@IkonNavros I now understand what you mean! But the game was never meant to be played at that zoom level (as @Zeckul pointed out in his excellent post).
@IkonNavros you cannot escape algorithms in the Widescreen Mod. You just have to deal with the sharpening algorithm as well there, which looks crap imo.
As for the certain zoom not escaping. The original resolution was 640x480. Everything else gets upscaled, for any mod as well, it just sharpens the image more, which makes it look bad as i said imo.
@AndreaColombo You said it in your own words, you can not escape a certain zoom No matter if you zoom in or out, the algorythm is always there.
Nope, I didn't say that. Quite the contrary. When you start the game, you're viewing it at 1:1 and no zoom or upscaling algorithm is involved. I can see the difference between that and zoom in/out, and I can always restore native resolution by using the mousewheel if I pay enough attention (for, as @Zeckul said, the algorithm is so good it's often tricky to get back to 1:1).
If you use an image program to zoom in on @Nukenin's picture, you can see how the quality of the bigger character models in BG:EE is radically improved from the original.
There's also the difference in that BG:EE (and BGT, of course) are using BG2 models.
Which of course means a comparison between BGT and BG:EE is still valid, but I think some people have forgotten what the game was really like "back in my day"…
@AndreaColombo And that i just do not believe. That makes logically seen no sense.
Since when you start a game or load the game the starting resolution.. no matter if 640x480 - 1280x720 or 1920*1080 - the game size is already bigger as when you compare it with the widescreen mod in the same choosen resolution - i am no fan of this one, because things get too small and that is poison for me as eyeglass wearer, but that does not matter in that case - you really want to tell me that is the normal resolution then? without any sort of hardcoded zoom feature?
I really would know how that works, it just makes no sense
You have your opinion and i have mine, i guess we can talk there forever, but i have enough, enjoy
@Zeckul@AndreaColombo and company. If you zoom out in BG:EE as far as you can, it does not display the art, bitmaps at 1:1 ratio to your display. It still has some zoom in there. If I have widescreen mod and I set the resolution to 1920x1200 which my displays native resolution everything is smaller than with BG:EE zoomed out as far as it goes.
I think Overhaul should increase the furthest away zoom so all graphics are displayed pixel to pixel on native resolution of the display. While this is not really practical, everything is just too small, some people seem to prefer it. At least everybody can use that as a tactical view or something.
Personally I was really surprised how good the upscaling algorithm is. Congrats to Overhaul for that. Much much better than with widescreen mod and GPU scaling the image to bearable size.
I think Overhaul should increase the furthest away zoom so all graphics are displayed pixel to pixel on native resolution of the display. While this is not really practical, everything is just too small, some people seem to prefer it. At least everybody can use that as a tactical view or something.
The absolute scaling factor is a function of your window size, so things are kept at roughly the same proportions. If you reduce the size of the window, things will get smaller. In theory you can find a window size that gives you 1:1 as the absolute scaling factor, although that's probably too much work to be worth it.
Here is an image showing BG:EE zoomed as far as possible vs. vanilla BG. As you can see, in the BG:EE everything is still larger, it has some magnification even if you try to go as far as you can with scroll wheel. (EDIT: And the zoom level is roughly 135%, if BG is 100%)
EDITEDIT: Actually I might know the reason why some people don't see this problem. BG:EE zooms the UI on higher resolution displays, it might also accidentally scale the game resolution by same amount on top of the zoom you can control with the mouse wheel. Thus, people with higher resolution displays cannot zoom out to 100% while those with smaller displays can.
Honestly, I can't believe what I read. What they say about the bad graphics and fonts compared to the old version is exactly the opposite of what I see on my screen. I wonder if we are playing the same game.
Okey I confirmed my hypothesis. If you play with 1920x1200 resolution, you cannot zoom further out than 135%. If you play with 1440x900 resolution, you can zoom to 100%.
For larger displays like 1920x1200 the game sets 135% zoom on top of everything, the game area, GUI etc. and you cannot control it.
As much as I like what I'm seeing about BGEE, I think it's important we remain honest here. I see a whole lot of people saying there's no different between the current graphics and the old ones. I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.
The review author was in fact very right when he challenged the reader to try and switch the game between fullscreen and window mode. There will be a very visible change in image crispness. Full screen mode removes a good deal of image crispness across the entire screen.
