What is your most dissapointing game ever "performance wise".

CoD2. Doesn't look that great but it's average Dx9 framerate is basicallly equal to the food appeal of dog poop.

Thank god, CoD4 is a lot better in that regard.

Crysis, I know it has great graphics and,relatively speaking, it is really nicely optimized, but Crytek promised A LOT more, and didn't deliver at all. Not to mention that I feel kinda bamboozeld since the game (notably the jungle) looks absolutly nothing like the videos. I remember the very high settings videos looking much much better than what we have now. These guys are huge liers that really are just trying to force people to get new hardware, when said hardware doesn't even perform as they said it would.Mochyc

Thats always been the case though, no game really ends up looking like the early screens/videos. I know this is a PC forum, but if you look at Killzone 2 on the PS3 you'll see that the recent gameplaytrailer looks evidently worse than the older "gameplay" trailer; I wouldnt be surprised if it ends up looking even worse at release.

Neverwinter Nights 2. The graphics were decent, but it doesn't scale down well.Buffalo_Soulja

Gonna go with NWN2 as well. For the level of visual detail the game delivered, it just didn't perform as well as it should have.

Probably NWN2. It was so Horribly Unoptimized at release it was almost unplayable on even mid range PC's.

Runs Great now though.

Has to go to Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.Grantelicious

Ya know what, I forgot about that. Im changing my Vote lol.

Has to go to Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.Grantelicious

QFMT

R6 Vegas.incubus_1_7

crysis isn't badly optimized it just has good graphicsGrantelicious

Precisely.

Anyway, I'd have to say Vietcong 2. If it weren't for the terrible performance, it might have been a pretty decent game (though still not as good as the original), but it was dragged down big time by its non-existent optimization. Worst of all, the devs never released a patch that fixed or at least alleviated the optimization issues; they released one patch that addressed some online problem and that was it. Very disappointing.

S.T.A.L..K.E.R. on my old opteron and x1900xtx rig (thats becoming officially retired tomorrow)... it didn't run nearly as well as many other games that were as demanding or more so sometimes. Patches helped a fair amount but for some reason it didn't feel nor seem to run too much better than my even older 6800 gt on an x2 3800 system. That game kicks so much ass it was a shame i couldn't enjoy then the way that i will now (or pretty damn soon rather)eNT1TY

I agree, especially since the more demanding settings can add so much to the atmosphere. The patches and mods though are more effective that those of almost any other game.

vampire bloodlinesnutcrackr

NWN2 and Crysis.

The problem with Crysis is that, if you really scale down the game you have some really ugly graphics and can still have framerate issues, and when you play anything with unreal3 engine or COD4 you can get all effects up with no framerate issues at all in a card like 7600GT or the very high in these games and medium settings in crysis (wich still sucks) in a 7900. So, performance wise, crysis sucks because ugly graphics require a lot from the machine while others engines can just do well. NWN2 is a winner though.

Crysis. I know its a game thats got amazing graphics but the graphics Crytek showed us were much better than the final release and it ran smoothly on their computers. Now even on a super computer , the highest settings get like 5fps for the released game. gifflegerbpiss

The game can look just as good, many people have created their own maps and taken screenshots of an environment where they had the lighting in just the right direction and had all the proper effects turned on, and they look identical to those tech demos. It's just a matter of the direction of light, the proper effects turned on and in the right places, etc.

The game most certainly can be maxed out with perfectly playable framerates (and there's no need to exaggerate about the 5 FPS). A high-end, overclocked processor, coupled with an SLI setup of 8800 GTX's and plenty of RAM can max the game out at a fairly high resolution with acceptable framerates. I've seen several people with such rigs here and at the PC Hardware forum claim to be able to do just that.

Furthermore, what they showed us were tech demos. It's quite possible they had it specially made and rendered frame by frame, taking care to make sure all the right lighting and other graphical effects were in the right places, and put the frames together at 30 or so FPS (this is a common practice with tech demos). Tech demos are meant to show what a game or engine is capable of visually, not how it will run.

Anyone that picked up Ultima 9 when it first came out knows what bad performance is.....Johnny_Rock

i dunno about ultima 9, but ultima 8 was pretty demanding. and the game was just poor compared to the awesomeness of ultima 7 games.

Crysis IMO shouldn't appear anywhere in this thread.

For me it's Call of Duty 2. Looked great, but ran lousy and chugged on high-end rigs. I currnetly run it at 27FPS, and with the same settings, CoD4 runs at 45FPS.

i know its an old game, but SiN was a dissapointment, not in actual gameplay, or anything, but the story and the cutscense were awful... if it had a better story, better art direction, and decent voice acting the game would have been great.Twisted-Ice-God

No, man, performance-wise. As in, how well it ran, how well it was optimized. Not how well the performance arts aspects were done. :lol:

Test Drive: Unlimited, Soldner: Secret Wars, Gothic 3, and ARMA.

Al thos games listed sucked in the performance department, either controls, poor netcode, or just crappy coding period put these titles at the top of my list of crap to avoid, as well as publishers / developersto avoid from here on.

If they want me to play thier games,they can pay me.

i found that BF2 had alot of problems....like visual problems ( i think that goes with performance as well)

i checked everything (updates and configs) nothing was wrong with my comp it was the game :/

My first place goes to R6 Vegas. I was pretty pissed when it ate **** on my E6750. There should be no way that a game that came out at the end of '06 wasn't optimized for dual-core.

My second place goes to Gothic 3. I knew it sucked before I bought it, but, by god, it SUCKED beyond my wildest dreams. The really sad thing is that Gothic 3 could have been a masterpiece. So sad...