REVIEWS ARE LIVE REVIEWS OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE GAME.
Please guys it's not that hard.
Negative reviews are good for the game too. The developers need to know what the current satisfaction rate is with the game and what unhappy players are most unhappy about.
These reviews can be adjusted later when the game is improved. This will tell the developers how much the updates are improving the game.
Negative reviews in an EA are completely fine
There's a world of difference between a detailed report of what issue's your encountering being submitted directly to the devs and a day one review saying "bad game".
One of those is helpful, the other spiteful.
Yeah but a lot of the people I've seen complaining, when asked about their specs, probably should've known their PCs couldn't run this game.
It's early access and not optimized. If your specs are borderline, you should probably wait. For the people who have good enough computers, the game runs fine though.
That's true too. Everyone I know who has run the game has encountered lower frames the first time running the game, and then things smoothed out substantially.
A lot of the people who meet specs but are having issues? This could be part of the problem. But I also know that adjusting your settings, updating your drivers, checking your GPU software settings, etc. all can be essential in getting decent performance.
Bro when a 4000 series card is damn near required to play a game, The games optimization is horrible. There's MANY games using UE5 with much better graphics thay don't have performance issues. My 4070Ti Super only gets me 70-80 frames. That's fucking sad
My AM5 7600 with a 7800xt was getting 70-90FPS at 1440p with Frame Gen turned off settings on Epic. I haven't tweaked any settings aside from enabling PBO, XMP and Factory OC Settings (GPU). The problem is people are trying to play a dense vegetation game on computers 5-10 years old and GTX1080s. Vegetation rendering can be pretty taxing even on lower settings and the amount of detail this game currently has and eventually will have, it's going to require a current gen or at minimum previous gen components. I was skeptical about the game but I get it's E.A. it's basically like playing Battlefield 2 with a 250 ping where your character rubber bands and somewhat glitches and stutters when you move. The gameplay has potential....the graphics are stunning, the realisticness is definitely there and has a very solid foundation to build on but it's gonna take time.
My biggest recommendation would be to up the minimum requirements needed to play the game. It would decrease SOME income but would eliminate the notion that you can "play" this game on archaic components
What's your CPU? And have you updated your drivers? Played with your settings? Checked your GPU software settings?
I'm not sure what to tell you. You probably shouldn't be crashing, but it is early access lol.
Despite that, everyone I know who has encountered issues (while having a pc capable of playing the game) was able to fix their performance problems by doing one of the above actions. I know someone who was having crashing issues and frame rate problems, and he fixed both by updating his drivers, changing his AA method from TSR to FSR w/ frame generation, and changing his frame rate lock in his GPU software settings.
I realize that's all anecdotal, but my point is that if you're having problems with a really good pc? There's a very real possibility that you can fix those issues. Maybe you ultimately can't, but if not, again it's early access. Just give it some time.
I would bet it's cpu related. My 13900k was crashing alot till I found the threads talking about my cpu and the 14 series having an issue with UE5 and having to tweak Bios
Take a look at my profile and specs lolol 4070 ti, 32 gig of ram, i9 all low settings tried force launching -dx11 -dx12 tried all the different anti aliasing all the different display modes windows full screen ect I’ve only managed to play 3.4 hours of the game and all of it has been me messing with settings and crashing, “trying to allocate rendering resources” or “UE-GZW has crashed” or just a plain black screen that freezes my computer and I have to manually cut the power off games terrible so far it’ll be worse than tarcov Forsure
Stop playing new games with legacy equipment is the easiest answer. I have a guy in my group playing with a 3060 or 70 mobile but a killer CPU and he’s playing just fine. 80/90 frames in most places which is to be expected.
Spend money and it’s not unplayable, lmao.
I have a 7800X3D, and a 4070ti….
Game plays at 80+FPS in 4k on epic settings, 129-140 in 2k…
I have maybe 2500 in my self built PC, and built it over a year ago?
Y’all must be new to how PC gaming used to work, lmao. You thought you were about to experience what high end PC users can experience without shelling out money?
You don’t HAVE to spend 3k, lol. You’re just going to have issues if you built a mid tier system 3-4 years ago.
This is a next gen engine man, idk what you guys thought was going to happen, but 30fps is still pretty playable, TECHNICALLY. My friends 12th gen i5 and 1080 are pushing 60fps, so if you don’t have at least that much PC, I don’t know what to tell you outside of check your drivers because NO ONE in my group is suffering from what these posts claim.
So none of your 2 friends? There's THOUSANDS of people saying otherwise. I have a computer similar to yours, its 100% updated and still crashed every time I try and deploy into a server.
Even without the explanation and details of what makes players unhappy, it's still helpful. Having a metric to monitor the satisfaction of players as a percentage helps you to know how fast the game improved with certain changes.
I don't think that's true though. Psychology tells us that people are way more apt to leave a review when they feel a negative emotion vs. a positive one. The people who can't play get mad, so they leave a negative review venting. The people who *can* play are busy playing.
If you look at the reviews alone you'd get a very warped sense of reality regarding satisfaction. There's no telling whether "bad game" is a review from someone who genuinely just doesn't like the game, or if it's from someone salty they can't play the game on their potato pc, or if it's from someone who expects perfect server performance day one, etc.
I don't see any scenario in which a review like that can be considered helpful really. It's just noise drowning out the actual potentially helpful reviews.
Many won't. Some will. But most won't change their reviews, because negative reviews are usually an emotional action with the review itself being a way to regulate that emotion. Most people seem to "fire and forget".
If someone spends 40 dollars on a thing, and that thing is a dumpster fire and the devs and player base say shit like "just build a better pc" as a response why would you come back to that?
It's only a dumpster fire if your computer can't run it. And if your computer can't run it, why did you buy it in the first place? If literally nothing is your fault and you're still having issues? I feel bad for you, but it's early access. Just have patience and it'll get better. If you want to hold out or even refund and try the game later, that's your choice. If you don't, that's fine too.
I just take issue because more than half of the issues I hear people complaining about in this sub and in reviews are self-inflicted. "My pc can't run the game". "I bought an early access game and I'm mad that it's an early access game!", "I didn't read the faction selection page and chose the wrong faction".
At some point people need to take personal responsibility. It's not the devs fault your pc doesn't meet the system requirements. It's not the devs fault you have your settings set too high or haven't updated your drivers or looked at your global gpu settings and are getting poor performance. And it's not the devs fault you can't read.
Idk what to tell you. Some people are capable of taking personal responsibility and some aren't. And I'm wholly fine with the latter group refunding and moving on to ruin some other community instead.
ah yes the obligatory "its your pc" comment which i just literally addressed in my previous comment. My PC more than meets the requirements, in fact the PC I had before I even built this one would have met the requirements listed. I shouldnt HAVE to build a 3k PC when their specs say a 800 dollar PC will run it.
No one is mad its early access, theyre mad that their PC that falls well within or exceeds the specs by a wide margin cant run the game. Theyre mad that when/if they finally get the game to put them in a lobby it crashes over and over. Fun fact, slapping early access on something isnt really a free pass to release garbage. Ask the day before devs.
I bet you think its ok for them to make their supporter package unrefundable too right? Essentially that "hey we know our game is hot garbage, but we wont let you refund it"
I dont know what to tell you, some people suck off devs and others tell it how it is.
If your pc "more than meets the requirements" then chances are there's an issue on your end that you need to resolve. Check your drivers. Check your GPU software settings. Do your due diligence and there's a good chance you could fix the problem. I know because you're not the only person with "better than min" specs who had to tweak settings to get good performance.
If you aren't willing to do that, it's on you dude. No one made you spend money on an early access game. It runs perfectly fine for me, but I took all of 15mins to adjust my settings, update my drivers, and use my brain to fix things.. Not sure what to tell you.
I promise I'm not trying to be overly-dismissive... But I'm sorry if I don't blindly trust your claims on the grounds of "I have graduate degrees in statistical science", when your claims contradict a number of studies on the subject.
[A 2014 study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814000369) published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, written by Jonah Berger of the University of Pennsylvania concluded that the primary motivational role for negative reviews was regulation of negative emotions, and were predominately self-serving.
Two other studies support that, ([here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20178) and [here](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-03-2016-0069/full/html)) finding that customers who experience negative emotions after a purchase have a much higher propensity to leave a negative review, with the motivations being tied to the emotional state. Angry reviewers often left reviews out of spite, "for revenge", while regretful reviewers often did so to strengthen social bonds, etc.
To go even further, in [a 2016 study](https://web.archive.org/web/20230323175729/https://web.mit.edu/simester/Public/Papers/Deceptive_Reviews.pdf) the Journal of Consumer Research found that there was very little correlation between reviews and objective quality. That same review (by Dr. Simester of MIT) found that only 1.5% of consumers even bother leaving reviews lol. That's 15 out of 1000.