I don't really find this to be an issue (and I think it is technically impossible to solve). But let's remain fair by not pretending it doesn't exist.
EDIT: Bercon's edit 3 posts above shows this much. I just would like to make a note. Even on 1440x900, zoomed at 100% there's a clear loss in image quality. Again, I don't think it to be a big issue. But there's something going on behind the scenes that is sampling the image even on 100%.
EDIT: Bercon's edit 3 posts above shows this much. I just would like to make a note. Even on 1440x900, zoomed at 100% there's a clear loss in image quality. Again, I don't think it to be a big issue. But there's something going on behind the scenes that is sampling the image even on 100%.
Thats because it doesn't zoom it exactly to 100%, pixel to pixel. Its like 99,9% or 100,1% so it still has to do some interpolation with the pixels.
To fix these issues, devs should get rid of that extra 135% zoom at 1080p resolution and really support those resolutions, so GUI is pixel to pixel perfect. Now the 135% zoom is used to "cheat" support for higher resolutions.
Then they should make the zoom level 100% special so that it actually displays the graphics pixel to pixel. I'm not hundred percent sure that the game doesn't already do this, if you've have the right or low enough resolution.
I dont understand why people think there should be optimism for future patches when this isnt even a new game.
Beamdog took an old game that already works great with community patches, promised over 400 bug fixes, and yet at the same time they added in many many more new bugs that the modded versions of the game didnt have in the first place.
Beamdog took an old game that already works great with community patches, promised over 400 bug fixes, and yet at the same time they added in many many more new bugs that the modded versions of the game didnt have in the first place.
No. Beamdog (Overhaul in fact) took an old game to modern computing and in the process inevitably introduced new bugs. I find that an acceptable price to pay for the privilege of having someone care for one of my favorite games of all times. These bugs will be dealt with eventually and at the end of the day you will be having:
- A more modern rendition of BG 1 and BG 2 - Expanded support for mods - A whole lot of people talking again about one of the best RPGs ever made. 15 years after being made.
I just read the article and I have to say I think Gamebanshee must have been giving a completely different game then i was, or they some kind of vendetta against it from the start. First of all, I think this game looks beautiful and I havent had any "blurriness" Also I have yet, knock on wood, had one crash.
@Mungri They are still going to release BG2:EE which uses the same engine, so they are most likely going to at least iron engine bugs out. Plus new PC release wasn't probably even their main goal, they wanted to port the game on iPad and Android. While the game itself isn't new, the heavy modifications they had to do in order to port it are. Changes always mean chances for bugs.
You'll just have to be patient. Lets wait a month and see what happens. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but these are the realities of life. Its okey to let the devs known they didn't deliver, but flaming about it everywhere wont help.
I have substiancial hints that this is a RPGCodex vitrioled review written more politely.
Bias? An RPGCodex review written politely? Where's the proof?
The reviewer said good and bad things about BGEE. The review is honest and fair. It's one of the best reviews I've read in years because it is honest and fair. Practically all reviews now rate games 9/10 or 10/10 for a lot of games that are released. It's about time we had some honest objective reviews from game reviewers which has sadly been lacking over the years.
Just because it's a review you disagree with doesn't mean it's some sort of conspiracy that RPGCodex has had some hand in this review. And I have no affiliation or not a member of RPGCodex. I just find it funny that a review that's given a fair judgement of the game that you disagree with is somehow biased and the workings of RPGCodex. Nice tin foil hat conspiracy there.
I just read the article and I have to say I think Gamebanshee must have been giving a completely different game then i was
They probably have. The press was given a Press Review version of the game some days before the launch. A game version that to this moment remains as 1.0.2005. Note that this isn't even the release version.
Blame it on who you will. GameBanshee for having not made this known to their readers or Beamdog for giving the press something that is not what our readers are using. I find Beamdog attitude deplorable.
I agree wit this review. I was a little surprised to find that the new UI wasn't drawn i 1080p+. It seems like an unusual decision to say the least(perhaps it was made for ipads)?
One point I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned is that the multiplayer doesn't work AT ALL with 3 or more people. I'm surprised the 'enhanced multiplayer' makes the game completely unplayable doesn't get more notice.
