System Requirement Checks: Why?

[geldonyetich]

I really depends on how justified it is. Sometimes there's a core component involved which simply isn't in your hardware. Sure, you hacked Spiderman to work, but that was a stroke of luck. Most software isn't able to get by with a few glitches.

 

[clarinetJWD]

I cant disgree more crysis ran on many different systems

Never said it didn't run on numerous different systems I did however use the qualifier 'not allowing people to play it to it's full capacity' suggesting max detail, AA and AF rather than having to run it at lower settings.

I like the idea of a game that can grow at the same rate as my PC does it makes buying a new graphics card worth it.

Indeed, but firstly you have to have a game that is justifiably worth buying the graphics card for prior to the games release or is good enough that you will still be playing it when the price of better hardware comes down. Crysis failed on both accounts.

It ran just fine at medium settings on a very wide range of hardware, and looked as good as anything out there on those settings. THe point of scaling it for future hardware wasn't to get people to replay it, it was so that it's a viable purchase for those who missed it the first time around. Over a year later, it's STILL the best looking game out, even though my first playthrough was on a 2.3Ghz c2d, GeForce 8600 setup.

Oh, and I thought the gameplay was fantastic, and I will be replaying it in the future. Just because you have an opiniuon doesn't make it fact.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Often, if you don't meet the specs the game is simply not playable. The first time I tried running Company of Heroes for example the game let me run everything but it was actually impossible to play thanks to the graphic glitches.

Of course, sometimes you can fake features well enough to make it work anyway, but it's rarely worth the effort in my experience.

The only game I could never force into running was US Navy Seals (An OLD DOS game). I didn't have enough extended memory and no amount of faking anything was going to change that fact.

 

[Bob_F_It]

Dead Space refuses to try to run on my laptop

You know what really irks me? People expecting games to run perfectly on laptops. Hell, people playing high end games on laptops in general is flat out annoying to witness.

I'll second that. My laptop is quite shit at drawing anything that moves (hence why I'm hoping that my dad will not want his desktop anymore).

But this is another point about software checking system requirements.
Looking at the numbers of the system's power is an analogue way for it to give that binery answer "No, I'm not going to run on you". Numbers wise, it could be a bit under the mark and still run fine, while other systems that are given the green light (like Knonsense's laptop) will run at a shambling pace.

 

[Laughing Man]

Oh, and I thought the gameplay was fantastic, and I will be replaying it in the future. Just because you have an opiniuon doesn't make it fact.

Yeah that's kinda why it's called an OPINION rather than being called a fact... but thanks for the clarification.

THe point of scaling it for future hardware wasn't to get people to replay it, it was so that it's a viable purchase for those who missed it the first time around.

A company that drops support for a game after only... what, six months. Doesn't really sound like someone who actually was thinking of the long term strategy of it's game sales.

 

[ExplosionProofTaco]

Can you RUN it? Is a golden gift from Allah.