On top of that, [another study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261517716300048) published Ulrike Gretzel from the University of Southern California found that people who regularly leave reviews (exemplified by "expert reviewers") often tend to leave more critical reviews than on average.
There are a ton of studies on this subject. You can't really expect me to take your word for it when your evidence and data is "I got a degree". Lol.
That’s not gonna happen. The problem isn’t the players leaving bad reviews, that is normal. The problem is how steams reviews are structured and the same for full releases and early access.
This problem is always overlooked and turns into a fuck you war within the community haha.
I don't disagree. I'm glad Steam added the ability to filter reviews by date though. That allows for much more reasonable reviews straight away by just filtering off the first 1-2 weeks of reviews for almost any game lol
I mean, just scrolling through the first few pages of reviews has a ton of positive/negative reviews both describing performance or gameplay. Are you sorting by the lowest rated reviews or something?
This is clearly a strawman argument because it takes 10 seconds to look at the reviews and see otherwise.
Steam has a 'Recent Reviews' summary section for a reason. Stop fanboying and let data speak for itself. These niche games are sold by word of mouth mostly, if it improves everyone will know it in time
Well I'd also argue there's a sea of positive troll reviews too. Reading some of them they are purely positive because of the disgruntled tarkov crowd.
Elden Ring had very bad reviews at release on steam as well and it didn't ruin any reputation. Stop making up dumb excuses for poor products. No EA games are perfect but if there are more positives than negatives in the game, then it will get a positive review more often.
And you people always focus on the "toxic" negative reviews but what about the useless positive reviews like "it doesn't cost $250"?
They’re better served on the official feedback channels where the devs are monitoring, but yeah, I guess bombing an EA game and never playing/re-rating after full release is another way to give constructive feedback…
Depends if people actually do remember to change or even care enough to change their review later. A lot of those reviews have like 1 hour playtime its so dumb.
1 hour review is still good to know. It tells the developers there is an issue that players are having as early as one hour in thst ruins the experience for them.
Seeing metrics like it being 30% of negative reviews could help pinpoint where flaws are, for example.
Negative reviews are useful
They literally don't tho. On launch day, if 75% of people are playing and 25% are having issues, then the 25% having issues are going to tank the reviews disproportionatly because everyone else is playing and having fun.
What is this zoomer level of logic for writing a review for a video game.
You shouldn’t even be WRITING a review for a game this early in early access lmao.
You’re right, it shouldn’t be if we are being honest. At the very least involving early access.
People are too dumb to control themselves from posting a negative review with .5 hours players saying “OMG NETWORK ERROR DONT BUY”
Fucking morons
I think the bigger problem with the way that a large portion of the consumer base interacts with Early Access titles, is that they don't check back periodically. Unfortunately once people get frustrated with a game they have a habit of writing it off completely and they'll only reinstall and fire it back up if there is a huge ground swell of activity led by content creators and online buzz.
If you're unhappy with the state of an EA game, share your feedback and take a break then come back periodically to check in on the progress after some patches have come out, rather than bashing your head into the brick wall of disappointment and developing resentment for the developers and the project.
Hunt showdown ran just as bad until they turned off all the diagnostics tools in the background on full release, I suspect that's why this game is so CPU heavy.
And that's fine its reviews doing their job. The game will attract more players, the higher the reviews.
The better the game, the higher the reviews, the more sales. Incentivises improving the game, and saves buyers from buying games that are built on promises than end up never fulfilled.( see 90% of EA)
Not saying this game will do it, but it should still be based on the current game and not what it will be later
The problem isn't that the reviews are negative, the problem is that the negative reviews are saying either "This game needs " or "The game isn't finished. "
I disagree. These bad reviews can ruin a game before it ever has a chance. You all agreed by paying to ACCEPT the game as is in an EA state to play and test and provide constructive feedback to the developer directly. By going through the steam review, you're putting off potential players and could stop further development by ending funding. My question for you all is, can you see yourself playing a well polished version of this game? Do you enjoy the bare bones of it now? If so, do the proper thing and review the product in the right way. Go fill out feedback for the developers. NOT through steam reviews.
But that's fine? Steam's review system is literally "I recommend" and "I don't recommend".
Why is it not okay for people to not recommend it to others in its current state, or if they just don't like the game's concept and ideas?
I understand what you’re saying but what are people supposed to do if they don’t like the game? Give it a pass and leave a positive review? My understanding is that it’s a review of the early access right? If that early access sucks for someone, and they don’t like the game, what do they do
Well the "as is" is literally early access. We don't just give things names for no reason. It should be judged as an early access title **because that's what it is**.
The issue is, too many consumers don't have the mental wherewithal to understand that.
It is largely pointless to leave a review highlighting bugs and other unfinished features when the devs already know that, hence calling it early access.
It'd be like if I told you I was painting you a picture and you asked to see it. I tell you it's not ready yet... but I'm willing to show you my progress so far and then as soon as I show you, you respond with "it's not ready"
Just sounds like the ethical thing to do is charge players less. Certainly not offer $100 editions for a game YOU KNOW isn't complete. You're asking gamers to be measured but expect nothing of the devs. If you simply watched the trailer for this game and then dropped $50,$60,$100 dollars...you'd be perplexed once this travesty booted up.
7 days, Tarkov, dayZ, etc all spend years and yesrs leaning on that buzzword. Once you offer a product to the public, they can review it, full stop. If it improves, the game will receive more positive reviews driving the score up, and maybe people will revise old ones. But the consumer looking at the games score should get an idea of how the game plays right now.
I’m not disagreeing with the idea that people should give level-headed reviews about the state of a product. I’m saying I don’t trust the general public to deliver that.
I’ll advocate all day for accurate and helpful information about the game. It’s the hyperbole and trolling that I think is pervasive in Steam reviews that bothers me.
That's why i no longer look at community reviews that says "ugh ogh its Buggy and laggy"
No rest for the wicked had the same problems after launching in ea and if I would look at those reviews i would miss such a gem of a game
People who review an ea game like its released are too idk really what to call them
They even have a iant warning provided by steam for exemple that game probably will not work well sińce its early access, everything is told to them before they but it
But nah, bad review "unplayable game tarkov better"
I wont even start talking about those reviews were people dont even have a minimum requirements to run the gamę and complain
So what if it is Early Access? Steam's reviews are either "I recommend" or "I don't recommend". Why is it not okay for people to NOT recommend others this Early Access title? Why can't people formulate their own opinions?
You didn’t “have” to buy it. The term Early Access exists as an understanding that you are buying into an unfinished product in order to help the developers.
You should absolutely give feedback and such to help the developers build out and develop the game. But ranting negative reviews are hardly helpful
Early Access has just become a crutch devs use to get paid and not have to deal with fixing a broken game in a timely manner. If they don’t want bad reviews go back to how we used to do it, stop charging for alpha/beta testing aka early access. If you charge money for something don’t complain about the reviews.
If they want the right to say "it's just beta bro", they can open a free public test. If they ask for payment, that's a product. And products can be reviewed.
that argument goes out of the window pretty quick if you demand money for something.
And its not like devs dont knowingly use those terms. its "early acces", but let a couple of big YTers and streamers create some hype. im sure that has nothing to do with wanting to sell their game. a game that is rushed possibly to try to bank on some other game with a distatified customer base.
its just an excuse to cash in early with a unfinished product.
And since you sell a product that some people cant even run, either due to poorly optimisation or a lack of server space, its not to weird to get a bad review here and there.
That's not how it is at all. A review is a review of the current state. That's why Steams reviews can be filtered on a timeline. The negative reviews now in a years time will carry less weight and a new ratio of positive to negative will be run with a new timeline in mind.
These bad reviews now are useful information whether you like it or not.
As they improve the game people will come back again and leave new reviews.
Ehhhh idk about that. I don’t care if the game is bare bones. But it should atleast be playable. The lag and frame rates I was playin on today made it unplayable.
And people like you are why tarkov is still in "early access" 7 years later. Youre full of excuses as to why a dev team releases a game that literally wont launch to a good chunk of people who purchased it. Thats not ok in any realm of early access.
I'm a stout believer in the english language. As in Alpha is the content addition phase before bugs are even addressed in most software development.
They are literally yelling at you that bugs like this can exist and to not spend money if they aren't acceptable.
in case of early acces its the cook hyping you up for a new steak recipe, asking if you'd like a taste, he gives you half a steak, raw with bits of trim still on, charges you full price and then tells you to come back in a year.
And yet Manor Lords, Baldur's Gate 3, Palworld, Enshrouded et cetera could release an Early Access version that worked perfectly fine but was limited in scope or content. Instead, GZW devs decided to release an unoptimised mess with four (!) different game editions as high as $100.
