The Callisto Protocol (survival/horror)

I would say 3 is appropriate for the PC release on day 1 before the very first shader cache patch came out later that night. The game was basically unplayable before that very first patch on PC.

After the second PC patch performance was largely OK. Removing the performance issues, i'd still only rate it a 6/10. Mostly because it's not that great or long of a game, and it has a $60 price tag. If it were a $50 price tag i'd give it a 7/10.
 
7/10 sounds pretty fair to me, ignoring technical issues
 
Mchart said:
I would say 3 is appropriate for the PC release on day 1 before the very first shader cache patch came out later that night. The game was basically unplayable before that very first patch on PC.

After the second PC patch performance was largely OK. Removing the performance issues, i'd still only rate it a 6/10. Mostly because it's not that great or long of a game, and it has a $60 price tag. If it were a $50 price tag i'd give it a 7/10.
Click to expand...
That's fair...initial reviews before the patches were bound to be significantly worse (as evidenced on Steam). However, anyone who posted a review of the game in its initial state should update post-patches to be fair to the game.

I won't argue with anyone who gives the game a 6/10. That's not out of line. I played some more last night and I'm still sticking with a 7 or 7.5 out of 10 but I'm a sucker for the genre and probably more willing to overlook minor flaws like the QTEs in 2022, or the fact that sometimes when you die you have to redo a certain sequence a few times like I did on the gondola ride over to the SHU due to being low on health. At least when you die in this game, it's pretty gruesome and cinematic though.

Other than minor nitpicks I'm still having a great time, but I'll agree that if I were buying it for myself I'd be happier with a $40-$50 price tag than $60 given the reported length of the campaign. Anyone not itching for more of this type of game is probably better off waiting on a sale, but man, I can say that for a lot of other $60 games, too.
 
Review updates are a tricky thing. If you don't want your game to get torn apart - don't launch it in a sorry state. Yet in some cases, they'll have 3-4 versions of a game floating around and different reviewers get different versions. Whose fault that is often varies. Plus, lots of recent games have gotten huge updates that were technically after the game launched, but they're still within 24 hours. That's both awesome and annoying as hell that it was even necessary. Yet should reviewers have to take that kind of thing into account? Are reviews now a constant work in progress thanks to updates? I dunno. Thing is, it's almost entirely on the PC side of things with some notable exceptions like Cyberpunk. It has become par for the course to release a busted-ass PC port and fix it later. Later might be a day, a week, or a month. If it's any more than a week, I kinda just want the reviews to stand as-is as a punishment.
 
Domingo said:
Review updates are a tricky thing. If you don't want your game to get torn apart - don't launch it in a sorry state. Yet in some cases, they'll have 3-4 versions of a game floating around and different reviewers get different versions. Whose fault that is often varies. Plus, lots of recent games have gotten huge updates that were technically after the game launched, but they're still within 24 hours. That's both awesome and annoying as hell that it was even necessary. Yet should reviewers have to take that kind of thing into account? Are reviews now a constant work in progress thanks to updates? I dunno. Thing is, it's almost entirely on the PC side of things with some notable exceptions like Cyberpunk. It has become par for the course to release a busted-ass PC port and fix it later. Later might be a day, a week, or a month. If it's any more than a week, I kinda just want the reviews to stand as-is as a punishment.
Click to expand...
I actually think it's fair to review a game in its state on day 1, as that is how most people are going to experience it. Maybe not supersede the prior review with a new one, but at least give a "state of the game" update so opinions in the market are not skewed by an outdated experience. First impressions are everything, though, so it is really on developers to refocus on QA so you can get that good first impression. How Striking Distance did not know of the glaring performance issues on both the console and PC versions is quite puzzling whose only explanation to me is that they did not have a QA process. I feel that QA testers largely unionizing in the industry is why release day quality is in such a poor state these days.
 