I don't have a problem with the graphics myself. If I scroll in too far, yeah it looks poor. But if I scroll all the way out, then it looks fine to me. The UI itself - yeah the buttons are a bit blurry, but that doesn't really bother me. I really love the new color of the UI myself. I'm enjoying playing the game again, personally, and already can't wait for BG2 and all the other IE games they can get permission to update.
I have substiancial hints that this is a RPGCodex vitrioled review written more politely.
Bias? An RPGCodex review written politely? Where's the proof?
The reviewer said good and bad things about BGEE. The review is honest and fair. It's one of the best reviews I've read in years because it is honest and fair. Practically all reviews now rate games 9/10 or 10/10 for a lot of games that are released. It's about time we had some honest objective reviews from game reviewers which has sadly been lacking over the years.
Just because it's a review you disagree with doesn't mean it's some sort of conspiracy that RPGCodex has had some hand in this review. And I have no affiliation or not a member of RPGCodex. I just find it funny that a review that's given a fair judgement of the game that you disagree with is somehow biased and the workings of RPGCodex. Nice tin foil hat conspiracy there.
I used the words "smell bias" and "hints". I never used the word proof, or evidence. You are jumping to conclusions.
However, if you want a further explanation, here it is.
I know a particular GB member that is RPGCodex member as well, and repeatedly trashed the game in the forums.
The hints are there. If you don't know what RPGCodex is or what is written there, you should first pay a visit, see the 80+ page thread, what is written there, and what is written on the review. Then see the GB members, and the members of RPGCodex that trashed the game before they even knew what it's about.
I'm not saying that RPGCodexers wrote it, although there are connection hints, i'm saying that the review used the same arguments of the codex, presented in a more polite way, which is an indication that the review was affected by some opinions on the codex, biased from day 1 opinions. Are they true in what they say or not? Partially true, but some times they are just stating opinions and passing them as reviewing.
These people were searching to find flaws from day 1.
Tin foil hat conspiracy? I respect your opinion, but i disagree.
However tell me, how can you know that it is honest and fair? They didn't even know you can resize the windowed mode. Then you say "it is one of the best reviews you've read BECAUSE it is honest and fair". That's not an argument. You are assuming it's honest and fair, because you agree with it.
You can't prove that it was honest, just as i can't prove that it was indeed biased. I have some indications though, that some people there were biased against this from the start, and there are connections between them, and the forum we are talking about.
You see a stupid conspiracy theory, i see a strange coincidence. I could be wrong, but i don't like these coincidences.
Anyway peace.
P.S. There is a chance i focused too much on the negative parts, and missed out the positive. Since i think they might be biased, it's probable i'm biased against them myself. I'm not claiming to be right here, nor i'm trying to belittle your opinion. I will read the review carefully again when i have time. However these negative spots left a big impression on me.
First off, everyone: no, I don't have vendetta against Trent, Beamdog, Overhaul, BioWare, EA, whatever. I don't necessarily love them (and I am not fond of the direction BioWare have been going for many years now), but I am not setting out to bash, wreck, trash or otherwise critique their products and the people involved simply because I don't like them. Not only is that not true (I have spent more time with BioWare games collectively than almost any other developer's), but it's irrelevant to my process for writing and forming my opinion.
The fact is that I don't review potential. I don't review what could have been, or what could be. I also am not reviewing the original game, which is still great (as I point out in the article multiple times). Ultimately it's just me sitting down at my computer like anyone else, playing what I've been provided. and forming an opinion based on my tastes, preferences, background, and ultimately what I think makes for a quality RPG as well as a quality PC game. Doesn't matter if *you* played the game at X resolution and have no problems, or that Beamdog used "the best scaling algorithm money can buy" or "they didn't have access to the source art" or anything else - those are called excuses, and are irrelevant to how much I enjoy the game.
In my opinion (and I have to stress, opinion), Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, when taking into account the available alternatives, as well as the standards set by Overhaul for themselves, is simply not a success. That doesn't mean Baldur's Gate isn't great or that Overhaul's work in some respects is of poor quality - it just means that, pound-for-pound, taking into account the quality of the play experience it provides when compared to the original game, the Enhanced Edition's enhancements are not worth the extra money, either to new players or old ones.
You're welcome to disagree, of course, and I'm happy for you if you do, because that means you're forming an opinion on your own by what is (I hope) logical reasoning and your own background. And it's absolutely true that the bugs and glitches I experienced are subjective - not everyone has had the same issues as I have, and the problems I reported may not apply to everyone else. Likewise, the expectations everyone brings in to the game are not the same as my own. Some might like the changes, while others might despise them, and others still might have wished Overhaul had gone farther.
