@igeljaeger And this one contains actual content

@nerthos The launch version was fine, but couldn't be finished 100% and framerate was all over the place.
It's much better now. Framerate is a bit more stable and a lot less gamebreaking bugs.

@matrix How much of a gaming PC do you need to play it at more than 12 FPS? All I know about it is that it looks pretty good and the developer is not a ball-less cuck who puts Niggers in medieval central Europe. Or so I've heard.

@rasterman
You need at least a 4th gen i7, a GTX 1070 and an SSD to play at high close to 60FPS.
The problem is that even if you drop the game to low, it's still quite CPU heavy, but a 4th gen i5 and a GTX 960 can still give you a good experience.
I have a i5 4690 and a GTX 970 and it's actually the CPU that is bottlenecki

@matrix Holy crap! That's a really elitist game!

Maybe in 10 years I'll have the hardware. Unless it comes out for the IntelliVision Amico or something. ð¤

@rasterman
By good, I mean better than consoles. You can get away with much less.
https://youtu.be/F7sGmACl9FQ
https://youtu.be/HtpgStAfjVM
https://youtu.be/Gd25uK8VQ6k

@matrix On a GT420M!? LMFAO. That's almost what I have. The game must be really good for people to go all that trouble to make it run.

I have my doubts developers these days make much of an effort in optimisation. I can understand the gigantic game size due to textures, though.

@rasterman
bottlenecking the GPU in quite a few AAA games.