[throw10920]

> It absolutely does matter

You literally did not read my comment.

I just explained why it doesn't matter:

> the fact is that there are several other games that look better and run much better on the same hardware

...and you completely ignored it without providing a single counterargument.

That is existence proof that that hardware, weak as it is, is more than capable of providing that performance for that graphics quality.

[TulliusCicero]

I read it, your complaint is still just silly.

Optimization certainly varies across games, but when you're working on an iGPU, you're probably playing on a particularly low level of quality that yeah, developers don't spend a lot of time optimizing for, because relatively few of their intended customers are running on a crappy old integrated GPU. That doesn't necessarily mean that the game is "unoptimized" as a whole though, it could be just that it's unoptimized for very low end systems, because they focused more on better performance at higher quality settings.

In Deep Rock Galactic's case, while it's relatively low poly, it's still quite a pretty game, it's really not that barebones, so I wouldn't expect it to run well on such a weak CPU and GPU, and to expect otherwise is silly.

[throw10920]

If you had read it, you probably would have actually responded to the points I made. You did not respond to the points that I made. Therefore, it's more likely that you simply did not read it.

> your complaint is still just silly

The classic "dismiss the argument without actually making a logical point".

> That doesn't necessarily mean that the game is "unoptimized" as a whole though

I never said "unoptimized" - don't put words in my mouth. I said "poorly optimized" - and if a game makes poor use of its resources on low-end hardware when there are other games that make better use (under similar economic constraints), and there are a significant number of actual players on lower-end hardware, then yes, it's poorly-optimized.

> it's still quite a pretty game, it's really not that barebones, so I wouldn't expect it to run well on such a weak CPU and GPU, and to expect otherwise is silly

I've already responded to this argument with the case example of Valorant. Not only is the expectation not "silly", but there's, again, an existing counter-example. Expecting program to run on hardware that is capable of running them is not unreasonable at all.

The people who think that it's ok to waste the vast amount of a computer's potential are part of the problem of ever-more-bloated software that's wasting power and contributing to carbon emissions through poor use of available resources.

[TulliusCicero]

Nevertheless, the complaint is still silly.

I won't dispute that some companies are known for making particularly optimized games that function well even on very low end hardware, including Riot and Valve. That doesn't mean everything else counts as poorly optimized, though, and certainly it's made easier for a company like Riot when they're huge and the game is intended to live as a GaaS for a very long time.

Your reasoning amounts to, "a few companies manage to do X extremely well, everyone else counts as a poor effort". Do I really need to explain why this doesn't make sense?

Not to mention, at which point in PC gaming history were you able to play most new games at a decent framerate on a 7-year old PC with no dedicated GPU and a CPU that was weak even for its time?