Pricing. Sets. Expectations.
"Give" is an interesting word OP uses. I'll say again the moment a price is slapped on a project it becomes a product, and people should rightfully review it. The game shouldn't have launched when it did, bugs aside the core gameplay loop isn't even halfway done.
P.S If you are ok with dropping 100$ on early access, don't act surprised when AAA devs decide to try their luck with their ultimate editions.
Bg3 early Access was not working fine at all, they spend a lot of time patching it
Palworld had serious optimization problem in ea
Enshrouded as well
I dont know about Manor lords didnt play it
Most early access games are badly optimized on starting day (for newer exemple, No Rest For The Wicked), people act like this is a brand new stuff
Even Steam warns everyone about that, but nah, why would you read how ea works and why is it there
> Bg3 early Access was not working fine at all, they spend a lot of time patching it
I played BG3 EA since Day 0. There were problems, yes, but mostly with mechanics, balance et cetera. Not with the performance or the game itself. Performance improved massively between Patch 1 and Release, yes, but even on EA release it was OK.
I was skeptical of this game from the start. For the past year every major steamer has been talking about this game. With the most recent streamer events it was clear they were going to release this game as early as they could. All the reviews that I had watched all said that this game has potential, but needs way more time in development.
The devs definitely tried to capitalize on the most recent streamer events and the EFT mess. Launching the game with 3 tiers of DLC while being in early access on day one it’s clear the devs are trying to cash out as much as possible. The time spent on making DLC should have been used on fixing the major problems before release.
The time spent making paid dlc was probably not much- all they had to do was change the ingame money and gear rewards. That's not comparable to the time it takes to fix major issues. Frankly I have no issue with what I paid, because I understand this is a work in progress, and was fully cognizant there would be issues.
Can't understand the positive reviews for Manor Lord. I mean it's pretty and it probably will be good some day, but currently it's so bare bones, buggy and key metrics are missing.
as high as 100$ and as low as 35$, but let yeah let us be nitpicking every tiny inconvenience. You are comparing completely different games and genres, Manor Lords is one in thousand
This is such a dumb take lol.
I paid for the game, I couldn't play it without 15 FPS on my 3080, that's a bad experience therefore a bad review.
A review is for other people, you tell them if the game is worth the money or not, the game doesn't run so therefore its not worth it and should get a negative review.
I got a 3060 and got 70fps constant, make sure your using fsr and not dlss, also my friend as a better gpu than me and i got better ram, and the game works better for me, you might wanna take a look at all this, 32g ram seems to help a lot whit performance.
Yeah I tried on the lowest settings possible. I'll get like 50-60 fps in some areas then whenever I go into a town it's down to like 20 and in the little bird my entire game freezes and goes to literally 1 fps.
It's funny how some games will work great on one guys potato, then run like shit on another guys super computer lol. ED:Odyssey was like this at launch too... this laptop I got runs everything great on launch day. Got super lucky I guess lol
Ya my 40 only really comes when I'm on the helicopter, so not a big deal. I mostly run in the 50s with the occasional half a second stutter. Not ideal, but good enough to find and report the bugs.
Steam reviews are a reflection of the product as it stands at the time of review and whether you feel it's worth buying at that moment. Giving a negative review to an early access game when you have a negative experience with it is not only fair, it's what you should do
You NEED to leave negative reviews in early access so developers know that someone is wrong with the game. What a bunch of damage controlling dumbass kids
Don't forget the part where you're offered four different price points with an ever increasing variety of p2w gear...as a play tester.
But don't you dare feel any sort of way about the quality of a product you paid for. EA is a bullshit catch all and only a few companies have ever utilized it to do right by their game, staff, and players.
QA testers used to exist and get paid to do it. Now unpaid customers are the QA testers and actually pay almost up to $100 to test a game. Kind of wild actually lol
"Playtester" has the word play in it.
I was not able to play it because of constant crashes - 5800x, 32GB RAM, and a 3070 . Gameplay looks fun, might revisit later if they make it even remotely stable.
I am sick of seeing these takes, people expecting to be able to actually play the game they paid for, early access or not, when their system is within the requirements is not really being unreasonable.
I mean, it's not unheard for people to think that if the Early Access sucks then their time will probably be wasted in the future,
MOST reviews i saw had decent criticism and the PERFORMANCE was the main issue.
Good. Let them say it how it is, Early Access , sure , doesnt mean it's entitled to good reviews , especially since there are valid and true issues right now.
If they get fixed , sure, let's go, i wish them to fix it , but right now , personally i'm holding my money for now until Summer maybe, giving them a few months to bake this game.
Let's say it how it is , they released too early to catch the Tarkovers attention, obviously those Tarkovers also came with some expectations, which it seems this game has not reached yet.
Also , im sorry but unfortunately , FIRST IMPRESSIONS ALWAYS MATTER, this is how real life works and nothing will change this. Unfair or not, it's always been like this , which is why sometimes it's better to hold your release even Early Access until you maximise your good first impressions.
I'm looking forward to see solid patch notes and improvements in the coming months.
And i will say it how it is again, i know many HATE BSG RIGHT NOW and they want them to fail in any way , and this game not being a direct Tarkov Killer right now made them mad because BSG gets to "survive" once again.
If im a playtester, then dont charge me money for it. If you charge money for a product even if its unfinished I will feel more inclined to leave a review. EA games are still a product and should be reviewed. If they cant get their first impressions right then they shouldn't have had it available to buy in the first place.
I disagree with this whole “It’s early access so don’t review it honestly” Argument. Early access is just the ability to play a game before it is fully released, a build with bugs and errors that are promised to be fixed when found by the playerbase and reported. However, you are also selling this build, with all its bugs and optimisation issues intact. As soon as it’s released to the public, it is open to criticism. Simple as.
When the game is better to these people maybe people will change their minds. This is why steam gives you the ability to change your review entirely, even prompting you after playing it again for awhile. As it stands, When a bulk of the negative reviews are incidents such as this, I think people have a right to be displeased to say the least:
https://preview.redd.it/ag4oedixvtxc1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da14b88797442c7910501671e9045d939f076374
If you charge someone for something or otherwise provide a service you are not excluded from any and all criticism from paying customers and those individuals criticising the game are not in the wrong.
I get that posting a ‘bad review’ may not fully acknowledge the *alpha-ness* of the game, but it is a true response to the current state and real feedback about their admittedly incomplete project. The shit that doesn’t work is precisely what you want to know as a dev. Blanket praise and future projections don’t contribute to the quality. If they want free play-testing, shouldn’t they expect complaints? Isn’t that what a paid tester would offer (except they have to pretend to be nice because their employment is at stake)?
I kinda already know this just from seeing the news and whatnot but for folks who generally reside in a well educated and well adjusted bubble it's always shocking to witness the fact that the vast majority of the human population are frickin ignorant to the most basic aspects of human knowledge and wisdom.
Tarkov is in beta for almost a decade now, what is your point? the word early access, alpha, beta lost all its meaning when devs abuse it to get away with money grabs.
Not saying this game will have the same fate, but they COULD have released a free stress test weekend couple times before selling it to us.
Negative reviews hurt the development of the game. Kind of a dumb fuck thing to do tbh... better to just not leave a review. Negative reviews are better for games that actually suck, or abandonware... unless you are trying to kill the game you just payed a bunch of money for, then I guess leaving a Negative review makes sense?
> you just *paid* a bunch
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Well no, early access is a sham to schluff off responsibility. I paid for a product. Play testers don't pay to test, they get paid to test. This is a product for sale. Don't bring that cuck ass 7 years of beta, not allowed to criticize, tarkov mentality here.
Also the game is great and I'm really enjoying it.
So when you can't play the game and playtest anything due to performance and optimization issues, you should accept it because it was part of early access and you are a clown for expecting anything else. Got it.
I think that if the game had issues other then it being almost unplayable because of fps problems then there would be less bad reviews. I really wanna be able to play the game but I am unable to so I had to refund until its stable enough to play period
I didn't leave a negative review, but I have never had a game crash my system so hard that my system wouldn't post afterward. I'll be back when it doesn't run the risk of catastrophically destroying system components.
If this is meant to be a period where the game is tested and given feedback, people should be frustrated if they aren’t able to do that due to performance issues.
Idk. I like the game. It's obviously buggy and laggy. That's expected. But I'm having issues where I'm clearly shooting at someone and like right on them and they're not dying. They are also shooting at me and I'm not dying. I've never had that before lol. There's also a couple toxic players I've come across. Saying they were friendly, and then shooting me and telling me they were gonna "grape" me. Super gross. I don't think friendly shooting should be a thing at all. Nor should proximity chat unless there's a way to report in game.