But ultimately what I am judging is what you can expect when you install the game and start playing - did I get my money's worth? For something purporting to be an improvement over the original, the technical problems that I encountered marred the experience for me significantly.
Full disclosure: I played a review copy provided free of charge by Overhaul Games. Due to a communications mix-up I played the release version that everyone else has been playing. Any issues I experienced were day-one issues.
More full disclosure: yeah, I hang out on RPG Codex. It's a great community with tons of intelligent, friendly people... provided you can enjoy its particularities. I've had the best debates and discussions on RPGs, game design and more on that forum. I don't see why not liking a game = RPG Codex plot, or why being an RPG Codex member = invalid opinion.
Final thing about the graphics scaling: if you play windowed mode, or have a low desktop resolution, there is no scaling (I believe it's 1024x768). This tells me that the new UI was drawn around 720p. If you play at a higher resolution, like 1080p, in order to prevent you from seeing too much at once and from having to read tiny text, the game upscales the visuals accordingly. This difference is obvious if you compare it side by side to the original game running the widescreen mod. Whether it bothers you is up to you. For me, it is not appealing at all, as it strains my eyes and ruins fine detail.
Oh, and I don't have an Intel graphics card. Core i7-920, NVIDIA GTX 470, 6 GB RAM, Windows 7 x64 for those interested.
@sea Some of what you said is plain incorrect though.
this "enhanced" version of the game, designed specifically to run better on modern computers, and to look better, actually looks and runs substantially worse than the 1998 release.
The 1998 release was locked at 640x480 which looks like crap on any current monitor. It is plagued by graphical glitches on many video cards; hell, it's a complete mess on my Windows 8 PC with a run-of-the-mill GTX 560 Ti. The multiplayer doesn't work. The loading times are a pain once you're used to BG:EE. It doesn't have half the classes present in BG:EE.
Very few people actually install mods because it involves googling around and reading READMEs, unzipping files in specific directories and going through command-line interfaces. Most people play the game out of the box and BG:EE is indeed a very much enhanced experience for those people. For those with the know-how to mod their game exactly the way they like, and who actually enjoy seeing entire areas at once and their NPCs reduced to a centimeter of the screen, BG:EE can look comparatively worse (slightly), but I'm not sure you realize just how few those people are.
While you're of course entitled to your opinion, I think a good review is one that aims to be valuable to a wide public. You're catering to a tiny minority, and painting a misleading picture for everyone else.
And while it's also fine to review what you have and not what the game could be in a few patches down the line, unless you update the review (which most don't), it'll also be misleading a few patches down the line. Obvious CTDs are bound to be fixed quickly and solutions will be found to most compatibility problems.
Comments
As for the certain zoom not escaping. The original resolution was 640x480. Everything else gets upscaled, for any mod as well, it just sharpens the image more, which makes it look bad as i said imo.
This is how we played BG1 in 1998. And we liked it! You silly people and your BGTs and widescreens and BG:EEs!
BG1 sprites will save the world! /starts marching alone
Which of course means a comparison between BGT and BG:EE is still valid, but I think some people have forgotten what the game was really like "back in my day"…
Since when you start a game or load the game the starting resolution.. no matter if 640x480 - 1280x720 or 1920*1080 - the game size is already bigger as when you compare it with the widescreen mod in the same choosen resolution - i am no fan of this one, because things get too small and that is poison for me as eyeglass wearer, but that does not matter in that case
I really would know how that works, it just makes no sense
You have your opinion and i have mine, i guess we can talk there forever, but i have enough, enjoy
I think Overhaul should increase the furthest away zoom so all graphics are displayed pixel to pixel on native resolution of the display. While this is not really practical, everything is just too small, some people seem to prefer it. At least everybody can use that as a tactical view or something.
Personally I was really surprised how good the upscaling algorithm is. Congrats to Overhaul for that. Much much better than with widescreen mod and GPU scaling the image to bearable size.
And to make all larger again, people can use the user controlled zoom.. the mouswheel - problem solved, everyone is happy!