Armenius said:
I actually think it's fair to review a game in its state on day 1, as that is how most people are going to experience it. Maybe not supersede the prior review with a new one, but at least give a "state of the game" update so opinions in the market are not skewed by an outdated experience. First impressions are everything, though, so it is really on developers to refocus on QA so you can get that good first impression. How Striking Distance did not know of the glaring performance issues on both the console and PC versions is quite puzzling whose only explanation to me is that they did not have a QA process. I feel that QA testers largely unionizing in the industry is why release day quality is in such a poor state these days.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Studios should absolutely be held accountable for major issues at launch, but we should also give credit where it's due because in many cases the devs know there are issues but the publisher wants to rush the goods out the door for one reason or another (in this case, maybe to beat the Dead Space remake) and it gets fixed later.

People who shelled out full price from the get-go have every right to complain about poor launches (looking at you, Arkham Knight and others) but reviewers should also do their due diligence and update their reviews over time if the situation improves. I totally agree with leaving the initial complaints as documentation and a scolding on what's NOT acceptable, but also making additions to those reviews when it's warranted.
 
Lateralus said:
People who shelled out full price from the get-go have every right to complain about poor launches (looking at you, Arkham Knight and others) but reviewers should also do their due diligence and update their reviews over time if the situation improves. I totally agree with leaving the initial complaints as documentation and a scolding on what's NOT acceptable, but also making additions to those reviews when it's warranted.
Click to expand...

most review sites are reviewing the gameplay and not the technology behind the game engine or hardware configurations...most of the time gameplay doesn't change- a few exceptions are Cyberpunk 2077 and No Man's Sky...the review sites that do cover the tech aspects usually do put out updated videos- Digital Foundry in particular does that
 
Last edited:
I also got it as a gift and so far I like it a lot. It is a mix of Riddick, Dead Space, and The Last of Us, and, I'll add The Suffering.
 
Armenius said:
I actually think it's fair to review a game in its state on day 1, as that is how most people are going to experience it. Maybe not supersede the prior review with a new one, but at least give a "state of the game" update so opinions in the market are not skewed by an outdated experience. First impressions are everything, though, so it is really on developers to refocus on QA so you can get that good first impression. How Striking Distance did not know of the glaring performance issues on both the console and PC versions is quite puzzling whose only explanation to me is that they did not have a QA process. I feel that QA testers largely unionizing in the industry is why release day quality is in such a poor state these days.
Click to expand...

No, QA testers are unionizing due to how poorly they're treated. They have nothing to do with games being getting bad releases. I'd imagine in the vast majority of cases, QA testers found and reported all the issues prior to release. It's the publishers and people higher up the food chain at developers that choose to release games in a bad state. It's not the fault of anyone at the ground level.
 
Derangel said:
No, QA testers are unionizing due to how poorly they're treated. They have nothing to do with games being getting bad releases. I'd imagine in the vast majority of cases, QA testers found and reported all the issues prior to release. It's the publishers and people higher up the food chain at developers that choose to release games in a bad state. It's not the fault of anyone at the ground level.
Click to expand...
What I mean is that developers and publishers are forgoing hiring a QA team to avoid the unionization baggage.
 
4-5 hours in and I'm loving this journey through the prison. The focus on melee and melee/equipment hybrid combat is really refreshing after coming off of a Dead Space playthrough. It really feels like you're fighting for your life on a primal level as opposed to switching to a powerful piece of equipment and picking most things off before they get to you. Phase summed this up very well in an earlier post. Man, it feels good to beat the brakes off of these things and you're constantly on the edge of death which really helps keep the tension flowing.

The levels drip with atmosphere, and the sound design is very well done IMO. I was trudging through the sewers last night while low on health after a nasty encounter, and the audio was instilling such a sense of dread. Love it.

One spot in particular reminded me of the
meat grinder
level in DUSK, which was awesome.