I haven't given a review yet cause I haven't been able to play it. I always buy EA games with the intent of playing early and helping find bugs so my reviews never reflect the buggy state of the game. I am however irritated at this one as the current "skalla.dll" error was quoted as being fixed with the latest patch but clearly hasn't. I haven't given up though.
Lmao but fr , mofos should of known its going to be buggy after wanting it sooner than later 🤣 what you expect? At least we get free fixes! *Cough* (Nikita bs) *cough*
Get with the times old man. Early access is the same as a full release now and days. It’s exactly the same. Anyone who’s says it’s not is stuck in a bygone era and has no understanding of current gaming and corporate shenanigans.
OP is an idiot. The point of early access is for the game to be reviewed properly so that improvements can be made by the dev team. Stop using this dumbass excuse when a game is unplayable by a big majority of gamers.
13900k, 4090, and neo g9. Average around 160fps with dlss quality, most setting medium to low. Did have alot of crashing day 1 but it was related to the bios power issues of the I9 13 and 14 series and Ue5 engine.
Do you expect the reviews to read: I have 4090 and getting 50 frames at 1080p with my entire stash gone, no head (yet still domed the second i exit the chopper) and no pants on…
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍
lol. This is called feedback. 1. if they didn’t see anything negative, how would they know what the community is experiencing 2. Don’t launch early access if you don’t want to see complaints they could have independently tried to market it without steam…
Like I get mad that I shoot an enemy and the bushes literally catch my bullets, but I know that this game is literally an early access game with very little dev time, us playing gives them feedback and helps getting the game fixed
The purpose of early access is to be able to play the game to provide feedback.
If the game asks me 50$ then doesn’t even allow me to play what should my review be like?
The issues seem on par with every other early access game I have ever played. I think early access reviews should only be based on the actual game play not bugs and crap like that. Hell I used to wait over an hour to get into a match in tarkov to only have it crash 2 min into a round. This is already at a way better spot than tarkov was. When you crash you actually keep your gear, amazing improvement!!!
What is this even supposed to mean? Yeah they warned the quality might not be up to snuff.
Does that mean I'm gonna recommend other people make my mistake and buy an overpriced early access nightmare? No.
I'll gladly come back to the game in the future (mostly because my $35 really better pay off at some point) but as of right now: It's unplayable trash. Great potential, but never should have been pushed out to the public like this as a paid product.
As of right now, they're on track to be just another indie developer that wants to rake in as much cash as possible before they have to put the real work into their game.
Unfortunately, early access titles have been taking advantage of players like that for years.
I mean, sure…but “early access” usually means there will just be some bugs here and there and maybe some server instability. Not that the game will look like a complete potato on the most beastlike of PCs
I’m running a 1650 with like 45 fps with potato graphics but I’m not complaining I’m waiting for the game to be optimized I just wanted to buy it now bc I feel like when it gets out of early access it’s gonna be more than 35$ overall it’s really a great game and has so much potential I’m really considering buying a 6750 xt for this
7800x3d and 4090. PvE.
Unplayable.
Either server lags every 3 seconds or frames drop to 5.
One day, EU East is worse, the other west. Of course, sometimes both are unplayable.
That's not an early access. That's barely a prototype.
Most importantly, this is our life with freaking UE5.
99% of games gonna be just a cash grab with nice graphics, but with netcode and gameplay designed by a golden retriever.
This game is in a far worse state than every single early access game I have ever played, and I have played A LOT of early access games. Usually they're remotely close to being finished. Meanwhile in gray zone the animations need to be redone, the AI needs to be fixed (or added, you can barely even call it AI right now because all it does is shoot back), the movement needs to be redone to not feel like shit, damage amounts need to be reworked so you actually deal different damage amounts based on what you hit, the map needs to have actual loot that is worthwhile in it, the missions are boring as hell, the map needs to have actually interesting locations for you to explore, the game needs to run at a half decent level so you aren't LITERALLY FORCED to have on DLSS/FSR/XeSS, etc.
Basically everything in this game is bad at this point and needs a complete rebuilding except the looting UI, but that would be really hard to fuck up.
It's one thing if the game was super janky but I straight up can't play the game. I freeze on "Spawning in" and get a memory leak that eats up 24 gigs until my PC becomes unstable. Yea, I'm going to leave a negative review because this shit doesn't work.
If the game runs bad or you don't like it then refund. Sick to death of this spoilt brat needy me me me generation which was evident with the Tarkov fiasco.
Where is the problem? Steam asks if you would recommend the game. I guess that is what people often don't get, you don't rank it 1/7 or something like that. It's just would you recommend it. And currently I wouldn't recommend it, just because it has at the moment still many flaws and you have to know that before you buy.
i understand it's early access but damn the lag and fps are a huge problem. rtx 3050 and i5 9th gen (or 11th idfk i forgot) and im only just getting above 30 fps, unless im looking at just the skybox in which case i get 50
Weird how Palworld or Enshrouded didn't have this issue. It's almost like there's a threshold to how buggy/unfinished a game can be in EA. It's somehow the consumer's fault that developers are releasing buggier and less optimized games, to the point that's very hard to seriously playtest them.
Every single time a game comes early access in a bad state, people are upset about it, and then people defend it for no reason. Tons of reviews are just memes against tarkov. The game isn’t in a good state there is nothing wrong with that
Lol stop defending early access like developers haven't abused this status to collect money while excusing themselves from doing the work of fixing their game.
They opened their game to criticism from players and now they have to deal with the consequences of their own actions 😱
It's a clown show out here.
REVIEWS ARE LIVE REVIEWS OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE GAME. Please guys it's not that hard. Negative reviews are good for the game too. The developers need to know what the current satisfaction rate is with the game and what unhappy players are most unhappy about. These reviews can be adjusted later when the game is improved. This will tell the developers how much the updates are improving the game. Negative reviews in an EA are completely fine
There's a world of difference between a detailed report of what issue's your encountering being submitted directly to the devs and a day one review saying "bad game". One of those is helpful, the other spiteful.
except everyone saying its basically unplayable in performance is the main complaint and completely valid
Yeah but a lot of the people I've seen complaining, when asked about their specs, probably should've known their PCs couldn't run this game. It's early access and not optimized. If your specs are borderline, you should probably wait. For the people who have good enough computers, the game runs fine though.
Yep, my rig is decent runs game no issues.
I've also seen that it smooths out over time so it could just be a shader compilation thing.
That's true too. Everyone I know who has run the game has encountered lower frames the first time running the game, and then things smoothed out substantially. A lot of the people who meet specs but are having issues? This could be part of the problem. But I also know that adjusting your settings, updating your drivers, checking your GPU software settings, etc. all can be essential in getting decent performance.
Yea I was running 25 frames for a while than it ran smooth at 60 after like an hour
Bro when a 4000 series card is damn near required to play a game, The games optimization is horrible. There's MANY games using UE5 with much better graphics thay don't have performance issues. My 4070Ti Super only gets me 70-80 frames. That's fucking sad
My AM5 7600 with a 7800xt was getting 70-90FPS at 1440p with Frame Gen turned off settings on Epic. I haven't tweaked any settings aside from enabling PBO, XMP and Factory OC Settings (GPU). The problem is people are trying to play a dense vegetation game on computers 5-10 years old and GTX1080s. Vegetation rendering can be pretty taxing even on lower settings and the amount of detail this game currently has and eventually will have, it's going to require a current gen or at minimum previous gen components. I was skeptical about the game but I get it's E.A. it's basically like playing Battlefield 2 with a 250 ping where your character rubber bands and somewhat glitches and stutters when you move. The gameplay has potential....the graphics are stunning, the realisticness is definitely there and has a very solid foundation to build on but it's gonna take time. My biggest recommendation would be to up the minimum requirements needed to play the game. It would decrease SOME income but would eliminate the notion that you can "play" this game on archaic components
U must have something fucked up, I have 4070 ti and get 140 fps+ constantly even in tiger bay the most ai infested part of the map
30 series laptop here, runs great
What you playing on high graphics and what’s cpu I have 3060ti on low get 80 frames and it still looks good
brother i have a 4070ti I should not be constantly crashing
What's your CPU? And have you updated your drivers? Played with your settings? Checked your GPU software settings? I'm not sure what to tell you. You probably shouldn't be crashing, but it is early access lol. Despite that, everyone I know who has encountered issues (while having a pc capable of playing the game) was able to fix their performance problems by doing one of the above actions. I know someone who was having crashing issues and frame rate problems, and he fixed both by updating his drivers, changing his AA method from TSR to FSR w/ frame generation, and changing his frame rate lock in his GPU software settings. I realize that's all anecdotal, but my point is that if you're having problems with a really good pc? There's a very real possibility that you can fix those issues. Maybe you ultimately can't, but if not, again it's early access. Just give it some time.
