Even though I play it on my old low end laptop, I still able to get a stable 60fps on medium settings at 1080p (Linux) and the game is still gorgeous looking probably looks better than most if not all UE5 games released in the past 3 years.
Even though I play it on my old low end laptop, I still able to get a stable 60fps on medium settings at 1080p (Linux) and the game is still gorgeous looking probably looks better than most if not all UE5 games released in the past 3 years.
I can’t agree with you on this one. Sometimes, I think this is the kind of detail that benefits other games : the assets are there and can be reused, in other forms.
Plus, sometimes it’s better to make one great game than a plethora of good games.
RDR2 wasn’t my cup of tea but I have nothing bad to say about this game. It was a masterpiece, in all aspects and in all comes down, at the end, to the attention given to trivial things such as horse testicles.
It cost $540m in just development costs! Skyrim, for example (from what I found online) cost $40-50m. That’s 10.8-13.5 Skyrims. Halo 2 was $40m, and it was big at the time. The Witcher 3 cost $81m in total, not just development. Ghost of Tsushima (which is modern, so surprisingly low, but still not small) was $60m.
Yeah, no way in hell do I think RDR2 was worth it. I’m fine with some large games being made, but this is ridiculous. It’s why the industry is in such a rough spot. They’re putting ridiculous money behind singular projects instead of spreading out risk while also making more unique games. These massive games can’t take risks, because the budgets are too massive. That’s why they’ve all become so bland.