What makes a game "unoptimized"

[newtekie1]

Most of the time, a person labels a game as "unoptimized" whenever their computer can't play it maxed out. People expect every new game to run flawlessly on their hardware, even mid-range hardware. And if it doesn't, the game gets labled as "unoptimized".

What they fail to realize is that lowering the settings in the game will give you just as playable results, that look just as good or better than some of the other games which they say are "optimized".

GTA:VI and Crysis are two examples. On max settings, both games struggle to run on even high end hardware. However, lowering the settings, even just to high in Crysis, give an enjoyable experience that runs fine on mid-range hardware.

People often say crap like "Well HL2 runs great maxed out on mid-range hardware, so crysis should too, that is why Crysis is unoptimized". The problem with that statement is that HL2 maxed out looks like ass compared to Crysis maxed out. Crysis on medium looks better than HL2 maxed out.

 

[DrPepper]

Most of the time, a person labels a game as "unoptimized" whenever their computer can't play it maxed out. People expect every new game to run flawlessly on their hardware, even mid-range hardware. And if it doesn't, the game gets labled as "unoptimized".

What they fail to realize is that lowering the settings in the game will give you just as playable results, that look just as good or better than some of the other games which they say are "optimized".

GTA:VI and Crysis are two examples. On max settings, both games struggle to run on even high end hardware. However, lowering the settings, even just to high in Crysis, give an enjoyable experience that runs fine on mid-range hardware.

People often say crap like "Well HL2 runs great maxed out on mid-range hardware, so crysis should too, that is why Crysis is unoptimized". The problem with that statement is that HL2 maxed out looks like ass compared to Crysis maxed out. Crysis on medium looks better than HL2 maxed out.

Thats the same opinion I have.

 

[KainXS]

Most of the time, a person labels a game as "unoptimized" whenever their computer can't play it maxed out. People expect every new game to run flawlessly on their hardware, even mid-range hardware. And if it doesn't, the game gets labled as "unoptimized".

What they fail to realize is that lowering the settings in the game will give you just as playable results, that look just as good or better than some of the other games which they say are "optimized".

GTA:VI and Crysis are two examples. On max settings, both games struggle to run on even high end hardware. However, lowering the settings, even just to high in Crysis, give an enjoyable experience that runs fine on mid-range hardware.

People often say crap like "Well HL2 runs great maxed out on mid-range hardware, so crysis should too, that is why Crysis is unoptimized". The problem with that statement is that HL2 maxed out looks like ass compared to Crysis maxed out. Crysis on medium looks better than HL2 maxed out.

you can't compare half life 2 to crysis performance wise, half life 2 will run on any decent card thats but its old.

I had a old radeon 1900GT that would max that game like it was nothing, but tis old now

even very low end hardware could max hl2

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't call a game unoptimized unless it looks and runs like crap. That is, there's no excuse for it to run slow but it still does. Usually that's the result of being developed to run on a console and being poorly ported to PC (like Saints Row 2). These types of games run miserably on PC and the only way to overcome it is to have the latest and greatest hardware (still runs like crap but at least playable). Dreamfall: The Longest Journey also comes to mind.

Really, what's the difference between consolitis and unoptimized? Unoptimized really had no relevance before consolitis.


At the same time, games like Crysis and GTA4 that have settings far beyond what modern hardware can handle also aren't "unoptimized." The developers just thought ahead. In Crysis' case, it was WAY ahead but ahead never the less. They realized that people were whining about the WAY ahead features of Crysis and removed them in Crysis' sequel.

 

[JC316]

Unoptimized, see Ultima IX. The worst game ever made coding wise. I tired running it on a 2900XT and it still ran at 7FPS. Hell, it ran better on a Voodoo Banshee!! I can also say that Morrowind had issues with memory leaks, thus I brand it unoptimized.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think memory leaks would classify the game as "buggy," not unoptimized. Morrowind runs well but it could run better. The leaks in Nightfire are rather severe (always runs 100% CPU too) as it is a buggy game that never got fixed. It will run on a 750 MHz processor and a 16 MB TNT2 card though so it is rather well optimized for all hardware.