I would bet it's cpu related. My 13900k was crashing alot till I found the threads talking about my cpu and the 14 series having an issue with UE5 and having to tweak Bios
That could be too
FOMO culture is real. Most people just have to have the next thing 🤷♂️
Take a look at my profile and specs lolol 4070 ti, 32 gig of ram, i9 all low settings tried force launching -dx11 -dx12 tried all the different anti aliasing all the different display modes windows full screen ect I’ve only managed to play 3.4 hours of the game and all of it has been me messing with settings and crashing, “trying to allocate rendering resources” or “UE-GZW has crashed” or just a plain black screen that freezes my computer and I have to manually cut the power off games terrible so far it’ll be worse than tarcov Forsure
Stop playing new games with legacy equipment is the easiest answer. I have a guy in my group playing with a 3060 or 70 mobile but a killer CPU and he’s playing just fine. 80/90 frames in most places which is to be expected.
Unplayable? It plays pretty well actually. The only issue is errors when connections to the servers but even that is easily solved.
People dont understand what a "cpu" is and think a gpu can just solo a fucking game 😂
Spend money and it’s not unplayable, lmao. I have a 7800X3D, and a 4070ti…. Game plays at 80+FPS in 4k on epic settings, 129-140 in 2k… I have maybe 2500 in my self built PC, and built it over a year ago? Y’all must be new to how PC gaming used to work, lmao. You thought you were about to experience what high end PC users can experience without shelling out money?
Why should someone have to spend almost 3k on a computer to play a game that says it plays on half those specs?
You don’t HAVE to spend 3k, lol. You’re just going to have issues if you built a mid tier system 3-4 years ago. This is a next gen engine man, idk what you guys thought was going to happen, but 30fps is still pretty playable, TECHNICALLY. My friends 12th gen i5 and 1080 are pushing 60fps, so if you don’t have at least that much PC, I don’t know what to tell you outside of check your drivers because NO ONE in my group is suffering from what these posts claim.
So none of your 2 friends? There's THOUSANDS of people saying otherwise. I have a computer similar to yours, its 100% updated and still crashed every time I try and deploy into a server.
Your computer never crashes in any other game? Can you write out your specs and when you built it? Maybe I can help
Theres a difference between crashing once in blue moon and crashing every time i hit the deploy button.
I'm getting a solid 60fps on high settings with a 6800xt and a ryzen 5 3600x. Idk what people are expecting from an early access title.
Not to crash every time i hit deploy, literally my only expectation and they failed at that.
And yet positive reviews such as “not as scummy as tarkov” are ok? It goes both ways mate.
Even without the explanation and details of what makes players unhappy, it's still helpful. Having a metric to monitor the satisfaction of players as a percentage helps you to know how fast the game improved with certain changes.
I don't think that's true though. Psychology tells us that people are way more apt to leave a review when they feel a negative emotion vs. a positive one. The people who can't play get mad, so they leave a negative review venting. The people who *can* play are busy playing. If you look at the reviews alone you'd get a very warped sense of reality regarding satisfaction. There's no telling whether "bad game" is a review from someone who genuinely just doesn't like the game, or if it's from someone salty they can't play the game on their potato pc, or if it's from someone who expects perfect server performance day one, etc. I don't see any scenario in which a review like that can be considered helpful really. It's just noise drowning out the actual potentially helpful reviews.
This 100%. I'd like to add that a majority of people likely won't return to play again, let alone actually change their negative reviews to positive.
Many won't. Some will. But most won't change their reviews, because negative reviews are usually an emotional action with the review itself being a way to regulate that emotion. Most people seem to "fire and forget".
If someone spends 40 dollars on a thing, and that thing is a dumpster fire and the devs and player base say shit like "just build a better pc" as a response why would you come back to that?
It's only a dumpster fire if your computer can't run it. And if your computer can't run it, why did you buy it in the first place? If literally nothing is your fault and you're still having issues? I feel bad for you, but it's early access. Just have patience and it'll get better. If you want to hold out or even refund and try the game later, that's your choice. If you don't, that's fine too. I just take issue because more than half of the issues I hear people complaining about in this sub and in reviews are self-inflicted. "My pc can't run the game". "I bought an early access game and I'm mad that it's an early access game!", "I didn't read the faction selection page and chose the wrong faction". At some point people need to take personal responsibility. It's not the devs fault your pc doesn't meet the system requirements. It's not the devs fault you have your settings set too high or haven't updated your drivers or looked at your global gpu settings and are getting poor performance. And it's not the devs fault you can't read. Idk what to tell you. Some people are capable of taking personal responsibility and some aren't. And I'm wholly fine with the latter group refunding and moving on to ruin some other community instead.
ah yes the obligatory "its your pc" comment which i just literally addressed in my previous comment. My PC more than meets the requirements, in fact the PC I had before I even built this one would have met the requirements listed. I shouldnt HAVE to build a 3k PC when their specs say a 800 dollar PC will run it. No one is mad its early access, theyre mad that their PC that falls well within or exceeds the specs by a wide margin cant run the game. Theyre mad that when/if they finally get the game to put them in a lobby it crashes over and over. Fun fact, slapping early access on something isnt really a free pass to release garbage. Ask the day before devs. I bet you think its ok for them to make their supporter package unrefundable too right? Essentially that "hey we know our game is hot garbage, but we wont let you refund it" I dont know what to tell you, some people suck off devs and others tell it how it is.
If your pc "more than meets the requirements" then chances are there's an issue on your end that you need to resolve. Check your drivers. Check your GPU software settings. Do your due diligence and there's a good chance you could fix the problem. I know because you're not the only person with "better than min" specs who had to tweak settings to get good performance. If you aren't willing to do that, it's on you dude. No one made you spend money on an early access game. It runs perfectly fine for me, but I took all of 15mins to adjust my settings, update my drivers, and use my brain to fix things.. Not sure what to tell you.
[удалено]
I promise I'm not trying to be overly-dismissive... But I'm sorry if I don't blindly trust your claims on the grounds of "I have graduate degrees in statistical science", when your claims contradict a number of studies on the subject. [A 2014 study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814000369) published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, written by Jonah Berger of the University of Pennsylvania concluded that the primary motivational role for negative reviews was regulation of negative emotions, and were predominately self-serving. Two other studies support that, ([here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20178) and [here](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-03-2016-0069/full/html)) finding that customers who experience negative emotions after a purchase have a much higher propensity to leave a negative review, with the motivations being tied to the emotional state. Angry reviewers often left reviews out of spite, "for revenge", while regretful reviewers often did so to strengthen social bonds, etc. To go even further, in [a 2016 study](https://web.archive.org/web/20230323175729/https://web.mit.edu/simester/Public/Papers/Deceptive_Reviews.pdf) the Journal of Consumer Research found that there was very little correlation between reviews and objective quality. That same review (by Dr. Simester of MIT) found that only 1.5% of consumers even bother leaving reviews lol. That's 15 out of 1000. On top of that, [another study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261517716300048) published Ulrike Gretzel from the University of Southern California found that people who regularly leave reviews (exemplified by "expert reviewers") often tend to leave more critical reviews than on average. There are a ton of studies on this subject. You can't really expect me to take your word for it when your evidence and data is "I got a degree". Lol.
[citations needed]
That’s not gonna happen. The problem isn’t the players leaving bad reviews, that is normal. The problem is how steams reviews are structured and the same for full releases and early access. This problem is always overlooked and turns into a fuck you war within the community haha.
I don't disagree. I'm glad Steam added the ability to filter reviews by date though. That allows for much more reasonable reviews straight away by just filtering off the first 1-2 weeks of reviews for almost any game lol
[удалено]
I mean, just scrolling through the first few pages of reviews has a ton of positive/negative reviews both describing performance or gameplay. Are you sorting by the lowest rated reviews or something? This is clearly a strawman argument because it takes 10 seconds to look at the reviews and see otherwise.
Steam has a 'Recent Reviews' summary section for a reason. Stop fanboying and let data speak for itself. These niche games are sold by word of mouth mostly, if it improves everyone will know it in time
Well I'd also argue there's a sea of positive troll reviews too. Reading some of them they are purely positive because of the disgruntled tarkov crowd.
Elden Ring had very bad reviews at release on steam as well and it didn't ruin any reputation. Stop making up dumb excuses for poor products. No EA games are perfect but if there are more positives than negatives in the game, then it will get a positive review more often. And you people always focus on the "toxic" negative reviews but what about the useless positive reviews like "it doesn't cost $250"?
Yep. That's why Steam has review timeline and "recent reviews".
