People taking the extreme too far

[ert3]

Title edited for spelling
-mod

Why is it that developers some times decide that when they make something they want it to only work on the uber computers of the next generation IE crysis and Windows Vista.

Seems a bit odd that you would make something that works well with almost nothing that is currently available or atleast doesn't work well with what your typical consumer might ever own.

 

[The Lawn]

Because some people, like me, have these said uber computers that we have dropped several thousands into.

 

[sammyfreak]

Well, Crysis main selling point was just that, top-notch graphics. Some people actualy think it is important.

 

[Dejawesp]

Because if Crysis did'nt have the latest and best graphics then all that would be left is the gameplay and then no one would buy it because the gameplay is like singleplayer counterstrike in the jungle where all bots have wallhack.

Meanwhile my last computer was 2 years old and could play Crysis with the settings at 75% (where 100% is the max) Though that computer cost 3000 Euro ($5000) when I bought it.

Did anyone else get bothered by the fact that the easiest way to fight the aliens was to just grab them and let them go? Since grabing and leting go killed all enemies instantly.

 

[Zombie_King]

I'd like to thank you for addressing this issue, Ert3. My computer is pretty bad, because I only really needed it for work and didn't think I would be playing WoW or Battlefield a couple of years later on it. It's pretty outdated, but I hadn't suspected it to be this severe:

My friend and I joke about how slow my computer is. One time, we decided to pop in Crysis and see what happened. My computer crashed. We knew it really COULDN'T run Crysis, but we didn't think it would CRASH! I had to get it repairer, and in retrospect, it was pretty stupid of us to not see this coming.



But besides that, most computer games don't really have very high requirements. And if you MUST see the uber-graphics Crysis offers, then buy a better computer. Of course, in this gamer's opinion, Crysis might have been a much better game if it didn't require a computer only God has to run it. It might have sold more, but it didn't.

Edit: Christ! Fifth! Three people popped in messages while I was typing! Seriously though, Crysis isn't that insane, we had it on 100% (max) graphics at the time, when most of the time it's really playable on 30-40% for me, 25% on the ice levels. And Crysis really needed those graphics. The gameplay itself isn't anything new and no one gives a damn about the story, but besides that, the most obvious reason is why SHOULDN'T it have uber-graphics, it's a computer game, shouldn't it take advantage of the people who do have the computers able to run it?

 

[Scolar Visari]

Crysis doesn?t take an amazing computer to run. My fairly cheap PC was able to run most of the levels on medium settings which didn't look bad at all. The ice levels did trip it up and the frame rate dropped so fast I thought I was playing a slideshow. As to why developers made games like that, it wouldn't do them any good to just sit on par with the competition. The whole market is based around who can get the best looking game on the cheapest system.

 

[Dejawesp]

There are many, MANY things that hurt the gaming industry more than piracy, elitist games that can only run on the newest hardware is definitely one of them. Stardock's belief is a good game should have pretty good graphics, but not so much that older system's can't play too. Now if they didn't insist on fucking loader-software I might get back into their games.

How does that hurt the gaming industry? Worst case. It hurts the company that made the game and then it's a lesson learned for the next game.

 

[The Lawn]

Well, Crysis main selling point was just that, top-notch graphics. Some people actualy think it is important.

So your are telling me that graphics arn't important? Ok, lets see how much fun you have playing my to-be-made 8bit GTA IV and Halo 3 and stuff.

Graphics are pretty much the main selling point of shooters nowadays. They are all the same, it just matters which on is the smoothest and has the best display of the violence.

He's saying graphics to the degree that Crysis had are not necessary.

Good graphics are nice though.

 

[Nugoo]

It's a phallic obsession. Hardcore gamers (usually blokes) like to thump their chests, proudly show off their erect graphics cards to each other, and generally go all alpha-male. "I'm running Crysis with settings all on max, biatch!"

If this was nature, the dominant males would get all the women. As it's hardcore gamers, you can be sure that even the most alpha-male of the lot will still be living in his mothers basement.

While I don't agree with these statements, I do find them hilarious.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think they are trying to make games that won't run well on the majority of computers. Rather, they are trying to do something new or something better than the competition. In the case of Crysis, they tried to make everything destructible and near photo-realistic. I think in the end that probably took more horsepower than they would have liked. I have an unopened copy (collector's edition) of Crysis waiting for my next graphics upgrade. For those with latest generation graphics cards, it still looks pretty good. I have a friend that played it for awhile on an 8400GT video card and it looked fair, although when he upgraded to an 8800GT it looked so much better he started it over.

Doom 3's highest video setting required video cards not even on the market (512MB video RAM) to play. It can add some replay value to a game, a reason to hold on to it until your next upgrade cycle. Also, video game reviewers tend to have killer systems, so higher graphics abilities can get better reviews even if most players never see that level of graphics.

 

[Divinegon]

Mainly for market profit. Create something that has high requirements but is good, so players will feel enticed to spend their good money for these requirements in order to utilize said creations.

If Crytek profited from all the new motherboards and graphic cards that were bought for their game, then I do believe this is a super secret underground manner of compensating from profit lost from piracy.

 

[Tonggtong]

uber computers arn't all that uber if you look at my computer.

let me explain, i got my computer just last christmas and i got bought all the pieces seperate to make it cheaper, and my Pc only cost me £640 ($ 1,267.73) which to be honest is nothing for a "super" computer i'm 16 and it only took me 3 months to get the money for.

(by my computer i can run crysis on all high, i can't go onto very high because i don't have directX10 because i have windows XP and windows XP only goes up to directX9)

i also have lots of other games which i play on max out everything, like World in conflict or Assassins Creed. Unreal tournament 3. (i know there not the most computer technology demanding games but, their still up there.)

 

[bulletproof12]

IMO it is in our best interest for them to make games that try to destroy our computer. they push the limits on graphics/sound/gameplay or anything that pushes another company to try to outdo them, and 2 years later we have better graphics. and if every game out there needs 4gigs of RAM then companies will start making cheaper better RAM.

 

[John Galt]

This issue hits a bit close for me seeing as how HP has officially forgotten my video card ever existed and has taken all of the drivers for it off of their website. However, this gives me the unique opportunity to experience older games in a whole different fashion. I've found some games like Homeworld and Caesar III that despite the choppy graphics are much more fun than some of the recent PC games like C&C 3. While my heart is always crushed when I realize my computer is forever locked away in antiquity, it's some consolation for me to drown my sorrows in games that rely on actual gameplay for fun.