Poll: Why not use benchmark tests instead of demos?

[chozo_hybrid]

I know there can be a lot of factors to creating a playable demo, and that it can take time away from developing the actual game. Of course, I would take a demo over just a test any time, because you could get a feel for the game with it, but it could be the next best thing perhaps.

But what about benchmark tests, like in Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War 2, Metro 2033 or Hard Reset? The are a way getting the game settings right for your PC, but what about making just the test available like you would a demo so people can know what the game would have to look/run like on their computer to work properly.

It seems like it would be a good idea to me, that way people can buy a game knowing (unless bugs get in the way) that it should work. I'm not sure how much work would go into said tests however, but I would imagine it would be easier then making a demo in a lot of case. What are your thoughts?

 

[DazZ.]

Most certainly, I think this is an excellent idea.
Obviously I'd prefer a demo, but if that's unavailable for some reason I'd love to run a benchmark test.

Brilliant idea, well done, somebody give this man something.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

That's a fantastic idea. It'd make me much less nervous about buying games with higher requirements over the next few years.

Brilliant idea, well done, somebody give this man something.

Like a job?

 

[DazZ.]

Brilliant idea, well done, somebody give this man something.

Like a job?

He seems to like tech demos, give him a tech demo.

 

[onewheeled]

I'm pretty sure there are S.T.A.L.K.E.R. benchmarks available for free, so this isn't necessarily a new idea.

It would be really nice for this to be widely implemented, though.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Brilliant idea, well done, somebody give this man something.

Like a job?

He seems to like tech demos, give him a tech demo.

Thanks? I just thought this up and it's something I hadn't really seen discussed, nice to see people approve though.

I'm pretty sure there are S.T.A.L.K.E.R. benchmarks available for free, so this isn't necessarily a new idea.

It would be really nice for this to be widely implemented, though.

Ah, so it has been used before, though it must be few and far between then I guess. It just seems like it'd be a good way to find out properly whether your hardware can handle a game. I've had an issue with some games I've bought and despite me having the recommended specs, it was still choppy as heck to play.

 

[sanquin]

FEAR1 had a benchmark too that came with the game. I wish more games did such things as it helps a lot.

 

[Strazdas]

In-game benchmarks are awesome and definatelly would help.

 

[Tallim]

The PC version of the updated La-Mulana actually had a tiny program that you could download and run which would tell you if your machine could handle the game. Although that was for a small indie title it was still a good idea.

 

[krazykidd]

Can someone explain what a benchmark test is? Unfortunately i have no clue .

 

[hermes]

Because they provide very different information. You can use benchmark tests AND demos to inform a buy, but I wouldn't choose one over the other.

Just go to http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri

 

[Squilookle]

Yes, I think benchmarks help inform a decision to buy a game, so yes for the poll.

Would I want benchmarks to replace demos and think it's a good idea?

HELL NO!!!

When I take a game demo for a spin, whether it runs or not is one of the smallest deatils on my mind. Sure it's important, but what I'm really looking for is things like the controls, the asthetic, the overall style, the quality of writing, how restricted/open the game's nature is, how the weapons/vehicles feel when put through their paces... that sort of thing. Benchmark tests tell you nothing of that.

It's like replacing 30 second samples of songs you can buy online with a downloadable CD track that merely says 'your CD-Player will play the music just fine' or replacing a movie trailer with a screen that says 'if you can see this image in a dark room, you'll be able to see our movie!'

Besides- demos used to be a standard part of game marketing. Devs should stop slacking off and give us the same pre-launch treatment they all USED to do.

 

[Doom972]

There was a time when Mad Onion benchmark scores were written in the system requirements of some games. They stopped using it because that single number didn't always represent that a PC had everything needed to run that specific game (for example: Pixel Shader version), which made the benchmark number misleading.

Nothing can replace a demo. It's the best way to know how well (if at all) your PC can handle a game. I'd much rather rely on that instead of system requirements or a benchmark. There's less of a chance of me buying a game if it doesn't have a demo.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Can someone explain what a benchmark test is? Unfortunately i have no clue .

A benchmark test is when you run a game at certain graphical settings and measure the FPS you get. In this case, OP is talking about being a able to run, for example, a benchmark for Crysis 3 before actually buying it, so you know whether or not your PC will melt under the strain.

 

[2xDouble]

Can someone explain what a benchmark test is? Unfortunately i have no clue .

It's a little app that detects your computer's resources and measures that against what the game needs. It's something people run because they can't or don't want to read tech specs.

 

[TrevHead]

Yeah I think it would be a good idea for PC gaming especially if that Extra Credit's ep is correct demos can be a bad thing for most devs in getting ppl to buy their game.

However I think a normal benchmark wouldn't catch all the bugs present in the final game. A better way of doing it would be a hybrid of the 2, like a 5 minute demo that plays itself.

 

[krazykidd]

Can someone explain what a benchmark test is? Unfortunately i have no clue .

A benchmark test is when you run a game at certain graphical settings and measure the FPS you get. In this case, OP is talking about being a able to run, for example, a benchmark for Crysis 3 before actually buying it, so you know whether or not your PC will melt under the strain.

Oh thanks. I get it . Now knowing that i think it would be a good idea , the main reason i mainly game on consoles ( other than i am a lazy fuck with no computer knowledge) is that i'm never sure if a game would run on my computer . So this would be very helpfull.

 

[Jamash]

It's only a good idea for people who think graphics and high settings is more important than gameplay.

For me, the main purpose of a demo is to see whether the game is fun and whether I enjoy playing it enough to purchase the full game and a benchmark on it's own would give me very little information that I value in making an informed purchase.

Benchmarking and trying to increase the graphics settings as much as I can is a minor consideration that I'll explore if I think the graphics aren't good enough, but I usually don't run games on the maximum settings my computer can handle, as I prefer to have consistently smooth gameplay with lower temperatures and quieter fans rather than practically stress test my GPU during a game (I burnt out my old GPU by playing Dawn of War 2 solidly on the maximum settings the benchmark led me to believe were possible).

If a game is fun to play, then I don't really care how good the graphics are.

If a game isn't fun to play, then no amount of shiny graphics, spectacular effects and frames per second will make it worth my time or money.

Benchmarks are useful tools, but I think a benchmark instead of a demo is only really useful to PC hardware enthusiast who want to be able to say they can run a game on maximum settings, regardless of whether they actually play the game or not.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Voted no. But only because the last time I actually had to worry about my system being able to handle anything was in 2000 when my computer was woefully and pathetically incapable of dealing with Shadows of Luclin for EQ1. Since then, I've learned to build with way more power than I need right now, and when things start to get close to what I have then it is time to upgrade.

Still, not a bad idea. It just wouldn't help me, so I had to vote no.

 

[devotedsniper]

I voted no, it would be great for those with mid range systems but if you have a somewhat high spec graphics card you don't need to worry (e.g. i haven't met a game my 3gb 660 TI can't handle, or even my old 460). I would still take a demo over a benchmark test though, not that it matter next to no one releases demo's of their games, in fact the last 3 games i can think that had demo's are mass effect 3, spec ops and kingdoms of amalur.