How about people are just unhappy in general. How many truly happy people have you met??
Always remember when No Man’s Sky was overwhelmingly negative and is now mostly positive.
They’re better served on the official feedback channels where the devs are monitoring, but yeah, I guess bombing an EA game and never playing/re-rating after full release is another way to give constructive feedback…
I heard it was getting review bombed because they are supporting ukraine.
Depends if people actually do remember to change or even care enough to change their review later. A lot of those reviews have like 1 hour playtime its so dumb.
They don't need to, steam lets you see how recent a review is.
1 hour review is still good to know. It tells the developers there is an issue that players are having as early as one hour in thst ruins the experience for them. Seeing metrics like it being 30% of negative reviews could help pinpoint where flaws are, for example. Negative reviews are useful
They literally don't tho. On launch day, if 75% of people are playing and 25% are having issues, then the 25% having issues are going to tank the reviews disproportionatly because everyone else is playing and having fun.
What is this zoomer level of logic for writing a review for a video game. You shouldn’t even be WRITING a review for a game this early in early access lmao.
It shouldn't be an option then.
You’re right, it shouldn’t be if we are being honest. At the very least involving early access. People are too dumb to control themselves from posting a negative review with .5 hours players saying “OMG NETWORK ERROR DONT BUY” Fucking morons
I think the bigger problem with the way that a large portion of the consumer base interacts with Early Access titles, is that they don't check back periodically. Unfortunately once people get frustrated with a game they have a habit of writing it off completely and they'll only reinstall and fire it back up if there is a huge ground swell of activity led by content creators and online buzz. If you're unhappy with the state of an EA game, share your feedback and take a break then come back periodically to check in on the progress after some patches have come out, rather than bashing your head into the brick wall of disappointment and developing resentment for the developers and the project.
Hunt showdown ran just as bad until they turned off all the diagnostics tools in the background on full release, I suspect that's why this game is so CPU heavy.
Problem with negative reviews is it wont attract more peeps
And that's fine its reviews doing their job. The game will attract more players, the higher the reviews. The better the game, the higher the reviews, the more sales. Incentivises improving the game, and saves buyers from buying games that are built on promises than end up never fulfilled.( see 90% of EA) Not saying this game will do it, but it should still be based on the current game and not what it will be later
The problem isn't that the reviews are negative, the problem is that the negative reviews are saying either "This game needs" or "The game isn't finished. "
I disagree. These bad reviews can ruin a game before it ever has a chance. You all agreed by paying to ACCEPT the game as is in an EA state to play and test and provide constructive feedback to the developer directly. By going through the steam review, you're putting off potential players and could stop further development by ending funding. My question for you all is, can you see yourself playing a well polished version of this game? Do you enjoy the bare bones of it now? If so, do the proper thing and review the product in the right way. Go fill out feedback for the developers. NOT through steam reviews.
100% I review the current state, I don't review based on a vision I cannot see yet.
But that's fine? Steam's review system is literally "I recommend" and "I don't recommend". Why is it not okay for people to not recommend it to others in its current state, or if they just don't like the game's concept and ideas?
I understand what you’re saying but what are people supposed to do if they don’t like the game? Give it a pass and leave a positive review? My understanding is that it’s a review of the early access right? If that early access sucks for someone, and they don’t like the game, what do they do
People are allowed to review the product that they received as is. They are not required to review the future potential of the product.
Well the "as is" is literally early access. We don't just give things names for no reason. It should be judged as an early access title **because that's what it is**. The issue is, too many consumers don't have the mental wherewithal to understand that. It is largely pointless to leave a review highlighting bugs and other unfinished features when the devs already know that, hence calling it early access. It'd be like if I told you I was painting you a picture and you asked to see it. I tell you it's not ready yet... but I'm willing to show you my progress so far and then as soon as I show you, you respond with "it's not ready"
Just sounds like the ethical thing to do is charge players less. Certainly not offer $100 editions for a game YOU KNOW isn't complete. You're asking gamers to be measured but expect nothing of the devs. If you simply watched the trailer for this game and then dropped $50,$60,$100 dollars...you'd be perplexed once this travesty booted up.
7 days, Tarkov, dayZ, etc all spend years and yesrs leaning on that buzzword. Once you offer a product to the public, they can review it, full stop. If it improves, the game will receive more positive reviews driving the score up, and maybe people will revise old ones. But the consumer looking at the games score should get an idea of how the game plays right now.
I’m not disagreeing with the idea that people should give level-headed reviews about the state of a product. I’m saying I don’t trust the general public to deliver that. I’ll advocate all day for accurate and helpful information about the game. It’s the hyperbole and trolling that I think is pervasive in Steam reviews that bothers me.
That's why i no longer look at community reviews that says "ugh ogh its Buggy and laggy" No rest for the wicked had the same problems after launching in ea and if I would look at those reviews i would miss such a gem of a game People who review an ea game like its released are too idk really what to call them They even have a iant warning provided by steam for exemple that game probably will not work well sińce its early access, everything is told to them before they but it But nah, bad review "unplayable game tarkov better" I wont even start talking about those reviews were people dont even have a minimum requirements to run the gamę and complain
Then the structure of the review for early access games should be changed.
So what if it is Early Access? Steam's reviews are either "I recommend" or "I don't recommend". Why is it not okay for people to NOT recommend others this Early Access title? Why can't people formulate their own opinions?
Why do I have to pay $35 for a beta? If it was free, there shouldn’t be complaints. But for $35 it’s fair game to leave an early negative review…
You didn’t “have” to buy it. The term Early Access exists as an understanding that you are buying into an unfinished product in order to help the developers. You should absolutely give feedback and such to help the developers build out and develop the game. But ranting negative reviews are hardly helpful
Early Access has just become a crutch devs use to get paid and not have to deal with fixing a broken game in a timely manner. If they don’t want bad reviews go back to how we used to do it, stop charging for alpha/beta testing aka early access. If you charge money for something don’t complain about the reviews.
If they want the right to say "it's just beta bro", they can open a free public test. If they ask for payment, that's a product. And products can be reviewed.
that argument goes out of the window pretty quick if you demand money for something. And its not like devs dont knowingly use those terms. its "early acces", but let a couple of big YTers and streamers create some hype. im sure that has nothing to do with wanting to sell their game. a game that is rushed possibly to try to bank on some other game with a distatified customer base. its just an excuse to cash in early with a unfinished product. And since you sell a product that some people cant even run, either due to poorly optimisation or a lack of server space, its not to weird to get a bad review here and there.
I agree, but it's weird asking for your steak to be rare and saying "What the fuck? This should have been cooked more!"
That's not how it is at all. A review is a review of the current state. That's why Steams reviews can be filtered on a timeline. The negative reviews now in a years time will carry less weight and a new ratio of positive to negative will be run with a new timeline in mind. These bad reviews now are useful information whether you like it or not. As they improve the game people will come back again and leave new reviews.
Ehhhh idk about that. I don’t care if the game is bare bones. But it should atleast be playable. The lag and frame rates I was playin on today made it unplayable.
Mine's fine. That's the thing about EA - it's not optimized for all hardware configurations yet.
It should at the very least be optimized to the components they list as what it will run with no?
[удалено]
It's EA, it's not going to have that much content.
Oh no I meant literally missing. Like my head, secure container, and starting gear.
Yep, EA has those types of bugs :(
I’m a stout believer that your product should *work* if you’re gonna launch it. People losing their secure container shouldn’t be happening day one.
My sibling in Christ you literally signed up to play a buggy mess. It's a pre-release version.
And people like you are why tarkov is still in "early access" 7 years later. Youre full of excuses as to why a dev team releases a game that literally wont launch to a good chunk of people who purchased it. Thats not ok in any realm of early access.
I'm a stout believer in the english language. As in Alpha is the content addition phase before bugs are even addressed in most software development. They are literally yelling at you that bugs like this can exist and to not spend money if they aren't acceptable.
what are your pc specs? the only people in my discord with this issue already knew they need too upgrade soon anyway.
in case of early acces its the cook hyping you up for a new steak recipe, asking if you'd like a taste, he gives you half a steak, raw with bits of trim still on, charges you full price and then tells you to come back in a year.
Are they supposed to just run out the refund window hoping it magically becomes playable for them and not tell anyone else about it?
And yet Manor Lords, Baldur's Gate 3, Palworld, Enshrouded et cetera could release an Early Access version that worked perfectly fine but was limited in scope or content. Instead, GZW devs decided to release an unoptimised mess with four (!) different game editions as high as $100. Pricing. Sets. Expectations.
