I suppose so. You sure know how to make me sad about the good things in life. THANKS FILTH. But maybe there's a chance we'll have the best of both worlds? And I'm not prepared enough to run both benchmarks at the same time.
I had my girlfriend run the game on her laptop and it scored pretty well. So I'm excited. (She also has a PS3 now to play it too.) THIS BETTER BE FOR REAL!
You should be happy that this game doesn't require the power it once did. Do you remember the original, original benchmark? I had a monumental score on that with a pair of GTX 480s. Granted SLI wasn't supported, but I used the second GPU solely for AA. That translated into barely being able to maintain 30 FPS in congested areas. Now people with middle of the road GPUs can run at higher than usual settings and high resolution. That should make you happy.
The score is an arbitrary score. It doesn't measure an exact unit of anything; it's just a guideline so that when application completes the evaluation, the score can tell you whether your computer can run the game well or not. For one thing, the second benchmark might have evaluated its score on different criteria than the first. You can't consider the score to be consistent between benchmarks let alone conclude that the quality of the images must have dropped.
Not really. Hear me out...
SE via Official Benchmark Homepage wrote:
Depending on your system’s resident software and hardware, it is possible that FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn may not run optimally, even if your computer meets the minimum system requirements. We therefore recommend using this benchmark software to check your system before purchasing the product.
Now I understand that it's just a rough guideline, but people are expected to use this as a tool to understand how well their hardware will perform when actually running the software. It doesn't make sense to me(nor should it to anyone) that the exact same setups are scoring higher unless SE expects that hardware to perform better than they initially thought it would. There could be several explanations for this or there could be none. It's possible that the benchmark is about as useful(read: useless) as the benchmark for 1.0 was.
I'd like to trust that they're doing everything in their power to get it right this time. The only options I see here are that they overshot their mark and the benchmark was too demanding or they nerfed the graphics down so that the same hardware would get better performance. Given the obvious differences between the world exploration and character creation versions of the benchmark, it seems much more likely to be the latter.
That said, none of this really matters to me if they can produce a Final Fantasy with the story and gameplay we all
know they're capable of. If it's fun to play, I don't care if it looks 8-bit.