Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 15 Jan 2016.
Pretty forgiving, too.
So a toaster should suffice then?
This is not a good thing.
Continued stagnation of PC performance helps nobody.
I'm sure it won't be worse than the last game, which apart from the hairworks technology, looked nice and ran well. I suspect it will be fairly similar, although it is always slightly concerning when the recommended are not released at the same time.
Well, the previous game only required a Core 2 Duao E6300 or an Athlon X2 4050+ with a miserly 1GB of RAM and a GeForce 8600GT or Radeon HD 2600XT. And it scaled really rather well when you popped in some real GPUs. If anything, I say it shows just how well Crystal Dynamics/nixxes are at making a really good engine that scales from really low-end to really high-end systems, and the update to an i3 and GT650/HD7770 and 8GB of RAM just tells that they've probably raised graphical fidelity a fair bit since 2013.
Whilst I agree with this statement in a broader sense I'm not seeing a continued stagnation. System requirements in general are creeping along all the time let's be honest, with the skew towards consoles most of the PC edge comes from advanced post-processing and IQ improvements afforded through boosted resolution.
You can put together a top end system with multiple GPUs and it will struggle to run modern titles at 4K with max quality settings at high frame rates. So it is not necessarily the software that's holding anything back it's equally a hardware thing.
Besides, have you seen this game? It looks great. It is an achievement on an artistic and technical level. No need to be a bum about it just because the barrier to entry isn't high enough for your taste. That's called being a snob.
All the minimum specs mean is "how much can we scale down and still make the game run?". drop texture resolution, turn of AA and AF, then lower the resolution until it tops 30FPS. If you CAN'T make something run without hitting it with a 970 and a 2500k, then you actually have a problem (or you're designing for VR with a hard performance floor).
Or you're using a metric ****ton of shiny new, really expensive rendering techniques. Such an example would be Crysis vs Crysis 3, where the floor didn't change much, mostly because Crysis has a really high floor because of a host of new rendering techniques used.
The first Tomb Raider still looks every bit as good as any game released since so I think it's still perfectly current
I didn't play the original at 4k either, so am really excited about giving that a go
You really think the PC game market isn't pushing for higher spec rigs? I'd say with the rise of titles such as Star Citizen and the approaching dawn of workable home VR I'd argue that you couldn't be more wrong.
Allowing titles to be playable at moderate specifications but work at their best when run on bleeding edge hardware is what makes PC gaming so awesome!
Things are not stagnating, but neither are they too elitist.
Yes, because having as many potential players/sales as possible is a bad thing...
Cast out the mid/low-end PC owners for they are not worthy!...
All the minimum specs mean is it'll run at that, it could look like the original TR at those settings for all we know...
Separate names with a comma.