EDITEDIT: Actually I might know the reason why some people don't see this problem. BG:EE zooms the UI on higher resolution displays, it might also accidentally scale the game resolution by same amount on top of the zoom you can control with the mouse wheel. Thus, people with higher resolution displays cannot zoom out to 100% while those with smaller displays can.
For larger displays like 1920x1200 the game sets 135% zoom on top of everything, the game area, GUI etc. and you cannot control it.
The review author was in fact very right when he challenged the reader to try and switch the game between fullscreen and window mode. There will be a very visible change in image crispness. Full screen mode removes a good deal of image crispness across the entire screen.
I don't really find this to be an issue (and I think it is technically impossible to solve). But let's remain fair by not pretending it doesn't exist.
EDIT: Bercon's edit 3 posts above shows this much. I just would like to make a note. Even on 1440x900, zoomed at 100% there's a clear loss in image quality. Again, I don't think it to be a big issue. But there's something going on behind the scenes that is sampling the image even on 100%.
To fix these issues, devs should get rid of that extra 135% zoom at 1080p resolution and really support those resolutions, so GUI is pixel to pixel perfect. Now the 135% zoom is used to "cheat" support for higher resolutions.
Then they should make the zoom level 100% special so that it actually displays the graphics pixel to pixel. I'm not hundred percent sure that the game doesn't already do this, if you've have the right or low enough resolution.
Beamdog took an old game that already works great with community patches, promised over 400 bug fixes, and yet at the same time they added in many many more new bugs that the modded versions of the game didnt have in the first place.
No. Beamdog (Overhaul in fact) took an old game to modern computing and in the process inevitably introduced new bugs. I find that an acceptable price to pay for the privilege of having someone care for one of my favorite games of all times. These bugs will be dealt with eventually and at the end of the day you will be having:
- A more modern rendition of BG 1 and BG 2
- Expanded support for mods
- A whole lot of people talking again about one of the best RPGs ever made. 15 years after being made.
You'll just have to be patient. Lets wait a month and see what happens. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but these are the realities of life. Its okey to let the devs known they didn't deliver, but flaming about it everywhere wont help.
The reviewer said good and bad things about BGEE. The review is honest and fair. It's one of the best reviews I've read in years because it is honest and fair. Practically all reviews now rate games 9/10 or 10/10 for a lot of games that are released. It's about time we had some honest objective reviews from game reviewers which has sadly been lacking over the years.
Just because it's a review you disagree with doesn't mean it's some sort of conspiracy that RPGCodex has had some hand in this review. And I have no affiliation or not a member of RPGCodex. I just find it funny that a review that's given a fair judgement of the game that you disagree with is somehow biased and the workings of RPGCodex. Nice tin foil hat conspiracy there.
Blame it on who you will. GameBanshee for having not made this known to their readers or Beamdog for giving the press something that is not what our readers are using. I find Beamdog attitude deplorable.
One point I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned is that the multiplayer doesn't work AT ALL with 3 or more people. I'm surprised the 'enhanced multiplayer' makes the game completely unplayable doesn't get more notice.
However, if you want a further explanation, here it is.
I know a particular GB member that is RPGCodex member as well, and repeatedly trashed the game in the forums.
The hints are there. If you don't know what RPGCodex is or what is written there, you should first pay a visit, see the 80+ page thread, what is written there, and what is written on the review. Then see the GB members, and the members of RPGCodex that trashed the game before they even knew what it's about.
I'm not saying that RPGCodexers wrote it, although there are connection hints, i'm saying that the review used the same arguments of the codex, presented in a more polite way, which is an indication that the review was affected by some opinions on the codex, biased from day 1 opinions. Are they true in what they say or not? Partially true, but some times they are just stating opinions and passing them as reviewing.
These people were searching to find flaws from day 1.
Tin foil hat conspiracy? I respect your opinion, but i disagree.
However tell me, how can you know that it is honest and fair? They didn't even know you can resize the windowed mode. Then you say "it is one of the best reviews you've read BECAUSE it is honest and fair". That's not an argument. You are assuming it's honest and fair, because you agree with it.
You can't prove that it was honest, just as i can't prove that it was indeed biased. I have some indications though, that some people there were biased against this from the start, and there are connections between them, and the forum we are talking about.
You see a stupid conspiracy theory, i see a strange coincidence. I could be wrong, but i don't like these coincidences.
Anyway peace.
