This is about graphics, frame rates, and expectations. I am not talking about story, or plot as that is a different can of worms and would need it's own dedicated mile long thread to dissect.
Just something I noticed, especially on game related subs on reddit, steam and even more general forums like here.
Most recent example: Stalker 2.
I see so many people being super negative and harsh on the games forums.
I seen a bunch saying that the graphics aren't much better than the original game and then went on to compare it to TLOU2. Saying that they expect that fidelity in 2024. (not taking account that this is an open world game, made by a tiny team in comparison and in a Eastern bloc country, in the midst of a war, yet they still got it out. ) Saying that the trees and textures look straight out of the originals, and they feel "ripped off".
I just don't understand how people can expect all games to be like tlou.
Then there are the other groups complaining about the AI either working too good, or not working to their liking. That the enemies are doing their own thing and not on you 24/7. (the game has a system for this and needs tweaking but it is working. Some complaining about getting a refund because it's not perfect out the gate and unacceptable. Yet the game is playable and not incomplete like cyberpunk, nms or something.
Some complaining about having inventory encumbrance (weight limits on what you can carry). Complain on things broken sure, but calling the game a rip-off because it has a few bugs?
Which makes me wonder, is this a generation divide or are there so many desperate for a shooter that they play a game that wouldn't interest them in the first place? We haven't had many single player, gritty, military esq type shooters in almost a decade, outside of multiplayer like cod and bf, which sp is mostly on rails.
Stalker 2 is just one example, but I have seen others. Games that I think are visually stunning, still get calls for "its not running at 60 fps all the time , and has 'Frame pacing" or drops to 50 here and there, and then calling it unplayable. Maybe it's just me, I can play a game with lower fps. I played doom and wolf3d in a small shrunken window in the middle of my 386's monitor just to play it, and was happy. I played Quake 3 at 24 fps but still got on with my friends using dialup and was happy. Eventually i upgraded my cpu for that scenario but i had fun even with the lower fps. Tons of games from the early 2000s and I don't recall people being so batshit over visuals or frame rates (well mutliplayer shooters fps, and people turned off visual settings for this).
My thread here isn't just about a specific game it's about a mindset. I see it all the time and I wonder where it comes from. It seems to me that people are more negative in general, pickier about a few frames per second, or frame pacing (something I don't even see or know what it is), expect every game to be turned up to 11 in visuals, have 4k max settings.
Asking questions and critique is good. Being unreasonable and expecting miracles or that every game be top of the line in visuals is just ridiculous.
Thoughts