FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


is it good for having high system requirements games





gethere
these days for games pc system requirements is going crazy
recently released gta 4 game needs quad core processor to run the game in high resolution
and still it has some lagging problems with quad core..
is this thing is good for pc gamers because every year we have to change our system to play a high quality game
or does companies should consider about pc gamers and shouls prepare games for low performing pc's
like prince of persia that game has good quality graphics and it will run under even pentium 4..
so please post your suggestions
wombatrpgs
Personally I don't care about graphics at all so I stay away from that sort of stuff. If high definition stuff was what was needed, then a console would be the way to go... Otherwise upgrading the machine is kind of ridiculous...
8166UY
Well, people like good looking games. If they want to get them to look even better, the computer just has to be a bit quicker. If you just don't want to upgrade everytime you have to buy a console. I bought my PS3 because I wanted a system I could use for some years before I should buy a new alternative.
achowles
The general rule of thumb is: if most people can't run it, then such high requirements are not a good idea.
But GTA4 was just a terrible joke. A lazy, belated console port to end all console ports. It's not that the PC can't handle as much as consoles - they're capable of far more - it's that they aren't consoles. So any game that is ported over about as well as running a game through an emulator is going to be terrible.
QrafTee
gethere wrote:
these days for games pc system requirements is going crazy
recently released gta 4 game needs quad core processor to run the game in high resolution
and still it has some lagging problems with quad core..
is this thing is good for pc gamers because every year we have to change our system to play a high quality game
or does companies should consider about pc gamers and shouls prepare games for low performing pc's
like prince of persia that game has good quality graphics and it will run under even pentium 4..
so please post your suggestions

The problem is that most of these "high-end" games are poorly optimized so they're using more system resources than necessary to run the game fluidly which ultimately puts a strain on the entire system.
mafialive
I stick to gaming on my Xbox 360 it is cheaper because you don't have to keep upgrading parts on your computer but I do love a good PC game if it meets all the system requirements.
william
It's just optimization. Many high end games can still run (playable) on older machines, just with graphics tuned down. Not a big deal if you ask me, because you don't play a game for the graphics. Most games that have crazy system requirements are just poorly written or a poorly ported. There are many older games that, if you ask me, look better than many of the new ones and perform better (Half Life 2, anyone?).

The thing about GTA 4 is that neither the Xbox 360 nor the PS3 can run it at a high frame rates at full HD resolutions. That game doesn't tax the graphics card, it's the CPU it taxes with all the calculations it makes. You can tune those down, though, but I do agree that some of the requirements are a bit absurd.
enygmasoft
william wrote:
It's just optimization. Many high end games can still run (playable) on older machines, just with graphics tuned down. Not a big deal if you ask me, because you don't play a game for the graphics. Most games that have crazy system requirements are just poorly written or a poorly ported. There are many older games that, if you ask me, look better than many of the new ones and perform better (Half Life 2, anyone?).

The thing about GTA 4 is that neither the Xbox 360 nor the PS3 can run it at a high frame rates at full HD resolutions. That game doesn't tax the graphics card, it's the CPU it taxes with all the calculations it makes. You can tune those down, though, but I do agree that some of the requirements are a bit absurd.


Well in the xbox 360 is not playing fair with the ps 3 since the ps3 has almost double the bandwidth of the xbox, however for whatever reason not one ps3 game is nice enough to run at 1080p, while all of the hardware makes you think for reals hd but noe such luck since every single game ever programed peaks at only 720p
wombatrpgs
william wrote:
It's just optimization. Many high end games can still run (playable) on older machines, just with graphics tuned down. Not a big deal if you ask me, because you don't play a game for the graphics. Most games that have crazy system requirements are just poorly written or a poorly ported. There are many older games that, if you ask me, look better than many of the new ones and perform better (Half Life 2, anyone?).

The thing about GTA 4 is that neither the Xbox 360 nor the PS3 can run it at a high frame rates at full HD resolutions. That game doesn't tax the graphics card, it's the CPU it taxes with all the calculations it makes. You can tune those down, though, but I do agree that some of the requirements are a bit absurd.


