True meaning of system requirements

[touchdowntexas13]

With the release of the system requirements for games like Duke Nukem and Deux Ex, I've become curious as to what do "minimum" and "recommended" system requirements really mean. I guess minimum is more or less, well, the minimum. Low settings at a low resolution with no AA or AF enabled. But what about recommended? Is that for medium settings? High settings? What about resolution, AA, and AF?

I guess the point I am trying to make is why isn't there some sort of standardization, at least within reason? Why can't the International Video Game Coalition (made up) put in place some sort of structure to follow when dishing out these requirements? For instance:

Min. Requirements:
Listed settings should allow 30+ FPS on low settings, at 1280x1024, with no AA/AF.

Rec. Requirements:
Listed settings should allow 45+ FPS on high (not highest) settings, at 1920x1080, with 4xAA/4xAF.

A structure like this could tell pc gamers so much more about their ability to play a game before buying either the game or new hardware. Of course benchmarks are always very helpful, but they are usually done with very high end components with the benchmarked product being variable in performance.

Maybe there is a reason something like this has not implemented, I don't know. Just thought I would share my thoughts.

 

[AntiZig]

You listed the reason in your own post:

International Video Game Coalition (made up)

There's no one out there to come up with the standards.

 

[touchdowntexas13]

Yes that would seem to be an issue.

 

[crewton]

It's to sell more copies. If they set both of them low enough people assume their computer can handle it. Then when it can't they upgrade to play it (which is also what happens when people buy new furniture if it doesn't match the rest of their stuff they buy a whole new set instead of just returning the piece that doesn't match). It cruel but effective.

 

[ecotox]

And the makers of the games need to keep things fairly vague to protect themselves. If they listed what sort of FPS you should expect from a game given a certain rig, you can be pretty some that the first muppet with that rig that can't configure it properly and doesn't get the expected performance from it will sue them.

That said, I can't see why they can't list the in-game settings they've based their minimum and recommended requirements on as a guideline.

 

[Hawkeye22]

To me, minimum requirements means "almost a slide show" and recommended means "playable at moderate settings".

As others have said, there are too many custom configurations out there to know how well a game will play. Even a high end machine that isn't configured properly or has too many background tasks running can cause a game to run horribly.

 

[Trialsking]

A structure like this could tell pc gamers so much more about their ability to play a game before buying either the game or new hardware.

Unfortunately they already have this, its called CONSOLES.

 

[touchdowntexas13]

Best answer selected by touchdowntexas13.

 

[ambam]

Crysis takes the #1 spot in terms of system requirements. Especially if you're trying to max it out.

I can play Crysis at all very high spec on 1920x1080 and get 30-55 fps. Turning on anti-aliasing makes the game almost unplayable.

AA isn't necessary at high resolutions.

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey