Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

General PC games master race thread. Everything about games. EVERYTHING.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

holy shit

Ali Abu Al-Serbi will destroy Gaijin rafidits and murtads!

So I've been practicing editing and such lately to try to get a Youtube thing off the ground. One project I'm working on is putting together a review of the Total War series, and so far I guess I'll p


   Atomic Heart is nearly or totally a scam.


Gameplay footage is a staged "gameplay".
VR department (there are no real departments in this studio) was completely fired in summer of 2018
After that "cleaning" only 3 people were left in studio
Game development was "restarted" in summer after that
"Information about incompetent leadership is confirmed by 9 people.
Information about impulsive and frequent dismissals is confirmed by 10 people."



   "Interlocutors note three key figures in the Mundfish managment These are Oleg Gorodishenin, Artem Galeyev and Robert Bagratuni. Opinion about individuals among the developers I surveyed was not very divided."


   "Robert Bagratuni (Maxim Zatsepin) - The CEO / Investor is a good advertiser and marketer who is responsible for the entire hype around Atomic Heart. He believes that the game is sold only by picture/visuals, so the gameplay and the plot can be neglected. Bad rumors were confirmed. Claims to it are based on incompetence in the field of gamedev. His skill as a marketer, no one condemns. When Anton Logvinov, who was also a friend of Zatsepin, came to the Mundfish office, he was surprised that everyone called him Robert.


   Oleg Gorodishenin - the producer - everyone with whom I spoke about the leadership, very unflatteringly speak about this person. I have not heard a single positive comment about him. After looking about him on the Internet, I came across one project that he had previously released on Steam with another team - Heroes of Scene. In all supports the CEO (Robert). According to the interlocutors, it does this to strengthen its position in the company and for the sake of financial gain. Explaining the CEO how to do the game is not even trying, although he has experience in game development. According to the interlocutors, is a friend of Robert Bagratuini, and occupies this position because of friendly relations. He joined the project when he was 19 years old. Now he is somewhere between 20-21. Also, the interlocutors indicate that it was Oleg who “buried” one of the versions of the product (it is not clear which version we are talking about), as well as the Soviet Lunopark VR."

   "Artem Galeev - a key person in the development of the game. Responsible for the whole design, the setting and everything that people like in this game. Almost everyone notes that he did most of the work. We can say that Atomic Heart is his personal project, which fell into the hands of the enterprising Oleg Gorodishenin. Artyom is an extremely ideological person who has been nurturing the concept of a game for many years."


   "Evgenia Sedova - the company is registered on her. According to interlocutors, is a lawyer and financial director formally. Officially - the owner of the company. She is a former model and owner of a model agency. Later rolled into Newmedia Stars and became the head of the computer graphics department. Does not understand anything in the design, but often interferes with it and interferes with the team. According to the interlocutors, she owns all the accounts - they are abroad. Interlocutors are not confident in specific countries. If there are those who can check the whole thing - check. I did not find the company Mundfish in Cyprus."



   "Hence the main problem: the game made by the union of a marketer and an art designer, it looks beautiful and spectacular, but, as the developers say, it is not interesting to play."
   "The process of developing and adding features at the initial stages took place in the best traditions of gamedev. Someone from the management played a new game, saw a new feature there, and came to the office with the words: “Let's do this!”. So, for example, after playing DOOM, one of the leaders decided that the game needed spectacular finishing moves."


   "There is no project management. There is no development plan and backlog at least for the coming weeks. There can be no full and planned development cycle."


   "The project as of December 2018, according to interlocutors, was missing key positions - game designer, narrative designer, sound designer, motion designer and screenwriter.


   One of the interlocutors notes that there will most likely not be a game designer. This he associates with Robert's personal dislike for them."
"The team informed the management that it was damaging the development and it was impossible to work this way. No response from the leadership."



   "Due to impulsive layoffs and poor management, the team lost valuable personnel every year. It is very difficult to find good new programmers - in Russia there are very few experienced developers in C ++ and UE4. Because of this, the game has very serious technical problems and a large number of bugs.

   According to some reports, the game works at about 20-40 FPS on, quote, "top pc."