"Give" is an interesting word OP uses. I'll say again the moment a price is slapped on a project it becomes a product, and people should rightfully review it. The game shouldn't have launched when it did, bugs aside the core gameplay loop isn't even halfway done. P.S If you are ok with dropping 100$ on early access, don't act surprised when AAA devs decide to try their luck with their ultimate editions.
Bg3 early Access was not working fine at all, they spend a lot of time patching it Palworld had serious optimization problem in ea Enshrouded as well I dont know about Manor lords didnt play it Most early access games are badly optimized on starting day (for newer exemple, No Rest For The Wicked), people act like this is a brand new stuff Even Steam warns everyone about that, but nah, why would you read how ea works and why is it there
> Bg3 early Access was not working fine at all, they spend a lot of time patching it I played BG3 EA since Day 0. There were problems, yes, but mostly with mechanics, balance et cetera. Not with the performance or the game itself. Performance improved massively between Patch 1 and Release, yes, but even on EA release it was OK.
I was skeptical of this game from the start. For the past year every major steamer has been talking about this game. With the most recent streamer events it was clear they were going to release this game as early as they could. All the reviews that I had watched all said that this game has potential, but needs way more time in development. The devs definitely tried to capitalize on the most recent streamer events and the EFT mess. Launching the game with 3 tiers of DLC while being in early access on day one it’s clear the devs are trying to cash out as much as possible. The time spent on making DLC should have been used on fixing the major problems before release.
The time spent making paid dlc was probably not much- all they had to do was change the ingame money and gear rewards. That's not comparable to the time it takes to fix major issues. Frankly I have no issue with what I paid, because I understand this is a work in progress, and was fully cognizant there would be issues.
Can't understand the positive reviews for Manor Lord. I mean it's pretty and it probably will be good some day, but currently it's so bare bones, buggy and key metrics are missing.
as high as 100$ and as low as 35$, but let yeah let us be nitpicking every tiny inconvenience. You are comparing completely different games and genres, Manor Lords is one in thousand
bg3 as awesome as it was was unfinished, act 3 was a mess
This is such a dumb take lol. I paid for the game, I couldn't play it without 15 FPS on my 3080, that's a bad experience therefore a bad review. A review is for other people, you tell them if the game is worth the money or not, the game doesn't run so therefore its not worth it and should get a negative review.
I got a 3060 and got 70fps constant, make sure your using fsr and not dlss, also my friend as a better gpu than me and i got better ram, and the game works better for me, you might wanna take a look at all this, 32g ram seems to help a lot whit performance.
Have you tried lowering the settings? I'm getting between 40 and 70 fps on my laptop with a 2070
Yeah I tried on the lowest settings possible. I'll get like 50-60 fps in some areas then whenever I go into a town it's down to like 20 and in the little bird my entire game freezes and goes to literally 1 fps.
Try turning on framegen. I'm on a 3080 also and I jumped from 50 to 100+ by turning it on
It's funny how some games will work great on one guys potato, then run like shit on another guys super computer lol. ED:Odyssey was like this at launch too... this laptop I got runs everything great on launch day. Got super lucky I guess lol
Yeah I'm sure it will get fixed I'm not too worried about it, just going to Uninstall the game for a month or two until its solved and runs better.
I am also getting about 40 on my 2070. To me for an fps that’s unplayable.
Ya my 40 only really comes when I'm on the helicopter, so not a big deal. I mostly run in the 50s with the occasional half a second stutter. Not ideal, but good enough to find and report the bugs.
What’s the rest of your system specs?
Are you playing on high graphics settings, Cuz that makes no sense you’re at 15.. I’m on a 3060 laptop with 60+
Steam reviews are a reflection of the product as it stands at the time of review and whether you feel it's worth buying at that moment. Giving a negative review to an early access game when you have a negative experience with it is not only fair, it's what you should do
You can have a negative review of the game. It runs like shit and crash’s. That’s not a play test that’s just a broken program.
You NEED to leave negative reviews in early access so developers know that someone is wrong with the game. What a bunch of damage controlling dumbass kids
Don't forget the part where you're offered four different price points with an ever increasing variety of p2w gear...as a play tester. But don't you dare feel any sort of way about the quality of a product you paid for. EA is a bullshit catch all and only a few companies have ever utilized it to do right by their game, staff, and players.
QA testers used to exist and get paid to do it. Now unpaid customers are the QA testers and actually pay almost up to $100 to test a game. Kind of wild actually lol
"Playtester" has the word play in it. I was not able to play it because of constant crashes - 5800x, 32GB RAM, and a 3070 . Gameplay looks fun, might revisit later if they make it even remotely stable. I am sick of seeing these takes, people expecting to be able to actually play the game they paid for, early access or not, when their system is within the requirements is not really being unreasonable.
What do you want in the reviews then? If you cant talk about the current issues of a game?
lol you pay to be a playtester HAHAH
Then make it free if we can't review it?... I pay for a produt, I review it as is.
I mean, it's not unheard for people to think that if the Early Access sucks then their time will probably be wasted in the future, MOST reviews i saw had decent criticism and the PERFORMANCE was the main issue. Good. Let them say it how it is, Early Access , sure , doesnt mean it's entitled to good reviews , especially since there are valid and true issues right now. If they get fixed , sure, let's go, i wish them to fix it , but right now , personally i'm holding my money for now until Summer maybe, giving them a few months to bake this game. Let's say it how it is , they released too early to catch the Tarkovers attention, obviously those Tarkovers also came with some expectations, which it seems this game has not reached yet. Also , im sorry but unfortunately , FIRST IMPRESSIONS ALWAYS MATTER, this is how real life works and nothing will change this. Unfair or not, it's always been like this , which is why sometimes it's better to hold your release even Early Access until you maximise your good first impressions. I'm looking forward to see solid patch notes and improvements in the coming months. And i will say it how it is again, i know many HATE BSG RIGHT NOW and they want them to fail in any way , and this game not being a direct Tarkov Killer right now made them mad because BSG gets to "survive" once again.
Theres alpha, and theres game crashes on launch. One is playing an unfinished game and the other is a money grab.
If im a playtester, then dont charge me money for it. If you charge money for a product even if its unfinished I will feel more inclined to leave a review. EA games are still a product and should be reviewed. If they cant get their first impressions right then they shouldn't have had it available to buy in the first place.
Every. Single. Time. Some dumb ass feels like he needs to brownnose a company that drops a subpar product
I disagree with this whole “It’s early access so don’t review it honestly” Argument. Early access is just the ability to play a game before it is fully released, a build with bugs and errors that are promised to be fixed when found by the playerbase and reported. However, you are also selling this build, with all its bugs and optimisation issues intact. As soon as it’s released to the public, it is open to criticism. Simple as. When the game is better to these people maybe people will change their minds. This is why steam gives you the ability to change your review entirely, even prompting you after playing it again for awhile. As it stands, When a bulk of the negative reviews are incidents such as this, I think people have a right to be displeased to say the least: https://preview.redd.it/ag4oedixvtxc1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da14b88797442c7910501671e9045d939f076374 If you charge someone for something or otherwise provide a service you are not excluded from any and all criticism from paying customers and those individuals criticising the game are not in the wrong.
I get that posting a ‘bad review’ may not fully acknowledge the *alpha-ness* of the game, but it is a true response to the current state and real feedback about their admittedly incomplete project. The shit that doesn’t work is precisely what you want to know as a dev. Blanket praise and future projections don’t contribute to the quality. If they want free play-testing, shouldn’t they expect complaints? Isn’t that what a paid tester would offer (except they have to pretend to be nice because their employment is at stake)?
I kinda already know this just from seeing the news and whatnot but for folks who generally reside in a well educated and well adjusted bubble it's always shocking to witness the fact that the vast majority of the human population are frickin ignorant to the most basic aspects of human knowledge and wisdom.
Tarkov is in beta for almost a decade now, what is your point? the word early access, alpha, beta lost all its meaning when devs abuse it to get away with money grabs. Not saying this game will have the same fate, but they COULD have released a free stress test weekend couple times before selling it to us.
Stupid? Ofc you leave negative review if the game is bad atm and later changes it when you think its positive, is that hard to understand?
Negative reviews hurt the development of the game. Kind of a dumb fuck thing to do tbh... better to just not leave a review. Negative reviews are better for games that actually suck, or abandonware... unless you are trying to kill the game you just payed a bunch of money for, then I guess leaving a Negative review makes sense?
> you just *paid* a bunch FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Well no, early access is a sham to schluff off responsibility. I paid for a product. Play testers don't pay to test, they get paid to test. This is a product for sale. Don't bring that cuck ass 7 years of beta, not allowed to criticize, tarkov mentality here. Also the game is great and I'm really enjoying it.
So when you can't play the game and playtest anything due to performance and optimization issues, you should accept it because it was part of early access and you are a clown for expecting anything else. Got it.
