Do game companies overstate game requirements?

[timmytucker]

??? The publishers minimum states an x3 is needed.... but the chart says differently.

[Felix]

Yes they often do.
They are caught with the prospect of possible class action lawsuits if they tell people they can run a game with certain level hardware and then the gamers find they cannot play the game as stated.
This would be similar to fraud. Selling something based around certain criteria and then finding that it does not meet that criteria.
Therefore publishers often advise that a gamer needs a very high end PC to meet recommended requirements, to run with all the graphical features of the game turned up to max. Often the minimum requirements will be right down the other end, as just about anyone can run a certain game but it is up to that person to decide what they feel is an acceptable Frame Per Second rate.
This is why here on GD we try to offer up as much info as possible so that we can all help one another to better understand what we are faced with from one game to the next.
Take a look at all of our games ratings pages that display all the FPS scores that gamers have achieved with their own rigs. You can also visit their rig profile and see what games they can run and what FPS rates they are likely to get for different games.
You can also become a Premium Member and get the really cool comparison tools.
F

[nemaca]

Why isn't this stickied?:) A resume of this thread should be posted somewhere: We help out, guys! This is why!
I bet more Premium will come too. Also, I just resumed the premium, when I saw 10 bucks for a year, for all those nice tools and gadgets you guys deliver.

Again, I find this thread very instructive. Thanks!

[TherealYeno]

Good idea nemaca! Its stickied now

[nemaca]

Awesome! This is a *Thank You!* post:).

Felix was very accurate about it: gaming companies inflate the requirements, and with the help of hardware manufacturers, create an artificial increase in market demand. E.g.: *nVidia... the way it's meant to be played*
We all know that slogan. Also... ATi Catalyst has game ads in it. Office companies don't need a good video card to run Microsoft Excel, but gamers do, hence, the hardware manufacturers work hand in hand with the game publishers. I simplified the example, but I think my point is pretty obvious now.

As a result, we, the players, need GameDebate; the work you guys put in here is priceless for a gamer, as simple as that.

[Wajahatx2]

But in the case of bad optimized(Any game with too high requirements is bad optimized in some ways) games, the official requirements seems really low.

Take a look at Crysis Minimum

OS: Windows XP
CPU: Pentium 4@2.8
GFX: 6800 GT 256mb
Ram: 1Gb
HDD: 12Gb

Probably, Crysis will burn this rig

[nemaca]

Crysis is one of the few *exception* games that confirm the rule.
That game was created with one goal in mind: graphics and looks, and that's exactly what they advertised and what they delivered, and not much of else.
Hm... maybe the suit was nice, but compared to Prototype, was a flimsy rag cloth compared to a medieval armor... or maybe the story was nice, but compared to Bioshock and Halo, was a kid's tale compared to a Balzac novel... or maybe the playability and gameplay impact, but compared to Battlefield/CoD, was a pillow fight compared to a Tyson match. Hm... so yeah: graphics and looks... and really bad optimization. A true Crysis.

But also, communities like this spot the badly optimized games and point the finger at them, so that we can avoid them and thus force the producers to deliver more quality games and less unfinished products.

[Wajahatx2]

Despite this all, Crysis is still a great game.Actually in 2007, no one could know that it was bad optimized.Because, the game delivered the future graphics.Looking at the graphics, it wasn't easy to say that the game was bad optimized.

But now with the release of Crysis 2, we can see that how great performance a properly optimized game can give.The game works fine with low-end cards and the graphics are awesome.With much better graphics and after 4 years, the game is still less demanding than Crysis 1.So now, it's simple to understand that the Crysis was bad optimized.

Once again "Despite this all, the Crysis is still a great game." Probably, Crysis is the only game which was praised by users and also in critics reviews, though it was really bad optimized and no GFX could max it out in 2007.Also, it was only for PC.

[mockus01]

Hello, i just want to sai that im very sad for those high requirements, becouse i got a LAPTOP( you know about what i mean) . I cant udernstand if i can play World of warcraft - Cataclysm which recommended 3.0GHz, why i cant play Diablo III, i just paid money for that game Key. and i have no chance to play it. i think i will be not alone with such situation... MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IS JUST TOO HIGH! now every one is thinking of buying a new computer! this game is selling computers now? im not a millionare thats why i dont have a such powerfull computer... MY THOT IS THAT.... MANY PEOPLE WOUNT BUY THAT GAME, IF THEY CHECK THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FIRST. im not that smart so i bought the game first... so i think only i will be the lucky one who bought and not played the awsome game!

Sincerely Diablo game fan.

[mockus01]

guys and ladies which says that Diablo III System Requirements are very cool, indeed if i would have a mom, and dad which buy me a computer like those requirements show. i would say the same thing that they are fair, but i say No its not fair becouse i dont have such rich parents.. many will say the same like i just said now. and many others will remain silent thinking i would buy the game to play... but if i buy the game ALSO il need to buy a new computer to play this awsome game...

Sincerely Diablo III game fan.