|
|
 |
| [Apr 20, 2011, 11:34 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
The reviews of the PC edition of Portal 2 on Metacritic reflect the unhappiness of some users with Valve's just-released puzzle sequel. While the game boasts a 95 score based on critics' scores, the user score has dropped to 7.3, as there are 101 negative reviews as of this writing, many of them giving the game a zero. GamesIndustry.biz (registration required) summarizes the situation: The complaints appear to come primarily from PC users, upset that the game is a console port - and even includes references to turning off the 'console' when saving. Most anger, though, seems to be directed at the online store - which is already filled with downloadable content.
The volume of day one downloadable content seems to have come as a surprise to many PC users, unused to the console-style arrangement. They have also expressed disappointment at the game's short running time and the controversial ARG promotional campaign - which tempted players into buying unrelated indie titles.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 81. |
Re: Portal 2 User Review Backlash |
Apr 20, 2011, 15:14 |
Dev |
|
|
necrosis wrote on Apr 20, 2011, 14:49:
Jesus Christ. People bitching about the load times seriously need to shut the hell up or upgrade their 1980's HDD. You seriously should have at least a SATA II HDD by now and almost all of them are at least 7200 RPM. I do not think they make desktop HDD's slower than that anymore.
7200 RPM SATA II *LAPTOP* HDD and the load times were no more than 10 seconds. Usually less.
A) wtf does RPM have to do with anything? A ton of modern drives (probably majority of modern drives manufactured nowadays) are "green" drives and all of them have less than 7200 RPM, usually 5400-5900. Its certainly NOT the case that: "almost all" hdds are 7200 rpm and they don't make lower RPM ones.
Does it matter? NO! Platter density (600gb+) means that any modern green drive has like 5 times the transfer rate performance of 7200 RPM and 10k RPM drives years ago when buying 5400 RPM drives was a bad move.
Latest generation 10,000 RPM SATA 6g velociraptor gets around 145 megabytes/second sustained transfer rates.
Latest generation WD cavier green 3TB 5400 RPM drive gets around 120 megabytes/second sustained transfer rates.
Latest generation hitachi 7k3000 3TB 7200 rpm drive gets around 155 megabytes/second sustained transfer rates
Compare to USB 2 transfer rates of around 50 megabytes/sec
If you really want to do epeen bragging, throw a SSD into that laptop for actual fast transfer rates (probably more than triple what you have now instead of just a few percent) instead of bragging it has an OMG 7200rpm.
My "old" SSD of a year ago is a slow one of only 250 megabytes/sec reads, while the latest OCZ vertex 3 SSD can hit OVER 500 megabytes/sec transfer rates (meaning that its already almost outpacing the SATA 6g bus).
B) I think the loading screen complaint was more about how its constantly happening more than the actual length of each one.
This comment was edited on Apr 20, 2011, 15:37. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
