game engine scalability will be the biggest factor of everything. if 1080p needs the recommended then it goes up from there so be it.
Surely it can't be too much to ask, that publisher's tell us the resolution the system requirements are based on or, is that a bit too difficult?
+1 for the idea of system reqs saying [and iirc some games do this] X spec will get you 30-ish fps at 1080 and at these settings Y spec will get you 60-ish at 1080 You'll need Z spec to get near 60 at 4k with all the shiny turned on
I read recommended was for 1080p at high settings? Not sure if that was just discord chat or somewhere written down.
Yes, going by Steam ratings it is with 1080p still top choice. I mean 1366x768p is still more popular than 1440p due to laptops.
The specs they posted are close to meaningless without context, as mentioned above. What I fear is that this game being a cross-platform title might lead CDPR to conclude that PC gamers are fine with 30 FPS games. I can easily see the minimum spec to be meant to deliver 1080p at medium at 30 FPS. And, for a shooter, 30 FPS should be acceptable to nobody.
it is straight from CdProjekt: https://support.cdprojektred.com/en...issue/1556/cyberpunk-2077-system-requirements But no mention of framerate, so given the comically low specs I'd assume they mean 30 fps.
Yeah... just what I thought. But luckily I'm not in either group and will be able to enjoy more FPS at 1080p. Still would be nice to have more transparency.
I know not too much about CDPR and their track record, but everything I've read about them suggests they at least try to reward PC gamers. What bothers me more is the fact that a full price game has been shortened purely because people CBA to finish the previous one. Focus, people!
What? Sorry, can't follow. They do care about PC gamers, but the "new generation" of PC gamers seem to think 30 FPS gaming is an acceptable experience. Thus, the developers/publishers happily lap that up and deliver on what "the market" wants. Just my feeling, but since I'm an FPS junkie my view may be sliiiiiiightly biased.
Shorter main story doesn't automatically mean less content though, there could more or longer sidequests in return.
Got to be honest, I've never heard a single PC gamer say this. It's all about the superiority vs consoles for most of the ones I've heard! Anyway though, all I initially meant was that 1080/30/Med as a minimum is fine by me, as it at least makes the game accessible to a wider audience. As long as it doesn't top out at 1080/60/High on recommended hardware is more where I was going - the "min top" spec should be at least 1440/60/Med (if not High). If you can't afford whizz-bang GPUs, at least you can still play, albeit at lower settings. And for those who have forked out for better hardware, the developer should recognise this and reward it. The article does actually mention this, but personally, I'd rather have a longer main story than more (usually meaningless) side quests. Just my thoughts.
If it was a Ubisoft game where the side quests are so generic that you can't tell if you are playing Assassins Creed 66567, Tom Clancy whatevs or Far Cry from Original I would agree. However given that the Witcher 3 had the best side quests of any open world game ever made... I wouldn't worry too much. (obviously I'd still recommend waiting for reviews before giving them any money etc).
