From what I've heard this game has been an unmitigated disaster for a bunch of reasons. The lies about space/specs (apparently the full game takes up 90gb and can't be played on systems without 8gb of ram), the rumors of the devs paying for massive amount of positive reviews, and certain voice parts being altered (there's one part which, from what I've been told, has one of the voice logs saying "they look a complete mess" instead of "he looks a complete mess"). All of this, and the game has close to an 80% refund rate on steam right now.
Oh, it'd be way way higher if they allowed you to refund games post-2hrs of playtime. There's a giant bug near the ending which makes the game unbeatable, involving some sort of fetch quest (again, I don't really dabble with those games as I'd much rather spend $100 at the scrapyard than on something I'll play for 10hrs and get bored of).
Off-topic, but is that considered low-end or moderate now? I recently upgraded from 16 to 32, and again felt inadequate when I saw a friend's 64GB setup.
I think 16 GB has been the "standard" for a while for any gaming-related setup. Speaking as a hobbyist and not an expert, if your computer is mostly for gaming, I don't think you'd notice much improvement upgrading from 16 to 32, but I think you'd definitely notice if you went down to 8.
It's considered low-end. I've got a clunker of a laptop that's literally falling apart, and it's got 12 gigs of ram (an 8 and a 4 in sequence). It was high-end... 10 years ago.
That said, what do they need the additional ram for? Lazy programming? If it's a remake/remaster, the AI should be the same or similar, shouldn't it? So it can't be for running the calculations and predictions. Is it all hair physics?
I've noticed modern games requiring just absurd power and filesize both, whose game complexity, even graphical complexity, do not justify it. But they're just so sloppily programmed that they need the extra to compensate.
From what I've heard this game has been an unmitigated disaster for a bunch of reasons. The lies about space/specs (apparently the full game takes up 90gb and can't be played on systems without 8gb of ram), the rumors of the devs paying for massive amount of positive reviews, and certain voice parts being altered (there's one part which, from what I've been told, has one of the voice logs saying "they look a complete mess" instead of "he looks a complete mess"). All of this, and the game has close to an 80% refund rate on steam right now.
Well that's promising at least.
Oh, it'd be way way higher if they allowed you to refund games post-2hrs of playtime. There's a giant bug near the ending which makes the game unbeatable, involving some sort of fetch quest (again, I don't really dabble with those games as I'd much rather spend $100 at the scrapyard than on something I'll play for 10hrs and get bored of).
Off-topic, but is that considered low-end or moderate now? I recently upgraded from 16 to 32, and again felt inadequate when I saw a friend's 64GB setup.
I think 16 GB has been the "standard" for a while for any gaming-related setup. Speaking as a hobbyist and not an expert, if your computer is mostly for gaming, I don't think you'd notice much improvement upgrading from 16 to 32, but I think you'd definitely notice if you went down to 8.
It's considered low-end. I've got a clunker of a laptop that's literally falling apart, and it's got 12 gigs of ram (an 8 and a 4 in sequence). It was high-end... 10 years ago.
That said, what do they need the additional ram for? Lazy programming? If it's a remake/remaster, the AI should be the same or similar, shouldn't it? So it can't be for running the calculations and predictions. Is it all hair physics?
I've noticed modern games requiring just absurd power and filesize both, whose game complexity, even graphical complexity, do not justify it. But they're just so sloppily programmed that they need the extra to compensate.