P.S. There is a chance i focused too much on the negative parts, and missed out the positive. Since i think they might be biased, it's probable i'm biased against them myself. I'm not claiming to be right here, nor i'm trying to belittle your opinion. I will read the review carefully again when i have time. However these negative spots left a big impression on me.
First off, everyone: no, I don't have vendetta against Trent, Beamdog, Overhaul, BioWare, EA, whatever. I don't necessarily love them (and I am not fond of the direction BioWare have been going for many years now), but I am not setting out to bash, wreck, trash or otherwise critique their products and the people involved simply because I don't like them. Not only is that not true (I have spent more time with BioWare games collectively than almost any other developer's), but it's irrelevant to my process for writing and forming my opinion.
The fact is that I don't review potential. I don't review what could have been, or what could be. I also am not reviewing the original game, which is still great (as I point out in the article multiple times). Ultimately it's just me sitting down at my computer like anyone else, playing what I've been provided. and forming an opinion based on my tastes, preferences, background, and ultimately what I think makes for a quality RPG as well as a quality PC game. Doesn't matter if *you* played the game at X resolution and have no problems, or that Beamdog used "the best scaling algorithm money can buy" or "they didn't have access to the source art" or anything else - those are called excuses, and are irrelevant to how much I enjoy the game.
In my opinion (and I have to stress, opinion), Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, when taking into account the available alternatives, as well as the standards set by Overhaul for themselves, is simply not a success. That doesn't mean Baldur's Gate isn't great or that Overhaul's work in some respects is of poor quality - it just means that, pound-for-pound, taking into account the quality of the play experience it provides when compared to the original game, the Enhanced Edition's enhancements are not worth the extra money, either to new players or old ones.
You're welcome to disagree, of course, and I'm happy for you if you do, because that means you're forming an opinion on your own by what is (I hope) logical reasoning and your own background. And it's absolutely true that the bugs and glitches I experienced are subjective - not everyone has had the same issues as I have, and the problems I reported may not apply to everyone else. Likewise, the expectations everyone brings in to the game are not the same as my own. Some might like the changes, while others might despise them, and others still might have wished Overhaul had gone farther.
But ultimately what I am judging is what you can expect when you install the game and start playing - did I get my money's worth? For something purporting to be an improvement over the original, the technical problems that I encountered marred the experience for me significantly.
Full disclosure: I played a review copy provided free of charge by Overhaul Games. Due to a communications mix-up I played the release version that everyone else has been playing. Any issues I experienced were day-one issues.
More full disclosure: yeah, I hang out on RPG Codex. It's a great community with tons of intelligent, friendly people... provided you can enjoy its particularities. I've had the best debates and discussions on RPGs, game design and more on that forum. I don't see why not liking a game = RPG Codex plot, or why being an RPG Codex member = invalid opinion.
Final thing about the graphics scaling: if you play windowed mode, or have a low desktop resolution, there is no scaling (I believe it's 1024x768). This tells me that the new UI was drawn around 720p. If you play at a higher resolution, like 1080p, in order to prevent you from seeing too much at once and from having to read tiny text, the game upscales the visuals accordingly. This difference is obvious if you compare it side by side to the original game running the widescreen mod. Whether it bothers you is up to you. For me, it is not appealing at all, as it strains my eyes and ruins fine detail.
Oh, and I don't have an Intel graphics card. Core i7-920, NVIDIA GTX 470, 6 GB RAM, Windows 7 x64 for those interested.
When i pointed these failures they labbed me "troll".
Lol...
Very few people actually install mods because it involves googling around and reading READMEs, unzipping files in specific directories and going through command-line interfaces. Most people play the game out of the box and BG:EE is indeed a very much enhanced experience for those people. For those with the know-how to mod their game exactly the way they like, and who actually enjoy seeing entire areas at once and their NPCs reduced to a centimeter of the screen, BG:EE can look comparatively worse (slightly), but I'm not sure you realize just how few those people are.
While you're of course entitled to your opinion, I think a good review is one that aims to be valuable to a wide public. You're catering to a tiny minority, and painting a misleading picture for everyone else.
And while it's also fine to review what you have and not what the game could be in a few patches down the line, unless you update the review (which most don't), it'll also be misleading a few patches down the line. Obvious CTDs are bound to be fixed quickly and solutions will be found to most compatibility problems.