Now a days games showing requirements too high than really required to play?

[Deepanshu Singh]

Hey guys! I've checked system requirements of games like Far cry 4, Dying light etc. on game debate and they are showing that it requires r9 290x.
So, here my doubt arises I've seen videos on youtube running these on R9 270 or R9 270x with graphic setting at very high,

Do games are showing more than what it is required to play it????
Here, is some links check out yourself -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XExRyEMGTQ

AND
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-8-2fRQUaM

 

[Tom Waller]

Games are ever evolving and graphics are to become very more realistic as you already know. When games are released, their requirements do also. Game companies set the requirements at a level in which gives an overall great to really quite amazing picture and performance. Then the minimum requirements are obviously telling you what the worst components you can play the game on.

Most or almost every time, what the company or game designer says the game needs, it normally doesn't. Take dying light for example as you mentioned, as its rather new. Its recommended as you said that you get best performance from a R9 290X yet with my R9 280X I can run it on ultra with very good frame rates.
I do believe games do make you think you need the best of the best components to play their games but when actually you don't

Anyway, good post and I'd love to see others suggestions and comments

 

[Deepanshu Singh]

Games are ever evolving and graphics are to become very more realistic as you already know. When games are released, their requirements do also. Game companies set the requirements at a level in which gives an overall great to really quite amazing picture and performance. Then the minimum requirements are obviously telling you what the worst components you can play the game on.

Most or almost every time, what the company or game designer says the game needs, it normally doesn't. Take dying light for example as you mentioned, as its rather new. Its recommended as you said that you get best performance from a R9 290X yet with my R9 280X I can run it on ultra with very good frame rates.
I do believe games do make you think you need the best of the best components to play their games but when actually you don't

Anyway, good post and I'd love to see others suggestions and comments

thanks for quick and great reply

 

[BlazinHot]

Using Far Cry 4 as an example, you are looking at the recommending specifications. Those are the specs to have a smooth experience (~60Hz) with most of the bells and whistles on. ie AA, godrays, v-sync, animal fur (yes they have a video setting to increase the detail on the fur of the animals you skin, and it looks pretty good tbh) Your question relates to the minimum specifications, which are also listed for most games. You sound like an AMD guy, so minimum for FC4 they say you need HD5850 (GTX 460).

 

[badboyrog2]

of course they increase the requirement a little bit high ...but for them its a kind of publicity
they prefer you got a very good rig to get the max out of your games .
but thats true too about the developper issues ..its a mix of publicity and games issues , but we will always have developper issues in the futur too , thats normal

i think the best judge of that its the gamer ...if you are satisfied with your rig , thats fine
but if you give a try on your friend s rig you can see an other story ...if he have a better rig then yours , you can prefer a lot to play games on his rig ....so i think its a matter of taste

 

[Deepanshu Singh]

thanks guys for your suggestions.

 

[synphul]

I'm kind of with tea urchin, I'm not about paying top premium prices for poorly written games that aren't 'finished' yet. It wouldn't fly in any other market. Imagine going to a restaurant, only getting some of your meal with the rest promised to you and being told you have to buy a whole apple pie for dessert because the chef can't figure out how to cut it into smaller portions. Many of the newer games aren't even running well on the latest and greatest tech out there. The fact that there are i7 4790k systems with sli'd gtx 980's struggling through some of these titles at high to ultra says something's wrong.

It also is hard to interpret the recommended and minimum hardware requirements to run. It doesn't say what detail settings or frame rates to expect on given hardware at any particular resolution so it's very subjective. "Min needed to play" - at all? For 'smooth' gameplay and what is smooth? All graphics turned down, maybe some on medium, 45fps, 60fps. Some people who play games are thoroughly pleased with 20-30fps. Others scoff at anything below 60fps. Same with 'recommended' settings - what does that mean exactly? Medium graphics, high? Some ultra, no ultra? At what resolutions? It's a bit like saying well this car has pretty good speed with the stock engine, but with an upgrade it will be fast. Define 'fast'. That's what hard numbers are for and the game companies won't stick their necks out that far.

Obviously there are too many potential system setups to factor all of them, but they could at least say ok - with an i5 xxx/amd xxxx, 8gb ram, at _least_ a gtx 970 or r9 290 @ 1920x1080 expect 75fps on high, 60fps on ultra (give or take 5fps). It would at least give buyers an idea. They've tested their game, they know what to expect out of it, so why are they afraid to stand by it? They're certainly not shy about the $60+ price tag, glitches, bugs and all.