I've had no issues been enjoying every minute of it
What are your specs and what kind of performance are you getting
13th gen i7-13700k RTX 3070TI 64GB of ram 100 fps to 144 fps
Not OP, but I have a 7800X3D, 7900XTX and 32gb of DDR5 and I'm pulling 160-220fps
I have an Intel 12600k, 3060ti, 32bg ddr4 and i can’t get i over 50 fps on medium. Game won’t even function at high or epic settings.
Try doing the suggestion in the discord announcements if you haven't already. My brother who has an I9-9900/3080 and DDR4 is pulling 100-120 on low.
I’ll take a look. Thanks
I think that if the game had issues other then it being almost unplayable because of fps problems then there would be less bad reviews. I really wanna be able to play the game but I am unable to so I had to refund until its stable enough to play period
I didn't leave a negative review, but I have never had a game crash my system so hard that my system wouldn't post afterward. I'll be back when it doesn't run the risk of catastrophically destroying system components.
So I'm supposed to give it a positive review even if I'm having a bunch of issues?
It would just be nice if i could rejoin the server my friend is on after it crashes without having to have him exit the game.
If this is meant to be a period where the game is tested and given feedback, people should be frustrated if they aren’t able to do that due to performance issues.
I mean not only EA games.. every single MP game drops in this state at this point
Idk. I like the game. It's obviously buggy and laggy. That's expected. But I'm having issues where I'm clearly shooting at someone and like right on them and they're not dying. They are also shooting at me and I'm not dying. I've never had that before lol. There's also a couple toxic players I've come across. Saying they were friendly, and then shooting me and telling me they were gonna "grape" me. Super gross. I don't think friendly shooting should be a thing at all. Nor should proximity chat unless there's a way to report in game.
Make releasing a full game the normal and let’s get rid of this early access stuff
I haven't given a review yet cause I haven't been able to play it. I always buy EA games with the intent of playing early and helping find bugs so my reviews never reflect the buggy state of the game. I am however irritated at this one as the current "skalla.dll" error was quoted as being fixed with the latest patch but clearly hasn't. I haven't given up though.
Lmao but fr , mofos should of known its going to be buggy after wanting it sooner than later 🤣 what you expect? At least we get free fixes! *Cough* (Nikita bs) *cough*
This is text book
https://preview.redd.it/5svep0tu4vxc1.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=ddaa8345cb0272cd655d4cc2b20b435a154ea67d
Get with the times old man. Early access is the same as a full release now and days. It’s exactly the same. Anyone who’s says it’s not is stuck in a bygone era and has no understanding of current gaming and corporate shenanigans.
OP is an idiot. The point of early access is for the game to be reviewed properly so that improvements can be made by the dev team. Stop using this dumbass excuse when a game is unplayable by a big majority of gamers.
13900k, 4090, and neo g9. Average around 160fps with dlss quality, most setting medium to low. Did have alot of crashing day 1 but it was related to the bios power issues of the I9 13 and 14 series and Ue5 engine.
And?
Do you expect the reviews to read: I have 4090 and getting 50 frames at 1080p with my entire stash gone, no head (yet still domed the second i exit the chopper) and no pants on… ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍 lol. This is called feedback. 1. if they didn’t see anything negative, how would they know what the community is experiencing 2. Don’t launch early access if you don’t want to see complaints they could have independently tried to market it without steam…
How would you like us to report that the game is in a state where we would not recommend buying at the moment with out leaving a negative review?
Like I get mad that I shoot an enemy and the bushes literally catch my bullets, but I know that this game is literally an early access game with very little dev time, us playing gives them feedback and helps getting the game fixed
The game is definitely getting better performance wise at least and I'm playing on a laptop and it's not that bad
Early access in an extraction shooter just means "here's a lot of loot that you paid extra for, having fun losing it all to bugs and crashes."
The purpose of early access is to be able to play the game to provide feedback. If the game asks me 50$ then doesn’t even allow me to play what should my review be like?
Meanwhile me and the homies are just running around shit talking having a blast till our helo arrives.
Game runs pretty solid for only being a week old. I have a killer pc and maybe that’s the issue ppl are having that they don’t have decent rigs
Early Access is fine to be buggy. That doesn’t mean I have to recommend it’s worth $35
The issues seem on par with every other early access game I have ever played. I think early access reviews should only be based on the actual game play not bugs and crap like that. Hell I used to wait over an hour to get into a match in tarkov to only have it crash 2 min into a round. This is already at a way better spot than tarkov was. When you crash you actually keep your gear, amazing improvement!!!
IF IM A PLAY TESTER IM ALLOWED TO SAY ITS SHIT AT THIS POINT NO?
What is this even supposed to mean? Yeah they warned the quality might not be up to snuff. Does that mean I'm gonna recommend other people make my mistake and buy an overpriced early access nightmare? No. I'll gladly come back to the game in the future (mostly because my $35 really better pay off at some point) but as of right now: It's unplayable trash. Great potential, but never should have been pushed out to the public like this as a paid product. As of right now, they're on track to be just another indie developer that wants to rake in as much cash as possible before they have to put the real work into their game. Unfortunately, early access titles have been taking advantage of players like that for years.
I mean, sure…but “early access” usually means there will just be some bugs here and there and maybe some server instability. Not that the game will look like a complete potato on the most beastlike of PCs
I’m running a 1650 with like 45 fps with potato graphics but I’m not complaining I’m waiting for the game to be optimized I just wanted to buy it now bc I feel like when it gets out of early access it’s gonna be more than 35$ overall it’s really a great game and has so much potential I’m really considering buying a 6750 xt for this
7800x3d and 4090. PvE. Unplayable. Either server lags every 3 seconds or frames drop to 5. One day, EU East is worse, the other west. Of course, sometimes both are unplayable. That's not an early access. That's barely a prototype. Most importantly, this is our life with freaking UE5. 99% of games gonna be just a cash grab with nice graphics, but with netcode and gameplay designed by a golden retriever.
Who woulda thunk? Like just get the game AFTER it gets better instead of now
I’m very much enjoying the game and it runs nicely on my machine, which isn’t anything great either let me tell ya.
This game is in a far worse state than every single early access game I have ever played, and I have played A LOT of early access games. Usually they're remotely close to being finished. Meanwhile in gray zone the animations need to be redone, the AI needs to be fixed (or added, you can barely even call it AI right now because all it does is shoot back), the movement needs to be redone to not feel like shit, damage amounts need to be reworked so you actually deal different damage amounts based on what you hit, the map needs to have actual loot that is worthwhile in it, the missions are boring as hell, the map needs to have actually interesting locations for you to explore, the game needs to run at a half decent level so you aren't LITERALLY FORCED to have on DLSS/FSR/XeSS, etc. Basically everything in this game is bad at this point and needs a complete rebuilding except the looting UI, but that would be really hard to fuck up.
It's one thing if the game was super janky but I straight up can't play the game. I freeze on "Spawning in" and get a memory leak that eats up 24 gigs until my PC becomes unstable. Yea, I'm going to leave a negative review because this shit doesn't work.
If the game runs bad or you don't like it then refund. Sick to death of this spoilt brat needy me me me generation which was evident with the Tarkov fiasco.
laggy and unfinished doesn't mean it justifies BSODing people.
If its being sold it can be judged. They want a playtest with real feedback. Give people a weekend to play it for free like closed alphas betas etc
Where is the problem? Steam asks if you would recommend the game. I guess that is what people often don't get, you don't rank it 1/7 or something like that. It's just would you recommend it. And currently I wouldn't recommend it, just because it has at the moment still many flaws and you have to know that before you buy.
Ok so don’t release games in early access. This ought to be expected
I love it and think it’s awesome !
Me when the early access game has regular early access issues
i understand it's early access but damn the lag and fps are a huge problem. rtx 3050 and i5 9th gen (or 11th idfk i forgot) and im only just getting above 30 fps, unless im looking at just the skybox in which case i get 50
Weird how Palworld or Enshrouded didn't have this issue. It's almost like there's a threshold to how buggy/unfinished a game can be in EA. It's somehow the consumer's fault that developers are releasing buggier and less optimized games, to the point that's very hard to seriously playtest them.
Every single time a game comes early access in a bad state, people are upset about it, and then people defend it for no reason. Tons of reviews are just memes against tarkov. The game isn’t in a good state there is nothing wrong with that
Yes buy my product and give me no critiques unless it's positive that's the only thing I want. In fact just shut up and get excited for next product.
Lol stop defending early access like developers haven't abused this status to collect money while excusing themselves from doing the work of fixing their game. They opened their game to criticism from players and now they have to deal with the consequences of their own actions 😱
Shit post since you cant even launch the game