Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,563
- Location
- Warwickshire
They're extremely reliable, in that they're not promising anything in the first place.
Just how reliable are recommended specs
- Thread starter Gelly54
- Start date
minimum usually means the hardware require to be able to load the game up
recommended would be whats needed to play the game at an acceptable level in a low res.
kind of pointless putting specs needed to run at a high res like 1920x1080 when a lot of ppl wont be running at that kind of res anyways and would end up not buying the game thinking it wouldn't run
according to steam, only 20% of users use a res of 1920x1080
1280x1024 and 1680x1050 also being some of the more popular res
recommended would be whats needed to play the game at an acceptable level in a low res.
kind of pointless putting specs needed to run at a high res like 1920x1080 when a lot of ppl wont be running at that kind of res anyways and would end up not buying the game thinking it wouldn't run
according to steam, only 20% of users use a res of 1920x1080
1280x1024 and 1680x1050 also being some of the more popular res
Crysis
Recommended System Requirements
OS - Windows XP / Vista
Processor - Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory - 2.0 GB RAM
GPU - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar
Thats a no then
Don't diss
My Machine runs Crysis at 1080p on Medium settings around 40fps 
Only difference is a bit more ram and a better processor :L Slightly better graphics card
Its a shame in some ways, as that could have been a pretty good way of allowing people to easily see if they could play certain games. Because 'hardcore' gamers know their specs, and know if a game's likely to run regardless, but more casual games don't know what CPU or graphics card they have. But if they could look at their WEI and see a score of 3.4 then they know they can play anything which meets that score. Of course it wouldn't be a perfect system, but given how accurate things are at the moment anyway, not a huge problem.
Minimum specs I usually have a cynical attitude about - I pretty much expect the game performance to suck at the minimum spec (even with minumum settings.)
Recommended specs I usually expect the game performance to be OK, say ~30fps level of performance, at around mid settings. Anything better performance I regard as a pleasant surprise.
To max out settings and get max performance I anticipate needing a PC that's significantly better than the recommended specs.
My rule of thumb:
1) Ignore the min spec
2) Take the approximate recommended cpu power, gpu power and memory
3) Add 50% to these values
4) This is the spec required for reasonable performance at fairly high settings
Obviously if you aren't too worried about framerates or what the settings are called in the menu, you can get away with a lot less.
1) Ignore the min spec
2) Take the approximate recommended cpu power, gpu power and memory
3) Add 50% to these values
4) This is the spec required for reasonable performance at fairly high settings
Obviously if you aren't too worried about framerates or what the settings are called in the menu, you can get away with a lot less.
My impression was always that minimum specifications means that a game will install and start at least somehow without actually locking up or throwing an error message. The resulting frame rate is not a consideration and could possibly be one frame a fortnight.
It's a shame there's no definition determining a minimum frame rate required to pass the criteria of minimum specs.
It's a shame there's no definition determining a minimum frame rate required to pass the criteria of minimum specs.
Last edited:
I know, it should be slightly more in depth and realistic