Hardware requirements. Low, High or in the Middle.

House · 27 Oct 2007 at 14:02

Ok now that the Crysis demo has come out and people are complaining they cant play it at 24000x16000 with 52xAA and more than 200fps im wondering about the pitch of games hardware wise.

Do games that require "serious hardware" on release suffer?

WoW and EQ2 came out around the same time but have HUGELY differnet hardware requirements, EQ2 was a PC killer and WoW will run on most laptops without any slowdown. Gameplay wise i always prefered EQ2 but most of my guild didnt have PCs up to the task so it ruined the expereince for them, were as no one had issues running WoW.

Same goes for Battlefield 2, when it came out lots of people i played with complained of "over the top" requirements, people upgraded memory and gcards to play but BF2 has been one of the most sucessful games over the last few years.

Half Life 2, Well source games seem to run on low end rigs well and as such im sure this has helped make CSS as popular as its predicesor do Valve market to the "average pc"?

Crytek have said that crysis (and assumedly the engine they must be marketing) is "3 years back 2 years forward" in interviews. Now i think it runs OK on a highspec pc now and will be great with future hardware but whats it gonna cost them in sales? will it run on a 3 year old PC in anything like a playable way?

I'd imagine people like Spie love games like this because they must sell hardware, but does it cost crytek in sales?

WarBird · 27 Oct 2007 at 14:21

with all the hype crysis has got it will have no worries about sales imo

snowdog · 27 Oct 2007 at 14:26

People need to learn this game is made for future graphics cards and that they don't have to run it at ultra high resolutions, maxed settings and with 16x AA imo.
They need to learn that medium-high also looks nice and is defiantly an improvement over lets say errrr, farcy?

mrbios · 27 Oct 2007 at 17:47

i didnt really think the game looked that good tbh :/ i didnt think cod4 looked that good either

Neil79 · 27 Oct 2007 at 23:47

edit : oops wrong thread soz

silversurfer · 27 Oct 2007 at 23:54

So long as it runs ok and most important is that its good to play on whatever computer you have.
I can get anything from a constant 100fps on crysis down to 10-20fps, in that respect its well made. I think the gameplay is good too

helmutcheese · 28 Oct 2007 at 00:07

It was made on a 8800GTX at end up.

The DEV's said it would run well on a 8600GTX (I cant be bothered its in other threads).

[TW]Fox · 28 Oct 2007 at 00:41

snowdog said:
People need to learn this game is made for future graphics cards

They need to learn that I want to play games now, not in a years time. I don't buy a £35 game becuase one day it will run good. Becuase by the time that happens it will be on budget..

HangTime · 28 Oct 2007 at 01:39

House said:
does it cost crytek in sales?

No. If you've got a fantastic looking game with decent gameplay, then it will sell well due to the ease of marketing (screenshots, videos, reviews etc). Gorgeous looking games with shoddy performance will be far more successful than ugly games which run well.

From what I've seen in the past, most people who moan about bad performance end up getting the full game anyway (if they haven't already).

skullman · 28 Oct 2007 at 01:57

[TW]Fox;10366039 said:
They need to learn that I want to play games now, not in a years time. I don't buy a £35 game becuase one day it will run good.

Exactly. Its like being with the worlds hottest chick and then not able to sleep with her (ok not quite but you get the idea)

snowdog · 28 Oct 2007 at 10:05

[TW]Fox;10366039 said:
They need to learn that I want to play games now, not in a years time. I don't buy a £35 game becuase one day it will run good. Becuase by the time that happens it will be on budget..

It looks good now, it's just so it looks better in the future :confused:

.
You can play it now and it'll look better than anything: Stop moaning.
The only reason farcry lasted that long is because they also did the same with that, and I couldn't be happier that farcry looks superb on this day still.

skullman said:
Exactly. Its like being with the worlds hottest chick and then not able to sleep with her (ok not quite but you get the idea)

No it's not, you can sleep with her now, and she will even be prettier & hotter in the future and will also continue to be able to sleep with her.

Stop watching the damn graphics slider and look at the actual graphics people.

[Robster] · 28 Oct 2007 at 10:18

I remember conversations like this back in '99 when Quake 3 came out... some games will always push the hardware envelope, its just the way things are.

Crytek are selling a game engine as much as they're selling a game, much the same as Id, Valve and Epic.

They're hoping over developers will buy their engine and use it to create new games for years to come. And in years to come, computers will be faster and games using their engine will still look good.

[TW]Fox · 28 Oct 2007 at 18:21

snowdog said:
No it's not, you can sleep with her now, and she will even be prettier & hotter in the future

By the time that future arrives, you will have dumped her though.

snowdog · 28 Oct 2007 at 18:25

So you never play old games? That's a shame, you're missing out.
I think you're a minority though.