Seriously though, it would be nice if they did some sort of analysis on the game post this patch that screws with the game. It seems like people pay attention to them and hopefully they could light fires under asses.
Its a damn shame, the game is a lot of fun when it works. But performance isnt great from the get go, and when i moved onto the largest island it deteriorated to where it completely sucked the fun from the experience. It gets real bad flying around in fast jets too, i mean come on, thats one of the corner stones of the game. I've shelved it in hopes of a patch, maybe only hopes on console is a neo/scorpio update patch.
Agreed. Where are the chest-thumping sites like Kotaku when we actually need them? Can anyone on GAF make some contact with an editor at one of these sites? I'd love to see this issue hit one of the bigger media outlets.
I'm not sure what's going on with Avalanche nowadays. I used to love the hell out of them because of Just Cause 2. Heck even Mad Max (on PC) I still loved them for because it was optimized pretty well even though consoles seem to have suffered. JC3 just killed it for me, even though I know it was a new branch of Avalanche instead of the JC2 team.
A lot of noise was made here and other sites but it seems like the gaming press didn't shine a big enough spotlight on the major problems and Avalanche is happy it essentially got swept under the rug due to it releasing during the holiday season.
The PS3 version of Armored Core; For Answer had a very similar framerate problem introduced in a patch, but at least there was an unorthodox way to roll back to an earlier revision. It's sad hyperbole on gaming forum has deprived words like "unplayable" and "slideshow" of their impact, because what's shown in that video really is an unplayable slideshow.
Where did I say that? I simply said we already know it's busted; I don't see how you managed to twist that into it being the consumer's fault. It's a simple case of voting with your wallet.
We're on GAF-I would have thought most people either research their games before buying or if they buy on a whim they did it for a reason that would make them overlook things like graphics/frame rate (like big fans of the series).
OT - Anything coming out of Avalanche's studios should not get a free pass from now on; they have lost any faith that they have built up over the years.
If you're in the UK I'd report it to trading standards or citizens advice and see what they say. The law on digital goods is the same as physical ie they have to be fit for purchase and perform well enough to how they are described. From what I've seen, JC3 fails to do that. I'm sure other countries must have some other form of protection for consumers against goods that fail to perform as described. It's not on at all.
JC3 has been a broken POS since it launched and undersold accordingly.
Mad Max was also a broken POS that undersold, if Avalanche can't learn to optimise their games then I can't see any reason to give them more money when they release JC4.
Avalanche should remember we are in a climate where one bad game or even an underperforming game can cause a dev to get shut down.
I only played it for a few hours before I eventually got sick of how they forced you to do useless stuff to progress, but I can't really complain about how it ran on a 970 at 1440p tbh. It was a decent experience for me at least (i7 4790k / 970 / 16GB RAM setup back then).
Really the most disappointing sequel I played in the past year tbh. JC2 was so good, visually stunning and super fun.
Yeah the game really needs 16 gigs or better. I noticed it became far more playable after I added more ram. This was even before I upgraded to the 1070. I have no problems with performance after those two upgrades.