My only worry is that it'll be over too soon, but I can say with certainty that I will be replaying this one after enough time elapses that it's a 'fresh' experience again. Might even pick up the Season Pass.
 
polonyc2 said:
how are they being treated badly?
Click to expand...
From what I read when the whole fracas was getting the most attention was that they were not being offered full time employment. If they were employed there was no promotion opportunity. And the usual griping about pay rates.

It's not right, but QA is the lowest rung in the development environment. If I were a developer I'd have no problem paying a QA tester more, if and only if they have a demonstrable skill in picking games apart to find the most inane issues like normal gamers do. In the end, though, I don't think it would make all that much of a difference considering the aforementioned attitude of pushing a game out the door and promising to fix it later.
 
Armenius said:
From what I read when the whole fracas was getting the most attention was that they were not being offered full time employment. If they were employed there was no promotion opportunity. And the usual griping about pay rates.

It's not right, but QA is the lowest rung in the development environment. If I were a developer I'd have no problem paying a QA tester more, if and only if they have a demonstrable skill in picking games apart to find the most inane issues like normal gamers do. In the end, though, I don't think it would make all that much of a difference considering the aforementioned attitude of pushing a game out the door and promising to fix it later.
Click to expand...

I always considered QA testers more like a contract job or consultant versus a full time employee...I can understand the pay raise but I'm not sure about promotion opportunities or full time status...most QA testers are not coders or developers
 
polonyc2 said:
I always considered QA testers more like a contract job or consultant versus a full time employee...I can understand the pay raise but I'm not sure about promotion opportunities or full time status...most QA testers are not coders or developers
Click to expand...
My thoughts, exactly. It's a low-skill job when we're talking about development, and for now we pay based on merit including required skill and knowledge. Unionization being thrown into the mix just throws that balance off. It's just like fast food workers whining about the minimum wage.
 
So, when this is billed as a "survival horror" game, is the survival aspect the same as in shooters? Don't die. Or is it a survival as in, you have to find food and water, shelter, weapons, crafting etc.?
 
Yippee38 said:
So, when this is billed as a "survival horror" game, is the survival aspect the same as in shooters? Don't die. Or is it a survival as in, you have to find food and water, shelter, weapons, crafting etc.?
Click to expand...
More along the lines of Shooters as in don't die.

If you play on hard though conserve ammo and money until near the end
 
I really hope they optimize the game a little bit more. Ray tracing is just stupidly CPU dependent in areas and I was watching a review today that when they turn on ray tracing the gap closes significantly between the gpus instead of increasing. The difference was only 13% between the 4070 TI and 4090 with ray tracing on at 1440p and only 19% difference at 4K. As usual there's going to be one or two people that says oh must be your computer I get full GPU utilization the whole time...blah blah blah.. BS.. In fact there's a clown on the steam forums running a 4090 with an old 3900x swearing he gets full GPU utilization the whole time and that ray tracing is very well optimized and multi-threaded on the CPU. That is laughable considering a 3900x is just a bottleneck in general for a 4090 never mind in a significantly more CPU demanding situation.
 
Last edited:
I'll get this game in a year or two when the GOTY for $5 comes out and the developers patch it half a dozen times. How are you guys buying $50 or $80 games? I have a backlog of like 50 games in my Steam account that it doesn't even make sense to buy this one even if it was $20.
 
scojer said:
More along the lines of Shooters as in don't die.

If you play on hard though conserve ammo and money until near the end
Click to expand...
Resources are just smaller stacks of the same drops from normal on hard. You get less money and ammo throughout, yes, but drops dynamically change based on what you need at the moment. I used the hand cannon and shotgun a lot on my hard playthrough and I really never found myself running out of ammo. There are upgrades that you should buy when you have the money for them, too. Really no point in saving anything for the end, especially given the limited inventory space.
 
Armenius said:
Resources are just smaller stacks of the same drops from normal on hard. You get less money and ammo throughout, yes, but drops dynamically change based on what you need at the moment. I used the hand cannon and shotgun a lot on my hard playthrough and I really never found myself running out of ammo. There are upgrades that you should buy when you have the money for them, too. Really no point in saving anything for the end, especially given the limited inventory space.
Click to expand...

