game I choose—whether from CD Project, Bungie, EA or Ubisoft. My comments are based on my personal experience, not everyone's. What I’m saying is that you don’t automatically get only 27fps and a glitchy experience.
This is the reason: Not every1, i'd say not most of the people, can afford something that's a 690 or better gpu, so that's why everyone seems to be complaining, which is fine, it's dogshit that you can't play properly with a 770!. The problem is, that the gap is really big, you have a 10fps difference between low/mid/mid-high end and a high end gpu. Also, you can see that most gpu's below the gap, have 2 or 3gb vram, the only gpu over the gap with 3gb and 2gb are the 690 and the 780/780ti, which are high end, and some beast cards. So, basically, you won't notice much low fps if you bought the new 970/980 or old NVIDIA high end gpus. Also, the ONLY amd gpus over the gap are 290/290x.
This claim doesn't really persuade anyone and fails to support protecting big companies. Just as I could justify defending violent or harmful individuals based on personal belief, this argument still doesn't provide a solid reason for supporting such practices. It's like pretending the job of a PR team is justified simply because someone is trying to spin the message.