Yeah, if the game's nice enough to let you turn the graphics down. I'm not so much talking about console ports so much as actual PC games. It comes to the point where you need a designated gaming computer to do anything. I I like running things that are at least 5 years old so...
QrafTee
enygmasoft wrote:
william wrote:
It's just optimization. Many high end games can still run (playable) on older machines, just with graphics tuned down. Not a big deal if you ask me, because you don't play a game for the graphics. Most games that have crazy system requirements are just poorly written or a poorly ported. There are many older games that, if you ask me, look better than many of the new ones and perform better (Half Life 2, anyone?).

The thing about GTA 4 is that neither the Xbox 360 nor the PS3 can run it at a high frame rates at full HD resolutions. That game doesn't tax the graphics card, it's the CPU it taxes with all the calculations it makes. You can tune those down, though, but I do agree that some of the requirements are a bit absurd.


Well in the xbox 360 is not playing fair with the ps 3 since the ps3 has almost double the bandwidth of the xbox, however for whatever reason not one ps3 game is nice enough to run at 1080p, while all of the hardware makes you think for reals hd but noe such luck since every single game ever programed peaks at only 720p

Actually the reason many PS3 games can't hold up to the 1080p claim is the GPU--which is the bottleneck of the entire console followed by the Blu-ray drive. This can be alleviated by throwing the physics and other work onto the Cell processor--which would be a great idea--but even at that the GPU is limited and holds back the console.
Arnie
If you simply play games that are a few years old you won't have this problem. In 5 years you can play today's games on a cheap system. I play such old games on a notebook.
QrafTee
Arnie wrote:
If you simply play games that are a few years old you won't have this problem. In 5 years you can play today's games on a cheap system. I play such old games on a notebook.

There are some exceptions. Blizzard and Valve are usually very lenient on system requirements for their new games. They like making their games highly scalable, but that does infringe on the overall graphics of the games. Who cares though, right? They make incredibly fun games.
enygmasoft
QrafTee wrote:
Arnie wrote:
If you simply play games that are a few years old you won't have this problem. In 5 years you can play today's games on a cheap system. I play such old games on a notebook.

There are some exceptions. Blizzard and Valve are usually very lenient on system requirements for their new games. They like making their games highly scalable, but that does infringe on the overall graphics of the games. Who cares though, right? They make incredibly fun games.
Arnie
Yes, that's true. It's a good thing really.
kirba
Games are selling new computers. Higher game requirements they made you need better PC to run it. That is main reason to making that high requirements Smile
Nameless
Having to worry about system requirements and whatnot is half the reason I prefer console gaming, but anyway. People like stupid shiny graphics and enough people can still run the games for them to be commercially viable, so it's not a bad thing. As has been said, if you're not willing to pay for the newer end computers, there are a myriad of now older games that run without problems. If (significantly) games didn't keep pushing the requirements and making use of new technology, people wouldn't upgrade computers as often and ten years from now we'd ultimately end up with less powerful computers than we would have otherwise.

(Although arguably if people weren't interested in games pushing technical requirements there would be more pressure for gaming companies to focus their efforts on other aspects of the games than just showing off their latest photorealistic graphics.)
blk3
mafialive wrote:
I stick to gaming on my Xbox 360 it is cheaper because you don't have to keep upgrading parts on your computer but I do love a good PC game if it meets all the system requirements.


I agree with you, game consoles are made for gaming after all. Computers are more general. Sure you can play games on a PC , but that is not really what the PC is designed for. I just hope that when games are ported to the PC they make sure that it is at least a good port, otherwise just leave it at the consoles. I hate having to upgrade processor and video cards that when you sum up the upgrade cost you could have just bought yourself a console.
wombatrpgs
It might just be that a PC would be better for more casual gaming just because you have one anyway and there's no need to buy a console.
QrafTee
blk3 wrote:
mafialive wrote:
I stick to gaming on my Xbox 360 it is cheaper because you don't have to keep upgrading parts on your computer but I do love a good PC game if it meets all the system requirements.


I agree with you, game consoles are made for gaming after all. Computers are more general. Sure you can play games on a PC , but that is not really what the PC is designed for. I just hope that when games are ported to the PC they make sure that it is at least a good port, otherwise just leave it at the consoles. I hate having to upgrade processor and video cards that when you sum up the upgrade cost you could have just bought yourself a console.

... I don't know about you, but my computer was DESIGNED for gaming. I should know because I built it. And on my 26-inch monitor... wow.
Arnie
Ah, QrafTee single-handedly DESIGNED the x86 instruction set, the PCI-Express interface, his computer's sound chip etc. etc. and of course his operating system?