   Again, almost everyone I spoke with confirmed the practice of frequent layoffs at Mundfish. A typical algorithm looks like this: the team employs several green guys (former students, juniors, that is, people without / with little experience) who do all the work that they are getting from above. After that, someone from the management does not like something (I was told about absolutely fucking crazy cases, but in order to preserve the anonymity of the interlocutors, I cannot tell them), and then there is an instant dismissal. People can be fired for minor mistakes, or for the fact that people were not liked by the leadership."



   "For example, you can be invited to the position of Junior Level Designer, as a result you will manually rename a hundred gigabytes of assets. Because the project is a mess. As other interlocutors explained to me, hundreds of gigabytes of chaotic assets accumulated over the development period in 2017 due to juniors with no development experience and the lack of guidelines from the management."
   Due to frequent layoffs and changes of developers, the quality of the game also suffers. Most often programmers, 3D artists, and designers are laid off.

   To date, January 28, 2019, according to one of the developers, the game is 20% ready.

   "Several people confirmed that the studio’s employees were not employed by the Labor Code. Salaries are received in envelopes. Because of this, such frequent and unreasonable layoffs are possible. Several people were decorated as a PI. Although still a violation of the LC. Some dismissed people were thrown out without paying salaries. No holiday pay."
   "In 2018, more than 12 people were fired (with a team size of a 2 dozens people)."



   "Several interviewees confirmed the practice of crunching on weekends at the development stage in 2017 and early 2018. But, due to the extremely poor management and the small number of high-quality developers, the results of the development were a stupor in development. Programmers for several weeks tried to make out what they were doing over the weekend. Soon, this practice was abandoned. Crunch nobody paid.


   At the initial stages, the team was often told about a quick release. But every month the release was postponed further and further. The experience of bringing such an ambitious project at that time was not enough, as well as strength. Therefore, now the release of the game is postponed until 2020, judging by the beta in 4Q2019."



   "Initially, the leadership wanted to make Atomic Heart a VR game. This is evidenced by the early vacancies in Mundfish and Oleg's recruitment of people for the "VR project at UE4". Further, according to the interlocutors, the project became a first-person shooter, but then again a VR game with a planned release under PSVR in December 2017. The management saw that the quality was not very good, and, according to the interlocutors, CEO (Robert) wanted to see a profit. But nothing worked. It was then, at the end of 2017, according to the interlocutors, that the first freeze of the project occurred."

   "After a short time, as noted by the interlocutors, in order to extract profits, it was decided to make a VR project on existing assets. That is how the Soviet Lunapark appeared. It is also noted that the main problem of the game is not its closure, but the fact that it was released in Early Access, and promised many features. One of these features is a story campaign. Promises, of course, were not fulfilled. The development was closed in early access. As noted by sources, due to the low profits of the project. Through SteamDB, you can verify that Early Access tags really were there. They were removed from the game on July 23, 2018."



   "The CEO (Robert) and the producer (Oleg), without telling the team anything, released the game on Steam. Developers found out about this by accident - when they saw the already published project."



^After Soviet Lunapark VR servers were announced to be shot down



   "In parallel with the development of the Soviet Lunapark, an unnamed animator and Artem Galeyev made, according to the interlocutors, a completely fake trailer using a canceled project mechanic. In the trailer, renders of Maya-projects are used in conjunction with the renderer on the UE4 engine (most likely it means the Sequencer UE4). Moments with the renderers, I chose from the video on the description of the interlocutors. The sound is completely superimposed, as noted by the sources."


   "The trailer, according to interlocutors, was made for Electronic Arts. The delegation from EA came to the Mundfish office, but after seeing the real game, they were puzzled and left."


   "The latest gameplay is real gameplay on the engine. But:

   The sounds are most likely superimposed over the video during the editing phase. So did in all previous cases.
   The last months work was carried out to create a trailer. Many gameplay moments from the video are not ready. They were made prototypes in order to have something to show.

   Robots walk on the map on pre-registered paths. If you approach them, they will not react in any way.

   It is suggested that all the inscriptions in the last video (to find the key to the house) are simply inscriptions. On the engine, in the interface, but behind them there is no program logic and quests."
"According to the interlocutors, all the old programmers quit. In addition, 4 people were fired and 3 employees remained in the company. 
   In fact, 5 months ago, development began from scratch. Interlocutors indicate that this was the fault of the leadership. The project, starting at 17, changed several times, and the code base did not correspond (it was conducted on Blueprint). Because of this, the developers insisted that the game needs to restart in C ++. The developers tried to persuade the leadership of the months."




   In the summer of 2018, the game was more complete than it is now. Due to the restart of the development, she rolled back into the gameplay. The interlocutors indicate that the rollback in the gameplay was very strong.

   The old version of Atomic Heart was a street shooter, where you walk through the rooms and kill enemies. The game was played in 15 minutes."

"But the end will be very deplorable: the game, with the current state of affairs, will come out very shabby, boring, poorly optimized and will simply fall victim to its ambitions. With all its magnificent art direction, fresh concept and attention from the press, the project will simply be impermissible to have a mediocre gameplay and technical component."



The interlocutors claim that the company's accounts are located abroad. In addition, they note that there will be no refands for pre-orders of the game.



  1. God awful management
  2. No manpower (sometimes as low as 3 guys)
  3. Terrible working conditions, LC/law breaking cases
  4. Anti-consumer behavior and practice (Soviet Lunapark VR as example)
  5. Strange shenanigans of owners of company with company's finances
  6. No direction, no game designers, no script writers and so on
  7. Game development is total mess on all fronts - engine, features etc.

   Avoid Atomic Heart.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      What a Long, Strange Trip it's Been
      PC gaming has been a hell of a ride.  I say "has been" both in the sense that exciting and dynamic things have happened, but also in the sense that the most exciting and dynamic times are behind us.  No other form of video gaming is as closely tied to the latest developments in personal computing hardware, and current trends do not suggest that anything dramatically new and exciting is immediately around the corner.  Indeed, fundamental aspects of semiconductor physics suggest that chip technology is nearing, or perhaps already on a plateau where only slow, incremental improvement is possible.  This, in turn, will limit the amount of improvement possible for game developers.  Gaming certainly will not disappear, and PC gaming will also not disappear, although the PC gaming share of the market may contract in the future.  But I think it is a reasonable expectation that future PC game titles will not be such dramatic technological improvements over older titles as was the case in the past in the near term.  In the long term, current technology and hardware design will eventually be replaced with something entirely different and disruptive, but as always it is difficult, maybe impossible to predict what that replacement will be.
      The Good Old Days
      The start of the modern, hardware-driven PC gaming culture that we all know and love began with Id Software's early first person shooter titles, most importantly 1993's Doom.
      PC gaming was around before Doom, of course, but Doom's combination of cutting edge graphics technology and massive, massive appeal is what really got the ball rolling.

      Doom was phenomenally popular.  There were, at one point, more installs of Doom than there were installs of the Windows operating system.  I don't think there is any subsequent PC title that can claim that.  Furthermore, it was Doom, and its spiritual successor Quake that really defined PC gaming as a genre that pushed the boundaries of what was possible with hardware.
      Doom convincingly faked 3D graphics on computers that had approximately the same number-crunching might as a potato.  It also demanded radically more computing power than Wolfenstein 3D, but in those days computing hardware was advancing at such a rate that this wasn't really unreasonable.  This was followed by Quake, which was actually 3D, and demanded so much more of the hardware then available that it quickly became one of the first games to support hardware acceleration.
      Id software disintegrated under the stress of the development of Quake, and while many of the original Id team have gone on to do noteworthy things in PC gaming technology, none of it has been earth-shaking the way their work at Id was.  And so, the next important development occurred not with Id's games, but with their successors.
      It had become clear, by that point, that there was a strong consumer demand for higher game framerates, but also for better-looking graphics.  In addition to ever-more sophisticated game engines and higher poly-count game models, the next big advance in PC gaming technology was the addition of shaders to the graphics.
      Shaders could be used to smooth out the low-poly models of the time, apply lighting effects, and generally make the games look less like spiky ass.  But the important caveat about shaders, from a hardware development perspective, was that shader code ran extremely well in parallel while the rest of the game code ran well in series.  The sort of chip that would quickly do the calculations for the main game, and the sort of chip that would do quickly do calculations for the graphics were therefore very different.  Companies devoted exclusively to making graphics-crunching chips emerged (of these, only Nvidia is left standing), and the stage was set for the heyday of PC gaming hardware evolution from the mid 1990s to the early 2000s.  Initially, there were a great number of hardware acceleration options, and getting everything to work was a bit of an inconsistent mess that only enthusiasts really bothered with, but things rapidly settled down to where we are today.  The important rules of thumb which have, hitherto applied are:

      -The IBM-compatible personal computer is the chosen mount of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™. 
      -The two most important pieces of hardware on a gaming PC are the CPU and the GPU, and every year the top of the line CPUs and GPUs will be a little faster than before.
      -Even though, as of the mid 2000s, both gaming consoles and Macs were made of predominantly IBM-compatible hardware, they are not suitable devices for the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™.  This is because they have artificially-imposed software restrictions that keep them from easily being used the same way as a proper gaming PC.
      -Even though they did not suffer from the same compatibility issues as consoles or Macs, computers with integrated graphics processors are not suitable devices for the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™.
      -Intel CPUs are the best, and Nvidia GPUs are the best.  AMD is a budget option in both categories.
      The Victorious March of Moore's Law
      Moore's Law, which is not an actual physical law, but rather an observation about the shrinkage of the physical size of transistors, has held so true for most of the 21st century that it seemed like it was an actual fundamental law of the universe.
      The most visible and obvious indication of the continuous improvement in computer hardware was that every year the clock speeds on CPUs got higher.

      Now, clock speed itself isn't actually particularly indicative of overall CPU performance, since that is a complex interplay of clock speed, instructions per cycle and pipe length.  But at the time, CPU architecture was staying more or less the same, so the increase in CPU clock speeds was a reasonable enough, and very marketing-friendly indicator of how swimmingly things were going.  In 2000, Intel was confident that 10 GHZ chips were about a decade away.
      This reliable increase in computing power corresponded with a reliable improvement in game graphics and design year on year.  You can usually look at a game from the 2000s and guess, to within a few years, when it came out because the graphical improvements were that consistent year after year.
      The improvement was also rapid.  Compare 2004's Far Cry to 2007's Crysis.


      And so, for a time, game designers and hardware designers marched hand in hand towards ever greater performance.
      The End of the Low-Hanging Fruit
      But you know how this works, right?  Everyone has seen VH1's Behind the Music.  This next part is where it all comes apart after the explosive success and drugs and groupies, leaving just the drugs.  This next part is where we are right now.
      If you look again at the chart of CPU clock speeds, you see that improvement flatlines at about 2005.  This is due to the end of Dennard Scaling.  Until about 2006, reductions in the size of transistors allowed chip engineers to increase clock speeds without worrying about thermal issues, but that isn't the case anymore.  Transistors have become so small that significant amounts of current leakage occur, meaning that clock speeds cannot improve without imposing unrealistic thermal loads on the chips.
      Clock speed isn't everything.  The actual muscle of a CPU is a function of several things; the pipeline, the instructions per clock cycle, clock speed, and, after 2005 with the introduction of the Athlon 64X2, the core count.  And, even as clock speed remained the same, these other important metrics did continue to see improvement:

      The catch is that the raw performance of a CPU is, roughly speaking, a multiplicative product of all of these things working together.  If the chip designers can manage a 20% increase in IPC and a 20% increase in clock speed, and some enhancements to pipeline design that amount to a 5% improvement, then they're looking at a 51.2% overall improvement in chip performance.  Roughly.  But if they stop being able to improve one of these factors, then to achieve the same increases in performance, they need to cram in the improvements into just the remaining areas, which is a lot harder than making modest improvements across the board.
      Multi-core CPUs arrived to market at around the same time that clock speed increases became impossible.  Adding more cores to the CPU did initially allow for some multiplicative improvements in chip performance, which did buy time for the trend of ever-increasing performance.  The theoretical FLOPS (floating point operations per second) of a chip is a function of its IPC, core count and clock speed.  However, the real-world performance increase provided by multi-core processing is highly dependent on the degree to which the task can be paralleled, and is subject to Amdahl's Law:

      Most games can be only poorly parallelized.  The parallel portion is probably around the 50% mark for everything except graphics, which has can be parallelized excellently.  This means that as soon as CPUs hit 16 cores, there was basically no additional improvement to be had in games from multi-core technology.  That is, unless game designers start to code games specifically for better multi-core performance, but so far this has not happened.  On top of this, adding more cores to a CPU usually imposes a small reduction to clock speed, so the actual point of diminishing returns may occur at a slightly lower core count.
      On top of all that, designing new and smaller chip architecture has become harder and harder.  Intel first announced 10nm chip architecture back in September 2017, and showed a timeline with it straddling 2017 and 2018.  2018 has come and gone, and still no 10nm.  Currently Intel is hopeful that they can get 10nm chips to market by the end of 2019.
      AMD have had a somewhat easier time of it, announcing a radically different mixed 14nm and 7nm "chiplet" architecture at the end of 2018, and actually brought a 7nm discrete graphics card to market at the beginning of 2019.  However, this new graphics card merely matches NVIDIA's top-of-the-line cards, both in terms of performance and in terms of price.  This is a significant development, since AMD's graphics cards have usually been second-best, or cost-effective mid-range models at best, so for them to have a competitive top-of-the-line model is noteworthy.  But, while CPUs and GPUs are different, it certainly doesn't paint a picture of obvious and overwhelming superiority for the new 7nm process.  The release of AMD's "chiplet" Zen 2 CPUs appears to have been delayed to the middle of 2019, so I suppose we'll find out then.  Additionally, it appears that the next-generation of Playstation will use a version of AMD's upcoming "Navi" GPU, as well as a Zen CPU, and AMD hardware will power the next-generation XBOX as well. 
      So AMD is doing quite well servicing the console gaming peasant crowd, at least.  Time will tell whether the unexpected delays faced by their rivals along with the unexpected boost from crypto miners buying literally every fucking GPU known to man will allow them to dominate the hardware market going forward.  Investors seem optimistic, however:

      With Intel, they seem less sanguine:

      and with NVIDIA, well...

      But the bottom line is don't expect miracles.  While it would be enormously satisfying to see Intel and NVIDIA taken down a peg after years of anti-consumer bullshit, the reality is that hardware improvements have fundamentally become difficult.  For the time being, nobody is going to be throwing out their old computers just because they've gotten slow.  As the rate of improvements dwindles, people will start throwing out their old PCs and replacing them only because they've gotten broken.
      OK, but What About GPUs?
      GPU improvements took longer to slow down than CPU improvements, in large part because GPU workloads can be parallel processed well.  But the slowdown has arrived.
      This hasn't stopped the manufacturers of discrete GPUs from trying to innovate, of course.  Not only that; the market is about to become more competitive with Intel announcing their plans for a discrete GPU in the near future.  NVIDIA has pushed their new ray-tracing optimized graphics cards for the past few months as well.  The cryptomining GPU boom has come and gone; GPUs turn out to be better than CPUs at cryptomining, but ASICs beat out GPUs but a lot, so that market is unlikely to be a factor again.  GPUs are still relatively cost-competitive for a variety of machine learning tasks, although long-term these will probably be displaced by custom designed chips like the ones Google is mass-ordering.
      Things really do not look rosy for GPU sales.  Every time someone discovers some clever alternative use for GPUs like cryptomining or machine learning, they get displaced after a few years by custom hardware solutions even more fine-tuned to the task.  Highly parallel chips are the future, but there's no reason to think that those highly parallel chips will be traditional GPUs, per se.

      And speaking of which, aren't CPUs getting more parallel, with their ever-increasing core count?  And doesn't AMD's "chiplet" architecture allow wildly differently optimized cores to be stitched together?  So, the CPU of a computer could very easily be made to accommodate capable on-board graphics muscle.  So... why do we even need GPUs in the future?  After all, PCs used to have discrete sound cards and networking cards, and the CPU does all of that now.  The GPU has really been the last hold-out, and will likely be swallowed by the CPU, at least on low and mid range machines in the next few years.
      Where to Next?
      At the end of 2018, popular YouTube tech channel LinusTechTips released a video about Shadow.  Shadow is a company that is planning to use centrally-located servers to provide cloud-based games streaming.  At the time, the video was received with (understandably) a lot of skepticism, and even Linus doesn't sound all that convinced by Shadow's claims.
      The technical problems with such a system seem daunting, especially with respect to latency.  This really did seem like an idea that would come and go.  This is not its time; the technology simply isn't good enough.

      And then, just ten days ago, Google announced that they had exactly the same idea:
      The fact that tech colossus Google is interested changed a lot of people's minds about the idea of cloud gaming.  Is this the way forward?  I am unconvinced.  The latency problems do seem legitimately difficult to overcome, even for Google.  Also, almost everything that Google tries to do that isn't search on Android fails miserably.  Remember Google Glass?  Google Plus?
      But I do think that games that are partially cloud-based will have some market share.  Actually, they already do.  I spent a hell of a lot of time playing World of Tanks, and that game calculates all line-of-sight checks and all gunfire server-side.  Most online games do have some things that are calculated server-side, but WoT was an extreme example for the time.  I could easily see future games offloading a greater amount of the computational load to centralized servers vis a vis the player's own PC.
      But there are two far greater harbingers of doom for PC gaming than cloud computing.  The first is smart phones and the second is shitty American corporate culture.  Smart phones are set to saturate the world in a way desktop PCs never did.  American games publishers are currently more interested in the profits from gambling-esque game monetization schemes than they are in making games.  Obviously, I don't mean that in a generic anti-capitalist, corporation-bashing hippie way.  I hate hippies.  I fuck hippies for breakfast.  But if you look at even mainstream news outlets on Electronic Arts, it's pretty obvious that the AAA games industry, which had hitherto been part of the engine driving the games/hardware train forward, is badly sick right now.  The only thing that may stop their current sleaziness is government intervention.
      So, that brings us to the least important, but most discussion-sparking part of the article; my predictions.  In the next few years, I predict that the most popular game titles will be things like Fortnite or Apex Legends.  They will be monetized on some sort of games-as-service model, and will lean heavily if not entirely on multiplayer modes.  They may incorporate some use of server-side calculation to offload the player PC, but in general they will work on modest PCs because they will only aspire to have decent, readable graphics rather than really pretty ones.  The typical "gaming rig" for this type of game will be a modest and inexpensive desktop or laptop running built-in graphics with no discrete graphics card.  There will continue to be an enthusiast market for games that push the limits, but this market will no longer drive the majority of gaming hardware sales.  If these predictions sound suspiciously similar to those espoused by the Coreteks tech channel, that's because I watched a hell of a lot of his stuff when researching this post, and I find his views generally convincing.
      Intel's Foveros 3D chip architecture could bring a surge in CPU performance, but I predict that it will be a one-time surge, followed by the return to relatively slow improvement.  The reason why is that the Foveros architecture allows for truly massive CPU caches, and these could be used to create enormous IPC gains.  But after the initial boon caused by the change in architecture, the same problems that are currently slowing down improvement would be back, the same as before.  It definitely wouldn't be a return to the good old days of Moore's Law.  Even further down the road, a switch to a different semiconducting material such as Gallium Nitride (which is already used in some wireless devices and military electronics) could allow further miniaturization and speed ups where silicon has stalled out.  But those sort of predictions stretch my limited prescience and knowledge of semiconductor physics too far.
      If you are interested in this stuff, I recommend diving into Coretek's channel (linked above) as well as Adored TV.
    • By SergeantMatt
      tl;dr, does not appear to be great for gaming.
      Removing GPU bottlenecking by running at low resolutions, the 1800X gets beaten by the 7700K in most games, which is half the price.

  • Create New...