Well...
after the first two head and it had all those crates with ammo, I figured each future battle would be similar. I changed my gameplay from mostly melee to shooting more to switch things up. Next couple of two heads I did fine, but the last one before I got to the end I ran out of ammo, so I had to load a couple of saves back to buy ammo instead of a new gun at the printer.

When I play on easy to get all of the achievements, I'm going Danny Devito
 
scojer said:
Well...
after the first two head and it had all those crates with ammo, I figured each future battle would be similar. I changed my gameplay from mostly melee to shooting more to switch things up. Next couple of two heads I did fine, but the last one before I got to the end I ran out of ammo, so I had to load a couple of saves back to buy ammo instead of a new gun at the printer.

When I play on easy to get all of the achievements, I'm going Danny Devito
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't buy any weapons in the game except for the hand cannon that you're forced to buy. I put all my money into upgrades, and once you get locked up back in your cell at the end I used my money on nothing but ammo since I was never going to find enough money to buy the last upgrades I wanted. There is a store right before the last two-head. It's possible to melee it to death if you get it caught in a corner with you.
 
I'm playing around with this now. Graphically it's quite good, but I think they're shooting themselves in the foot with all the damn ever-present fog/smoke/dust/embers/etc. effects. Between that and all of the lighting effects that have to permeate all of it, the game takes a ton of juice to run well. Without those effects onscreen, it basically looks and runs like RE: Village. I get the atmospheric reasoning, but dialing that back would probably have gone a long way performance-wise.
I'm not getting any hitching, though, so that's nice. Game-wise and presentation-wise, I think it's pretty solid so far. Not amazing, but it doesn't feel like some overblown indie game or anything like that.

EDIT: I feel like I'm struggling to find consistent performance settings. One minute things will seem fine, and the next it'll start bogging down again. It isn't a stutter, but just major performance ups and downs based on the onscreen lighting. Tinkering with the various settings doesn't seem to matter much, either. The benchmark says I'm above 80fps, but even in the benchmark itself things bottom out around every corner. I can't seem to make the game ever feel 100% smooth, but turning down the resolution render (something I haven't needed to do in a while) is the best thing I've found. Not being able to find a good performance/settings combo is frustrating.
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
13 Ways to End Lousy PC Ports in 2023- Improved Settings, Smoother Gameplay, Essential Features

Click to expand...

Should have its own thread. Shader compilation is simply one issue brought up, and it affected a lot of titles last year outside of this game. A lot of good points are brought up which have actually been argued for since TotalBiscuit's was still alive.
 
jobert said:
Nothing is going to change and if anything I expect things to get worse this year with so many unreal engine games.
Click to expand...
People don't realise that they can literally vote with their wallet.
1. wait for reviews
2. see if reviews say game has problems.
3. buy game if you think it's acceptable, don't buy it if it's not.


Its not fucking difficult. Publishers want money. only money. They don't care about the art, the experience, the value. They want money and only money. Buying a game with issues is rewarding them with the only thing they care about. Conplain, review bomb, cry on youtube, rally a fake boycott, do whatever you want, but the publishers don't fucking care as long as they make money. If you've given them money, you've given them the thumbs up. You've rewarded them in the only way they know how to measure success.
 
KazeoHin said:
People don't realise that they can literally vote with their wallet.
1. wait for reviews
2. see if reviews say game has problems
3. buy game if you think it's acceptable, don't buy it if it's not
Click to expand...

