Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (fallen order sequel)

Finally got it working & the game itself is a good game imo, but jesus what have they done to the performance aspect.

There is a part where you are onboard a small ship on Planet 1 & my FPS dropped all the way down to 27 whilst onboard, yet i'm now on planet 2 and am getting a nice smooth 70FPS.
 
mrk said:
Opinion piece is up!

www.neowin.net

These aren't the PC ports you're looking for - The current state of AAA PC gaming

From shader and traversal stutters to GPUs that are sleeping at the wheel. We take a look at what's going on with the growing trend of releasing high-end PC games with little to no optimisation.
www.neowin.net www.neowin.net
Click to expand...
Nice piece Sir. It's interesting that you mention demo's. I can't remember the last time a AAA game had a demo now I think about it. If done correctly it can absolutely make a game a day one purchase. I guess Diablo 4 kinda did it with the beta. I went from not really sure to pre ordering. But single player games seem to have given up on the demo route.

Is this because they know it will turn people off with all the issues we've been seeing recently ? Makes you think.
 
The only one I can think of is Res Evil 4 demo, and that went down really well! But it is Capcom so this was expected really.

Last of Us didn't even get a review copy out to any review outlet on PC, so that kind of told us what's what before launch :/
 
razerbwfc said:
Nice piece Sir. It's interesting that you mention demo's. I can't remember the last time a AAA game had a demo now I think about it. If done correctly it can absolutely make a game a day one purchase. I guess Diablo 4 kinda did it with the beta. I went from not really sure to pre ordering. But single player games seem to have given up on the demo route.

Is this because they know it will turn people off with all the issues we've been seeing recently ? Makes you think.
Click to expand...
Demos were a lot of fun and a great way to test a game and see whether you liked it, I remember all those PC Gamer demo discs from the '90s very fondly. Now I can see why the industry moved aggressively to get rid of them as they would have nowhere to hide with all these shocking technical messes.
 
Last edited:
ltron said:
Demos were a lot of fun and a great way to test a game and see whether you liked it, I remember all those PC Gamer demo discs from the '90s very fondly. Now I can see why the industry moved aggressively to get rid of them as they would have nowhere to hide with all these shocking technical messes.
Click to expand...
Oh man. I've still got a stack of those cds up in the loft. Good Times! Of course we didn't have the Internet that we have now so it was kinda the only way back then, but still. Also a top end gpu didn't cost you the best part of a months wage :D
 
The problem with Demos is they eat into Dev time, deciding what to include, making sure if doesn't run like **** which will instantly turn people off who might have bought or pre-ordered anyway. Deadlines are so tight with absolutely hard release dates that even delays of a month in the case of Survivor likely had to be signed off by the board or CFO at the very least. AAA games are no longer fully in the hands of the developers, the Studio and upper management are all in there, meddling and 'making suggestions'.

The bigger a developer gets the more involved non-gamers become, especially at board level and in senior management. You get hires coming in from big banks, petrochemical companies and all sorts who likely would say the last game they played was Snake on their Nokia 3210, but they're successful businessmen so get hired and then start making decisions for profit or bottom line and expect every game to have paid for DLC or Cosmetics to continue to bring in revenue after launch and initial sales.
 
MissChief said:
The problem with Demos is they eat into Dev time, deciding what to include, making sure if doesn't run like **** which will instantly turn people off who might have bought or pre-ordered anyway. Deadlines are so tight with absolutely hard release dates that even delays of a month in the case of Survivor likely had to be signed off by the board or CFO at the very least. AAA games are no longer fully in the hands of the developers, the Studio and upper management are all in there, meddling and 'making suggestions'.

