The Callisto Protocol gets Steam bombed over its poor PC performance

[Fearghast]

Even if the game would run flawlessly and was a 4K@144 experience on mainstream hardware ... is it good? It's the game, under all that stutter, worthy of the attention, of the time?
Or is it just a generic horror themed, corridor shooter, with underused characters, riding on a long dead IP of Deadspace 1 and 2?

 

[Puiu]

Sackboy is an example of a game that had issues with stutter from shader compilation, but where fixed in a few days. It shows that it's not that difficult, when a dev decides to do it.

Sackboy is not this game and you also don't know how long they've been working on this issue internally. They're not stupid.

Sackboy continued to recieve bug fixes and performance improvements for PC. In version 1.2 they were still trying to fix these stuttering issues.

And.. if it was "just a few days" then why did they release Sackboy like that? It was a mess at launch. They had the same issue... no time. The publisher contract had a date they had to hit.

 

[James Ryan]

Makes you wonder... how worthy and dependable are the words of these "critics".

Been garbage for ages. Reviews are the only real measure. This wasn't even a bombing. It was a genuine report. Just like it was when Cyberpunk flopped on launch.

 

[James Ryan]

Cry me a river. Everyone works hard for their money.
Selling a broken game for 60$ is a scam and devs have to be called out for that.
Stop trying to defend this crap, or we continue to get more and more games on PC unplayable because of stutter.

Don't target devs. Target the publishers and studios. The devs do what they can in the time and resources given. I can bet you top $ the devs are sitting back saying I TOLD YOU SO.

 

[Ohnooze]

They managed to put out all these videos to build hype but failed to optimize it to a playable state....not good.

But it will be on sale soon enough so I'll pick it up then.

Don't target devs. Target the publishers and studios. The devs do what they can in the time and resources given. I can bet you top $ the devs are sitting back saying I TOLD YOU SO.

Yep...this 100%. The bean counters were counting on hype sales regardless of the quality.

 

[RudyBob]

Makes you wonder... how worthy and dependable are the words of these "critics".

They want stuff to review so they say what they must

 

[Puiu]

Even if the game would run flawlessly and was a 4K@144 experience on mainstream hardware ... is it good? It's the game, under all that stutter, worthy of the attention, of the time?
Or is it just a generic horror themed, corridor shooter, with underused characters, riding on a long dead IP of Deadspace 1 and 2?

There is a market for this type of games. I know a few who would love to play it.

 

[Rq3EWAq]

You mean Beta stage - bug squashing and performance fixing.

Alpha means nothing is set in stone and you can have system wide sweeping changes that greatly changes how the game is played. A good example of Alpha gameplay game that's been in Alpha for a very long time is 7 Days to Die. The devs for that game, they make sweeping changes between some of the alpha updates (inventory, skill tree, GUI, construction changes and so on).

A game that's been released and is buggy or has bad performance would be beta stage of development. System wide game changes aren't going to happen, but bug and performance issues should be tested for and corrected.

Thanks for clarification. You are right, this game is in betatesting stage. That being said, I won't be joining paying (not paid, but paying!) betatesting team, I will leave that to others. Happy to buy the game when it's finished.

 

[jsant2418]

The game wasn't review bombed, it got the reviews it deserved from gamers.
Let's not defend lazy, incompetent devs, that don't care one bit for offering consumers a decent product.

What is most concerning is how the hell, did this game got a 80 on Metacritic for the PC version, when it's such a broken mess.

Nothing like black-and-white thinking without thinking about any of the nuances. Have you considered there was pressure from the suits with the release date, the plethora of various hardware on the PC side, and how much time they were given to QA the **** out of it? I'm just offering some examples and of course, we prefer a product on day 1 to be without bugs. Elden Ring released with performance issues since day 1 and lasted for months while some still experience a bit here and there and yet many critics glossed over this detail, especially the difficulty some critics complain about in TCP.

 

[AndreV]

Cry me a river. Everyone works hard for their money.
Selling a broken game for 60$ is a scam and devs have to be called out for that.
Stop trying to defend this crap, or we continue to get more and more games on PC unplayable because of stutter.

Devs dont have the last words on when to launch the game they are working on; its the publisher and investors, and they want to make money as fast as possible, hence "We will launch it as it is and you will do the patching after."

This is an effect of the capitalism.

 

[jonny888]

The game wasn't review bombed, it got the reviews it deserved from gamers.
Let's not defend lazy, incompetent devs, that don't care one bit for offering consumers a decent product.

What is most concerning is how the hell, did this game got a 80 on Metacritic for the PC version, when it's such a broken mess.

Indeed, it would be nice if the article writers could distinguish "review bombing" from "something bad got negative reviews".

I know why companies like to pretend they're the same, but independent sites/articles should not.

 

[Fearghast]

There is a market for this type of games. I know a few who would love to play it.

I know a few as well, as well as I know people that play games on a mobile phone.
There is a market for utter tosh, but that does not reflect the quality of said game.
Not saying it is a bad game, only ... mediocre, even compared to predecessors.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Thanks for clarification. You are right, this game is in betatesting stage. That being said, I won't be joining paying (not paid, but paying!) betatesting team, I will leave that to others. Happy to buy the game when it's finished.