I almost never pre-order but it doesn't really matter as much anymore once Steam and others implemented their refund policy (within 14 days of purchase and has been played for less than 2 hours)...returning a PC game you bought/pre-ordered digitally is really easy now
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
I almost never pre-order but it doesn't really matter as much anymore once Steam and others implemented their return policy (within 14 days of purchase and has been played for less than 2 hours)...returning a PC game you bought/pre-ordered digitally is really easy now
Click to expand...
Pre ordering still puts assets in a publishers portfolio that they use as leverage for various financial acts. Returns bring a tiny bit of volatility but in the end I still think pre-orders are a toxic and over-hyped part of the industry.
 
LOL, my 4090 arrived and I fired this up just to see what difference it made. Basically zero. My FPS in the benchmark went up by 20, but it's as inconsistent and choppy as ever. 100fps one second, only to look in a different direction and see that number get cut in half. If there are multiple light sources on the screen, it'll spike upward while your crosshair is between them and then plummet when you look right at them. I guess you can't brute force performance out of a poorly made game.
 
So was this good/worth it? Let down? I'm asking like I won't wait till it's $5 anyway lol
 
Not paying for a game that comes with shader compilation stutter...this is 2023, not 2003.

Better luck next game...
 
staknhalo said:
So was this good/worth it? Let down? I'm asking like I won't wait till it's $5 anyway lol
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd say no. It doesn't do the shader compilation stutter thing anymore, but performance is still dreadful. It's entirely dependent on lighting and effects like fog/smoke/debris/etc. which are ever-present. You're constantly bouncing between crazy high FPS and crazy low FPS and I can't find a way to even things out without turning graphic settings all the way down. The game looks good, but not that good. It looks like Resident Evil Village with tons of smoke and lighting effects.

In terms of the game itself, it's not the worst thing I've ever played, but I don't think it's good either. The controls are strange. At first it feels like every other game, but dodging is done by tapping in a direction. That command overlaps with how you move, so it's very awkward trying to move around and fight at the same time. Whenever you fight anything, it feels like you're just wildly mashing left and right (which DOES work), and occasionally swinging back. Things revolve around how many times you should dodge before trying to swing back, which is just as exciting as it sounds. You can fight from a distance with guns and a gravity gun type power, but both are kinda weak compared to melee. The game seems to want you to melee fight as much as possible.
 
Another perspective: I absolutely love beating the tar out of the enemies…brutal combat and gore. The atmosphere drips and I’m not noticing anything in terms of performance to complain much about. I intentionally paused my playthrough because I’m loving it and didn’t want it to be over too quickly.

It’s worth $40 all day, every day IMO
 
polonyc2 said:
Callisto Protocol underperformed sales wise

Was expected to sell 5 million...currently under 2 million...industry watchers attributed the title's current sales to game length and the developer's focus on production values...

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/analysts-lower-sales-targets-for-callisto-protocol
Click to expand...
The game is short and plauged by technical issues, I guess people voting with their wallets is a real thing.
The game lauching with stutter-shader compilation is inexcusable in 2023, I hope the developer learned it's lessons.
 
polonyc2 said:
Callisto Protocol underperformed sales wise

Was expected to sell 5 million...currently under 2 million...industry watchers attributed the title's current sales to game length and the developer's focus on production values...

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/analysts-lower-sales-targets-for-callisto-protocol
Click to expand...

Game length has little to do with it. Resident Evil games sell even if they are short. Bugs and poor performance is probably the main reason.

HumanBias said:
The game lauching with stutter-shader compilation is inexcusable in 2023, I hope the developer learned it's lessons.
Click to expand...

Also this is a problem. You can't blame UE either because many games that aren't UE have the same problems. Some devs like Sony's studios actually put in effort to optimize their games and actually have shader compilation. They also generally run very smoothly. This has been a problem over the past 3 or so years and there is zero reason for a modern game to not include such a feature.
 
I have no idea how long the game is, but beyond length I don't think it's good. It seems like it should be, but it's like a weird Dead Space/Punch Out!! hybrid with performance issues that actual affect gameplay. Playing it for 10-15 minutes at a time, I get sick of it and want to play literally anything else. At this point I'm committed to getting through it, but it's a struggle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top