Game site WTF



  •  So...

     I was browsing for information about Rainbow Six Vegas and found the following page. It's nice to see that such a recent game has so modest requirements.

      




  •  





  • Maybe those are the hardware requirements just to install the game?



  • @bstorer said:

    Maybe those are the hardware requirements just to install the game?
     

    Sometimes I think they pull minimum reqs out of their ass...

    Often I would see min reqs which means that at super-low settings you might get a playable framerate GRANTED that you have a fresh install of windows. Sometimes they consider 15fps reasonable.

    Ugh give me good ol' space invaders.







  • So we are agreed. Unanimous nominations for the mug, so... award it! (I don't want to have to go find it)



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    So we are agreed. Unanimous nominations for the mug, so... award it! (I don't want to have to go find it)

    My pleasure.

    b2h, this is for you



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    So we are agreed. Unanimous nominations for the mug, so... award it! (I don't want to have to go find it)
     

    It's right here. I only know this because I created the damn thing.  Fun Mug Trivia: I had to join Zazzle just to make that mug.



  • @bstorer said:

    Fun Mug Trivia: I had to join Zazzle just to make that mug.

    I figured considering it's the only thing of yours on there. You should make some more items for us to "give out". That psychotic "Ha! Ha!" image would work well for some things.



  • -1 for JPEG screenshot, sorry.

    By the way, does anyone else think that the ludicrous game requirements are the real WTF?



  •  @Spectre said:

    By the way, does anyone else think that the ludicrous game requirements are the real WTF?

    Meh, it's not Crysis.  That friggin' game recommends 2GB of RAM, a dual core processor, and a 512 MB, Shader Model 3 graphics card.



  • @Spectre said:

    By the way, does anyone else think that the ludicrous game requirements are the real WTF?

    Ironically enough, it's mostly sloppy engineering work. I've had the misfortune to inspect the codebases of a few commercial games, and a lot of the time they could have been made orders of magnitude faster by (a) not reinventing the stick, badly, and (b) actually working on making it faster. There is this mentality in the games industry that a game must be shipped as soon as it possibly can be, and it does not lead to efficient or reliable work.

    Unsurprisingly, much of the really groundbreaking work has come out of those few studios who don't do this. And yet the others persist in sacrificing everything for an early release, even though everybody knows that it's a bad idea. That's probably the real WTF.



  • Actually, most games with high requirements are failing nowadays, because people jumped off the hardware upgrade train when Vista and DX10 and the 'must-have' 8800 cards came into play. Buying a 3dfx card back in the days and admiring the amazingly realistic Quake II lighting was fun. Being forced to buy a €250 card just because the slower cards are no longer good enough is not.

    Crysis? Bombed, 200K boxes sold. UT3? I believe they sold about 60K.

    And of course, game developers claim that this means that 'the PC is dead', just so they can get their revenge on the somewhat discerning PC gamer and write for the much less demanding console audience instead.

    There is one company that focusses on artistic design and 'releasing when it's done' instead of number of polygons and xmas deadlines. They're called Blizzard, I heard their Diablo and Starcraft and World of Warcraft are fairly popular. Interestingly, no other company is smart enough to try the same.



  • 64 MB ought to be enough for anyone.

     



  • @Brother Laz said:

    There is one company that focusses on artistic design and 'releasing when it's done' instead of number of polygons and xmas deadlines. They're called Blizzard, I heard their Diablo and Starcraft and World of Warcraft are fairly popular. Interestingly, no other company is smart enough to try the same.

    Ion Storm did that with Daikatana. 3DRealms is still trying with Duke Nukem Forever...

    Doesn't seem so smart now, does it?



  • @asuffield said:

    Ironically enough, it's mostly sloppy engineering work. I've had the misfortune to inspect the codebases of a few commercial games, and a lot of the time they could have been made orders of magnitude faster by (a) not reinventing the stick, badly, and (b) actually working on making it faster. There is this mentality in the games industry that a game must be shipped as soon as it possibly can be, and it does not lead to efficient or reliable work.

    Some of the problem also comes from the proliferation of a few main engines, most notably in the FPS world (which is one of the few realms still strong on the PC).  I mean, they're throwing scripting engines and things into them so that they can be more easily tweaked, but now instead of a graphics engine you have a game framework.



  • @poopdeville said:

    @Brother Laz said:
    There is one company that focusses on artistic design and 'releasing when it's done' instead of number of polygons and xmas deadlines. They're called Blizzard, I heard their Diablo and Starcraft and World of Warcraft are fairly popular. Interestingly, no other company is smart enough to try the same.

    Ion Storm did that with Daikatana. 3DRealms is still trying with Duke Nukem Forever...

    Doesn't seem so smart now, does it?

     

    Oh yeah?  Well Blizzard still hasn't officially cancelled Starcraft:Ghost.  Take that! 





  • @Brother Laz said:

    They're called Blizzard, I heard their Diablo and Starcraft and World of Warcraft are fairly popular. Interestingly, no other company is smart enough to try the same.

    They're all very popular, but minor point of information.  They didn't develop Diablo, at least not entirely.  They just bought the company that did and called them "Blizzard North."  That's not to say that they didn't have anything to do with the release schedule.  Diablo II kept getting pushed back and pushed back because it wasn't done.  The worst thing they could have done was stick to their release schedule.



  • @Brother Laz said:

    And of course, game developers claim that this means that 'the PC is dead', just so they can get their revenge on the somewhat discerning PC gamer and write for the much less demanding console audience instead.

     

    I personally hope that "gaming" on the PC "dies", so we can return to a time of unique and innovative games instead of silly big-name graphics demos. I really don't care for technically complicated graphical rendering, especially when it's slow and enduring it is required to play the actual game part of the game.



  • @Brother Laz said:

    There is one company that focusses on artistic design and 'releasing when it's done' instead of number of polygons and xmas deadlines.

    Yes, id software (quake 1 was actually rather well-executed, in context). Oh wait, maybe it's Valve.



  • @poopdeville said:

    Ion Storm did that with Daikatana. 3DRealms is still trying with Duke Nukem Forever...

    Doesn't seem so smart now, does it?

    Neither of these are relevant examples. Daikatana was rewritten three times and put all their efforts into making flashy-looking demos for shows, and then when it came to a final product, they rushed it out without finishing it properly. DNF has been rewritten endlessly without anybody ever trying to make an actual product.

    Rewriting from scratch is not polishing your game. 



  • The install for the game jumped up and down because i had a dual core 2.2ghz instead of a 3hgz P4





  • I do?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.