The bigger a developer gets the more involved non-gamers become, especially at board level and in senior management. You get hires coming in from big banks, petrochemical companies and all sorts who likely would say the last game they played was Snake on their Nokia 3210, but they're successful businessmen so get hired and then start making decisions for profit or bottom line and expect every game to have paid for DLC or Cosmetics to continue to bring in revenue after launch and initial sales.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Rose tinted glasses here but where did it go wrong? Like everything else these days, profit is king :(
 
von Humboldt said:
This is an important point. The devs are often the ones getting the flak, but really it's the publishers who are forcing stuff out before it's ready just so it can influence a specific quarter/financial year.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is probably true. I work as a senior business analyst working closely with our IT developers and we often push out solutions that are absolutely minimal viable product because "those who must be obeyed but have no clue" have set an arbitrary release date that they wont budge on because "reasons" and then we get to work fixing it in the coming weeks/months which we could have done in the first place if not constrained by, frankly, b******t.

So I doubt it's in any different in this space either
 
Last edited:
TNA said:
I gave up after maybe a third the way through as I recall.
Click to expand...
Fallen order was technically competent with good lightsaber combat, but it did nothing groundbreaking or new really. So far Survivor is certainly much improved in that respect, but still doesn't do much new. I wonder if there is much to improve or new mechanics for what is, at it's essence, a platformer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
I'm actually really enjoying Fallen Order. Granted, like has been mentioned, its hardly groundbreaking. Its just a solid enjoyable experience. I get serious Tomb Raider vibes, which is not a bad thing at all. I do find the controls to be a bit clunky at times on KB/mouse, but I get that its designed for pad, I just dont get on with gamepads though.
I can definitely see me buying Survivor when it gets patched and improved performance.
 
Last edited:
Amatsubu said:
Playing Fallen Order now but can't say it's blowing my mind so far.
Click to expand...

I found the gameplay of Fallen Order very repetitive. It was the story I really enjoyed. Survivor feels much larger and fleshed out. I'm lucky in that for me I'm able to play pretty consistently. Still getting a few random CTD's and the FPS drops are irritating as all hell. I have noticed though that when it happens if you go to menu for a few seconds the game recovers most of the time. Updated to the latest NVIDIA driver and saw a nice overall boost to performance. It was pretty noticeable.

I started playing at 8pm last night, I only came off an hour ago. It's been a long while since a game grabbed my attention like this. It just sucks there's so many problems plaguing what could be game of the year for me.
 
I thoroughly enjoyed fallen order for the story and the fluid combat mechanics. People say it did nothing new but I would disagree. It showed it’s possible to have an involved and fluid combat system that does not rely completely on button mashing, or hateful convoluted button combos.

It’s not all R1, R1, R1, Jump+R2 like you get in some AAA games. There is some of that of course but it’s mostly a timing based system with timed parrying and counters. Button mashing will get you very dead very quickly. IMHO it’s an excellent combat system that is up there with the very best, for the simple reason that you can see yourself improving. So many games miss that simple mechanic by giving even low level enemies ever bigger health bars as you get more powerful weapons. So you don’t get a sense of progression. There is rarely anything more satisfying in a game where you encounter what used to be a difficult enemy and brush them aside with your new skill/weapon/power. Difficulty ramps up in Jedi Fallen Order and Jedi Survivor in more subtle ways.

It also had a great story and some great level design that opened up shortcuts and areas as you progressed. There was a bit of backtracking but open up the shortcuts and it was minimal. There was a real sense of progression as you explored the levels.

Survivor is a rare thing in gaming, a follow-up that does not try to reinvent the core mechanics so much that it becomes almost unrecognisable (HFW on PS5). It simply takes what worked and manages to improve it or expand it in a good way.

It has problems with performance and stability and obviously should have been held back until those issues were resolved/mitigated. Though it’s certainly playable for many and it also points out the hyperbolic trash posts declaring the game totally broken, or totally perfect (I’m guilty of the latter).
 
Last edited:
t2na said:
Bold of you to think anyone on these forums can actually read.
Click to expand...

Some would rather argue that it costs £60 and is totally broken. Point out it can be purchased for a lot less and is playable for you (and many others) and it gets dismissed or ignored because it does not fit the “collective” narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom