Is there some kind of a standard in which we can state objectively that Call of Pripyat is badly optimised? I've played the game on a PC that I have right now, except I used to have 250GTS instead of 7770HD and it used to run pretty good - although I didn't really maxed things out. Still it ran more than 40fps for the most part.
And now, when I use 7770HD, I reinstalled a game, patched it up, maxed everything out, DX11, tessellation - ~50... for the most part. Framerate drops down near bars to 30, but this is understandable - there are many NPCs in there. And it isn't an awful looking game, either... especially seeing all these dynamic shadows, godrays etc. I asked 2 other friends that did play the game - nobody really complained about its optimisation.
That's not really something that I'd call a bad optimisation. In fact I think, stating that Call of Pripyat is badly optimised does a great disservice to a game. That is not to I go all fanboy now - I realize Call of Prypiat has its faults - saving game causes it to free for a moment and there are some problems where a game can lag for a moment, when loading some area, but once again - when I hear bad optimisation - what usually comes to mind is that the game doesn't look good and it runs badly in general (for example - Cryostasis or Ghost Basters [by Terminal Reality]).
So, isn't this "poorly optimised" too subjective in this case?