Just because you can fit some computer parts together in a box doesn't mean that you made their fundamental design, which is what actually determines whether a certain platform is efficient for gaming or not.
QrafTee
Arnie wrote:
Ah, QrafTee single-handedly DESIGNED the x86 instruction set, the PCI-Express interface, his computer's sound chip etc. etc. and of course his operating system?

Just because you can fit some computer parts together in a box doesn't mean that you made their fundamental design, which is what actually determines whether a certain platform is efficient for gaming or not.

... Look, the parts I picked were meant for gaming, unless you can really justify an ATI Radeon HD 4870X2 as a general purpose GPU. Of course the QX6850 processor was meant for Excel and Wordpad. The Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium PCI-e card was obviously meant to produce the simple dings and rings for basic Windows.

There is no "gaming" architecture, there is only a computer architecture, unless you really believe the Cell architecture has purely gaming in mind--which it doesn't.

By the way, I said MY computer was designed for gaming, I never said the architecture and inner workings in my computer was designed specifically for gaming... which is impossible because such a thing does not exist. Rolling Eyes

I expect this type of response on Gametrailers or OCC, but I expected more from here for some odd reason--perhaps because people don't bring up superfluous points.
Arnie
So basically you're saying you still don't understand what blk3 was on about. Ever looked up the efficiency of the x86 instruction set for various purposes?
QrafTee
Arnie wrote:
So basically you're saying you still don't understand what blk3 was on about. Ever looked up the efficiency of the x86 instruction set for various purposes?


... I can see this conversation must cease.
amperx
regardless of how you upgrade your system, another game will rise and put it down, less costly but practical choice would be consoles, they run any game released on it.. but then again, some games are just meant to be played on the pc.
tingkagol
QrafTee wrote:
Arnie wrote:
If you simply play games that are a few years old you won't have this problem. In 5 years you can play today's games on a cheap system. I play such old games on a notebook.

There are some exceptions. Blizzard and Valve are usually very lenient on system requirements for their new games. They like making their games highly scalable, but that does infringe on the overall graphics of the games. Who cares though, right? They make incredibly fun games.

I just recently got back into Diablo 2 and I can't stop playing. There's so much in that game than I previously thought. I'm currently leveling my berserk barbarian through act 1 hell difficulty (my first character since I started over, now level 74). I'm playing it for over a month now, not camping on my computer or losing sleep by the way, just casually playing it. There are 6 other classes to re-experience, so it looks like I'll be playing this game for the rest of the year (at least until Diablo 3 comes out).

Anyway, the game is OLD, I know, but it still has its appeal after 9 long years.
joostvane
System requirements going crazy, but the gaming experience is also crazy!

Trust me, I bought myself a crazy new system, and I play the most demanding games, with everything on max. I love the new gaming exerpience I have. It is the best buy I ever did. If you are considering updating yourself to a newer system, don't doubt for months and months. I was sick of playing games at 10 FPS, but then finally I did upgrade my system, and I'm extremely happy about it.
trung23
I can play many great game like tomb raider (aniv, legend..) or half life 2 or crysis(with 3d analyzer) with my onboard card Gma 945
Raidation
Of course. My laptop cannot handle Counter Strike. The graphics are all purple, and it lags. My laptop is newer than my friend's computer, yet his can play Counter Strike perfectly.

He, of course, has dual core.
I, of course, have uni core (I think that's what it is).
love_her_freida_pinto
duh..! of course its good if you have high system requiring games. Everybody loves good graphics and sound but it is just that some people can not run them. For example, Left 4 Dead, it is a great game but you need a really good computer with RAM, Graphics card, etc to run it. Most good (and fun) single player and multiplayer games require high system performance to run them but i guess this is the twenty first century so everyone should be able to at least run some alright to extremely pwnage games. So yes, it is good to have high system demanding games. Smile Very Happy
medesignz
Why would you think it is not?
Related topics
Windows Vista Official Thread
Longhorn Lab 6 Login Screen
Day of defeat source
Civilization
linux games
Call Of Duty 3
Game Maker
OBLIVON fans?
Software for video editing
I hate Vista.
The best video games of 2007.
GTA 4 new trailer & release platforms/datum
GTA IV
World leading OS
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Sports and Entertainment -> Games

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.