I thought the game looked pretty interesting and it's on my radar, but I don't buy games when they release (due to bugs and performance issues). Eventually down the road I'll get a copy, hopefully it'll be in a nice playable condition for PC gaming by then.

The last game I actually purchased for full price when it came out was STALKER: Call of Pripyat and before that was Crysis. Watching so many people I know and other gamers getting screwed by new released games being so buggy or broken in some way or another you can't play until the game is patched has kept me far, far away from buying new when something is released. Generally 6 months is the minimum I'll wait to pick up a new game, after it's released.

 

[WhimsyPacifist]

Watch a comparison video of Deadspace vs Callisto Protocol. The atmosphere, soundscape and psy ability are not as good in the spiritual successor.

Melee attacks getting a "bonk" repeatedly is especially hilarious.

 

[PEnnn]

I don't care for 3rd person shooters.

On top of the bugs in this game, the movements look very cartoonish...might as well watch a cartoon and save $60.

 

[Shear]

The devs are 100% worked to the bone. It's not their fault, it's the insane release schedules. (you wouldn't last a week in their shoes). The game itself isn't bad when you ignore the technical issues on PC.

Absolutely doesn't matter whose fault it is. As a consumer, I couldn't care less why the product isn't finished. You took the money just the same.

 

[Prrredictable]

Did I understand this correctly? The game operates only on a single core? How is that even in the discussion anymore when deciding to launch a game?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Cry me a river. Everyone works hard for their money.
Selling a broken game for 60$ is a scam and devs have to be called out for that.
Stop trying to defend this crap, or we continue to get more and more games on PC unplayable because of stutter.

Everyone really, bit of a stretch. Not many work as hard a nurse, or emergency worker, especially not softcocks in cushy office jobs or finance wankers.

Yeah I'll cry you a river for sure.

 

[m3tavision]

Yes. Because making something better takes a lot more time and money. Optimisations can double or triple the development time of many game systems/features.

The only thing on the mind of those who make these schedules is making a decent profit. Creating a decent product and treating developers like humans comes 7th or 10th on their list of priorities.

You are forgetting that the "boss" was bragging how the devs work 7 days a week with 12 or more daily hours.

ONLY... because the timeline for release is unreasonable.

 

[error1984]

Makes you wonder... how worthy and dependable are the words of these "critics".

Pretty much every single website is anti consumer these days. Take for example techpowerup or eurogamer which are advert and promotion mediums for the industry.

 

[gamerk2]

The game wasn't review bombed, it got the reviews it deserved from gamers.
Let's not defend lazy, incompetent devs, that don't care one bit for offering consumers a decent product.

What is most concerning is how the hell, did this game got a 80 on Metacritic for the PC version, when it's such a broken mess.

The problem isn't the Devs, it's the crunch culture. The focus is fixing any game-breaking bugs so you can meet the release to keep investors happy (and yes, corporations are *very* quarterly focused), so things like "optimizations" get pushed down the priority chain.

 

[gamerk2]

Did I understand this correctly? The game operates only on a single core? How is that even in the discussion anymore when deciding to launch a game?

That's not technically true. Unless the Devs go out of their way to do so (which is *always* wrong), the OS is ultimately responsible for mapping threads to specific CPU cores based on the current system load.

It's more likely that the GPU rendering engine, for whatever reason, isn't taking advantage of late-era DX11/DX12 optimizations that allow multiple threads to communicate with the GPU, leaving that giant rendering thread essentially single-threaded. In turn, this likely stalls the GPU.

Without knowing any technical details that's the best explanation I have, and makes more sense then the developers just flat out ignoring threading (which would be bad practice by 1990 standards).

 

[neeyik]

It's more likely that the GPU rendering engine, for whatever reason, isn't taking advantage of late-era DX11/DX12 optimizations that allow multiple threads to communicate with the GPU, leaving that giant rendering thread essentially single-threaded. In turn, this likely stalls the GPU.

TCP uses a modified version of Unreal Engine 4. By default, one thread (literally called the Render Thread) is used as a universal command queue which in turn generates another thread (Render Hardware Interface thread) that can parallelize instructions, depending on the API being used. UE4 is pretty clunky like this because the rendering engine predates D3D12 and the RHI layer was added to get around D3D11's issues with parallel commands.

 

[gamerk2]

TCP uses a modified version of Unreal Engine 4. By default, one thread (literally called the Render Thread) is used as a universal command queue which in turn generates another thread (Render Hardware Interface thread) that can parallelize instructions, depending on the API being used. UE4 is pretty clunky like this because the rendering engine predates D3D12 and the RHI layer was added to get around D3D11's issues with parallel commands.

Yep, if it's Unreal Engine 4 that's pretty much the classic limitation that exists with the rendering threat. They're probably trying to do too much with too old an Engine, and are trying to use higher specs to hide the fact it won't scale well.

How long has this been in development? Kinda surprised we're still seeing UE4 releases in this day and age.

 

[neeyik]

How long has this been in development? Kinda surprised we're still seeing UE4 releases in this day and age.

Started in 2019, I believe, so not particularly long in development and Covid restrictions would have had some impact too. Don't forget that Epic only officially launched UE5 in April of this year and it was only made beta-available in 2021, hence the decision to use UE4. The developers did pinch a few bits of the newer engine, and added their own changes, with the assistance of Epic.