Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

What is the most System Demanding game at the moment?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 7, 2012 2:05:13 AM

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the most system demanding game is out there?

In my opinion, Battlefield 3 has set the bench mark for the next generation of gaming, or is there something else out there that I am missing?
June 7, 2012 2:22:22 AM

Metro 2033 is still more demanding...
Score
0
June 7, 2012 2:26:39 AM

We tested this extensively. Forum conclusion via direct proof (at the execution of a very gracious forum member's time) was that the top 2 most demanding games at their maximum settings were Arma 2 followed by Witcher 2.


These two games were SIGNIFICANTLY more demanding than Crysis, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3 and any other reputed demanding game.
Score
0
Related resources
June 7, 2012 2:28:43 AM

casualcolors said:
We tested this extensively. Forum conclusion via direct proof (at the execution of a very gracious forum member's time) was that the top 2 most demanding games at their maximum settings were Arma 2 followed by Witcher 2.


These two games were SIGNIFICANTLY more demanding than Crysis, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3 and any other reputed demanding game.


Thanks for the info, what are their requirements?
Score
0
June 7, 2012 3:21:41 AM

steve695 said:
Thanks for the info, what are their requirements?


Neither game can be played at maximum settings above 25 fps on a single GPU (in the test, it was an overclocked 7970). Arma 2 in fact couldn't be played above 20.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 4:54:29 AM

casualcolors said:
Neither game can be played at maximum settings above 25 fps on a single GPU (in the test, it was an overclocked 7970). Arma 2 in fact couldn't be played above 20.


Wow that's pretty intense.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 5:47:40 AM

I do put an * next to The Witcher 2, as the thing that puts it in that catagory is mainly Ubersampling. Without ubersampling a form of AA, it's not quite so demanding and all these games could force insane AA levels to bring them to their knees.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 6:48:48 AM

bystander said:
I do put an * next to The Witcher 2, as the thing that puts it in that catagory is mainly Ubersampling. Without ubersampling a form of AA, it's not quite so demanding and all these games could force insane AA levels to bring them to their knees.


Regardless of if's and but's, Witcher 2 has ubersampling built into it and the other games don't. If you start adding caveats here and there, before long you've added an asterisk next to every single thing.

Maxed is maxed, and ubersampling is a part of the basic options for Witcher 2 and does not require any convoluted measures to employ.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 2:15:19 PM

casualcolors said:
Regardless of if's and but's, Witcher 2 has ubersampling built into it and the other games don't. If you start adding caveats here and there, before long you've added an asterisk next to every single thing.

Maxed is maxed, and ubersampling is a part of the basic options for Witcher 2 and does not require any convoluted measures to employ.


Part of the reasoning is that AA options also vary from one system to the next. Though not in The Witcher 2. Crysis and Dirt 2/3 has more and higher AA options for Nvidia than AMD.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 6:11:16 PM

bystander said:
Part of the reasoning is that AA options also vary from one system to the next. Though not in The Witcher 2. Crysis and Dirt 2/3 has more and higher AA options for Nvidia than AMD.


I don't think you understood me. Any argument you want to make against The Witcher 2's standing is redundant and ultimately moot. It provides a basic game option that no other game has. It is a universally applicable setting that you do not need to enable through CCC or NVCP. It's more complex than a basic multisample and significantly changes the appearance of the game. It's very clearly how the game was intended to be played, if in fact any hardware could play it reasonably with that setting enabled.

If you want to make a caveat about The Witcher 2's ubersampling, then by the same token Crysis should be stricken from every fps test because it is dated and significantly less efficient than Battlefield 3, inflating its standing and suggesting through its artificial bottleneck that it somehow renders superior polygons and pixels to more modern equally impressive games. Since no one is in a rush to do this (and in fact most people wanted to test fully modded versions of Crysis and Crysis 2 to sate their ego's attachment to the game), hopefully we can abandon any urge to put an asterisk next to The Witcher 2. It doesn't even need to be modded to take a dump on a system, and the same might be said for other games if they also had ubersampling, but they don't. Their development studios didn't bother or think to add it to the games.

To quickly counter your measure specifically, ubersampling is not the only layer of anti-aliasing in The Witcher 2. It does not supplant standard anti-aliasing, and the game itself is subject to all of the normal circumstances surrounding regular anti-aliasing, in addition to the complex supersample.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 7:56:36 PM

although max payne has some rediculously high requirments listed it doesnt need them to max out the game.
so i would say witcher 2 enhanced edition, battlefield 3, metro 2033 with aaa enabled...
i dont list arma 2 because the engine is compromised. yes it will bring a system to its knees, but mainly because of how badly its optimized over how graphically demanding it is... it used dx9 code that would have been less demanding if they had been done with dx10. because of this the game is more demanding than it needs to be... much like crysis had some high end dx9 features(they were supposedly dx10 only features) disabled only to be re-enbaled via a hack. it made no difference because the dx9 cards didnt have enough grunt to run them and this is why they were turned off.
but arma 2 leaves em on...


Score
0
June 7, 2012 9:20:50 PM

casualcolors said:
I don't think you understood me. Any argument you want to make against The Witcher 2's standing is redundant and ultimately moot. It provides a basic game option that no other game has. It is a universally applicable setting that you do not need to enable through CCC or NVCP. It's more complex than a basic multisample and significantly changes the appearance of the game. It's very clearly how the game was intended to be played, if in fact any hardware could play it reasonably with that setting enabled.

If you want to make a caveat about The Witcher 2's ubersampling, then by the same token Crysis should be stricken from every fps test because it is dated and significantly less efficient than Battlefield 3, inflating its standing and suggesting through its artificial bottleneck that it somehow renders superior polygons and pixels to more modern equally impressive games. Since no one is in a rush to do this (and in fact most people wanted to test fully modded versions of Crysis and Crysis 2 to sate their ego's attachment to the game), hopefully we can abandon any urge to put an asterisk next to The Witcher 2. It doesn't even need to be modded to take a dump on a system, and the same might be said for other games if they also had ubersampling, but they don't. Their development studios didn't bother or think to add it to the games.

To quickly counter your measure specifically, ubersampling is not the only layer of anti-aliasing in The Witcher 2. It does not supplant standard anti-aliasing, and the game itself is subject to all of the normal circumstances surrounding regular anti-aliasing, in addition to the complex supersample.


I understand where you are coming from. I'm just saying it's a stupid setting which is just ridiculously demanding.

That said, if we are going to include games using al in game setting options, then that opens up new doors to most demanding games. Rift is by far more demanding than the Witcher 2, and probably Arma. While most will use the slider of Ultra as the "max" setting, if you go to the advanced tab, they give you a bunch of sliders that take the game to ridiculous slide show levels.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 10:22:36 PM

bystander said:
I understand where you are coming from. I'm just saying it's a stupid setting which is just ridiculously demanding.

That said, if we are going to include games using al in game setting options, then that opens up new doors to most demanding games. Rift is by far more demanding than the Witcher 2, and probably Arma. While most will use the slider of Ultra as the "max" setting, if you go to the advanced tab, they give you a bunch of sliders that take the game to ridiculous slide show levels.


Slide show on what hardware and in what environment? Asking seriously since I only played 10 minutes of the Rift beta lol.

Easy to make any MMO crawl with enough population around, but I assumed we were not including community factors for games that don't have caps on server size. If you want to go that route, Tera, Rift and hell even WoW are all the most demanding games as long as you have enough players in the vicinity.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 12:41:50 AM

WoW... such a waste of time and life. I can't believe how many people get sucked into Blizzard's crap.
Look how fast Diablo 3 sold, I don't know much about it but I watched 2 videos on youtube and it looks boring.
I used to play WoW but these days I would much rather play FPS games.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 1:05:23 AM

casualcolors said:
Slide show on what hardware and in what environment? Asking seriously since I only played 10 minutes of the Rift beta lol.

Easy to make any MMO crawl with enough population around, but I assumed we were not including community factors for games that don't have caps on server size. If you want to go that route, Tera, Rift and hell even WoW are all the most demanding games as long as you have enough players in the vicinity.


I'm talking with just normal numbers of people. Rift has advanced graphical settings which let you increase all sorts of stuff that would take my system to it's knees.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 4:30:33 AM

steve695 said:
WoW... such a waste of time and life. I can't believe how many people get sucked into Blizzard's crap.
Look how fast Diablo 3 sold, I don't know much about it but I watched 2 videos on youtube and it looks boring.
I used to play WoW but these days I would much rather play FPS games.


This post, in light of the thread topic and discussion at hand, accurately represents your superhuman focus.





Bystander-that's pretty cool. I'm seriously asking what settings those are?
Score
0
June 8, 2012 5:05:11 AM

I haven't played Rift in several months (I had two 470's when I did play). It just had several things that I do not remember, but it had at least 10 settings with sliders at about half when set to Ultra. Once you start pushing that stuff up, it got ridiculous fast.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 5:56:39 AM

casualcolors said:
Neither game can be played at maximum settings above 25 fps on a single GPU (in the test, it was an overclocked 7970). Arma 2 in fact couldn't be played above 20.



why the hell would they make a game like this? I'm not doubting it, but I don't see the point of making a game that the latest GPU's can't handle only the ballztothewallz rich guys who can afford a multi-top-of-the-line gpu setup are going to buy have such specs, and they can't be a big enough audience to support sales.

I guess they just expect ignorant people to buy a game without knowing they can't handle it to make up for it or what?
Score
0
June 8, 2012 6:09:31 AM

zex95966 said:
why the hell would they make a game like this? I'm not doubting it, but I don't see the point of making a game that the latest GPU's can't handle only the ballztothewallz rich guys who can afford a multi-top-of-the-line gpu setup are going to buy have such specs, and they can't be a big enough audience to support sales.

I guess they just expect ignorant people to buy a game without knowing they can't handle it to make up for it or what?


Two things. Arma 2's number one bottleneck lies in the CPU and that is because of the very very large world and dynamic opponents it is able to render and accomodate. Secondly, we're talking about games with settings turned up to a point that is unreasonable by anyone's measure. Myself, Witcher 2 is a game that I greatly enjoy, even if I can't use ubersampling.

These games are not unplayable. These games are just unplayable at their absolute highest settings. There are other games that become virtually unplayable as result of something as simple as using DX11. Those games you could lodge this complaint about, but that's not because of cutting edge technology. That's because of incompetent programming.
Score
0

Best solution

June 8, 2012 5:32:48 PM

steve695 said:
WoW... such a waste of time and life. I can't believe how many people get sucked into Blizzard's crap.
Look how fast Diablo 3 sold, I don't know much about it but I watched 2 videos on youtube and it looks boring.
I used to play WoW but these days I would much rather play FPS games.



the randomness of this post made my day. thank you.



+1 on the witcher 2. it looks pretty with all settings maxed but would lower your fps. even with lower settings it still looks awesome. one of the best looking games in a while and one of the best RPG i've played.
Share
June 8, 2012 8:30:06 PM

Crysis 2..? The newest CRYTEK game..
BF3 is a good one, Frostbyte showcase ^^
Witcher is the newest UNREAL game.. Also a good engine
This is the 3 games with high-end quality, from the 3 biggest franchises out there - CRYTEK, Frostbyte and UNREAL engine.
Score
0
June 9, 2012 3:11:02 AM

Best answer selected by steve695.
Score
0
!