But...never mind me as I am arguing semantics.

 

[DrPepper]

Hmm I'd like to add cryostasis to that list but it just runs like crap. I don't know if its the effects of the game but it doesn't look good at all and even with a 8800GT as a physx card I still get crap frames. Plus its frickin boring.

 

[killmess]

The point of this thread is to identify broken games that crash alot, lag no matter what the settings etc.

Sorry but this thread is "unoptimized games", optimize a program is make it run faster, not stable, not with better graphics, not with new options, or better textures, etc. You could play a game that run fast(optimized) but crush a lot(broken).

 

[killmess]

I think COD4 is currently the best looking and highly optimized FPS game as of date. Any1 agree?

I agree
+1

 

[killmess]

1 buggy and unoptimised are probly similar but different

2 unoptimised means it cant run on current hardware properly, it wont run good when it should

1_They are not similar, they are different.
2_If it can't run on current hardware properly is a too advanced game, not unoptimized. Unoptimized is when you put it to the max 14fps, 1 level lower 17, 1 level lower 19, lowest level 21. The graphics changes a LOT between highest and lowest but your performance continues being cr@ppy.

 

[killmess]

a good summary!

Fallout 3: for some people it crashes with certain soundcards/audio codecs (K-lite packs FFDshow screws with it, and some EAX emulators do), but once you get it working and meet the minimum requirements, its all good news. It ran sweet for me on an 8800GT, and on 4870 crossfire i jsut get to crank the distance sliders and AA up a bit further

demanding? yes, on high settings. Unoptimised? no, because you can adjust settings to cover a very large range of hardware combinations (lots of settings to adjust, to lower either CPU, GPU, or memory requirements)

P.S - good thread. getting lots of posts and feedback here.

Agreed!
+1

 

[killmess]

Armed assault lags badly because it has a very high quality AF. It gets even more demanding the higher the view distance which can be about 10'000 feet I believe. Also the physics are crazy as well.

If it has a very high quality AF, and the view distance "can be" about 10'000 feet, it's an advanced(or good looking) game, not unoptimized, you can disable some graphics and get quite some speed(I think. I don't have the game).
Now, if you disable AF, and put the view distance to the minimum, reduce the resolution, antialiasing, effects, etc. and you only get 10 fps more, that's unoptimized.

 

[p_o_s_pc]

TDR 2000 old game but doesn't run on AMD systems without crashing and random crashing even on Intel system

 

[DrPepper]

Sorry but this thread is "unoptimized games", optimize a program is make it run faster, not stable, not with better graphics, not with new options, or better textures, etc. You could play a game that run fast(optimized) but crush a lot(broken).

It's my thread about identifying truly unoptimised games, I explained that I was going to refer to broken games as unoptimised even though thats the wrong term.

If it has a very high quality AF, and the view distance "can be" about 10'000 feet, it's an advanced(or good looking) game, not unoptimized, you can disable some graphics and get quite some speed(I think. I don't have the game).
Now, if you disable AF, and put the view distance to the minimum, reduce the resolution, antialiasing, effects, etc. and you only get 10 fps more, that's unoptimized.

Also I didn't say arma was unoptimised. I was saying despite its older graphics it lags because of its AF and AA which are very high quality filtering. If you turn the settings down you get much more FPS. I'd say the game was optimised

Also don't post 5 times in a row use the edit button.

 

[Mussels]

Killing floor is unoptimised.

The game has a bug, where if hundreds of specimens are killed in the same place, your FPS drops by looking there. the game is unoptimised, because tweaking the code could increase performance drastically.

 

[DrPepper]

Technically thats a bug I'd think. It's near impossible to optimise a game without sacrificing functionality and visual elements although it can be done and in a few cases there is just downright unoptimised code.

 

[ShadowFold]

Killing floor is unoptimised.

The game has a bug, where if hundreds of specimens are killed in the same place, your FPS drops by looking there. the game is unoptimised, because tweaking the code could increase performance drastically.

I never get that? I always play on modded servers with hundreds of them on screen too. Altho I do agree it's not optimized at all. I couldn't get it to run good on my onboard HD 3300 no matter what I tried I have it going all maxed out 8x AA / 16x AF and I never see anything lower than 60 with vsync on.

 

[Mussels]

Technically thats a bug I'd think. It's near impossible to optimise a game without sacrificing functionality and visual elements although it can be done and in a few cases there is just downright unoptimised code.

bug is so loosely defined. the program doesnt crash or give erratic behaviour - performance simply drops when specific situations occur.

 

[DrPepper]

bug is so loosely defined. the program doesnt crash or give erratic behaviour - performance simply drops when specific situations occur.

Indeed but it could be said that the program isnt functioning properly if that happens.

 

[Mussels]

I never get that? I always play on modded servers with hundreds of them on screen too. Altho I do agree it's not optimized at all. I couldn't get it to run good on my onboard HD 3300 no matter what I tried I have it going all maxed out 8x AA / 16x AF and I never see anything lower than 60 with vsync on.

its not hundreds on screen - its where they died.

Play a game on long and hard, and you'll find by round 10 that simply looking at the kill spot (say, the doorway where 90% of the specimens died that round) that your FPS will suddenly drop.

if you use the in game FPS command (stat FPS in console) its easier to see, the game drops visual detail to keep the FPS up, and the in game FPS counter changes color when that happens, so you know for sure.

Oh and i've never seen it happen in a game with less than 5 players, the more players the more specimens, so i guess its more likely for a few hundred to die in the same spot.

 

[JUDOHAWK]

I second mercenaries 2. I picked up cheap to compare to my ps3 version. I had to turn off water effects to get playable performance, and even then it still runs like crap. There's no reason a console should be able to play a game better than someone with a decent PC.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

bug is so loosely defined. the program doesnt crash or give erratic behaviour - performance simply drops when specific situations occur.

A bug is simply where an application does something unexpected. Crashing is how the operating systems respond to a fatal bug.

 

[Ramo1203]

I have yet to have an issue with Fallout 3, some bugs but "unoptimized" is the wrong word. Most people don't update their driver and stuff, resulting in majors problems sometimes. Other than that Crysis, GTA IV are examples of "unoptimized" games for me. But Left for Dead and Farcry 2 run really great even on modest computers!

I wonder about Crysis? Why is the original "unoptimized"? They released Warhead and I'm guessing that it's the same engine however Warhead which came out a year later runs smoother so does that mean that they were just lazy and they didn't spend time optimizing the game?

 

[Mussels]

I have yet to have an issue with Fallout 3, some bugs but "unoptimized" is the wrong word. Most people don't update their driver and stuff, resulting in majors problems sometimes. Other than that Crysis, GTA IV are examples of "unoptimized" games for me. But Left for Dead and Farcry 2 run really great even on modest computers!

I wonder about Crysis? Why is the original "unoptimized"? They released Warhead and I'm guessing that it's the same engine however Warhead which came out a year later runs smoother so does that mean that they were just lazy and they didn't spend time optimizing the game?

crysis merely took .ini tweaks to get it to run right. those tweaks were used in warhead.


In order to remove confusion, i thought of this last night.

Optimised game: something that runs at its best, as you would expect it to do. (ugly but fast at low settings, linear progression - the higher the settings, the slower it gets)

Unoptimised is something that doesnt do this. Low settings take the same hit as medium while looking noticeably worse, a game that only needed minor changes to get improvements (you know, someone to spend 10 hours trying different ini files, or tweaking a map layout).

The key to an unoptimised game is that it only needed a small amount of effort to get it working perfectly, but it was never done. Crysis needed a few tweaks to make it run better, and the general public could do it.

 

[Black Panther]

What I can say is about what makes a computer game 'optimized'.

Assassin's creed runs fine on any system I test it on.