PC game reviews....

I've been noticing a lot of pc games that have been reviewed lately have taken a hit in score simply because of hardware requirements. To me this doesn't make any sense since they are rating the game, not the harware its being played one. I mean I'm all for letting people know that said game is very demanding in the review, however you shouldn't make it a factor when grading the game and it certainly shouldn't be a negative factor. I thought we were suppossed to be encouraging developers to really push the envelopes of what games can do. However the reviews seem to say otherwise. And I know Crysis is gonna get curb stomped for this one.

What are your thoughts on this subject?
Santas_Hitman

I also fail to understand why a great game like Supreme Commander should be docked points simply for having high system requirements. Looking back, most of the all time great PC games have pushed the envelope with regard to their graphics, and almost invariably had high system requirements. The original Total Annihilation is a perfect example. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that Total A had even steeper system requirements for its time than Supreme Commander. Very few computers in 1997 had the RAM to run the largest maps in Total A. Honestly, I get the impression that Gamespot has become so "console-ized" that it just doesn't understand how to review PC Games properly anymore, which is why I trust PC Gamer alot more than I trust gamespot. I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. cmdrmonkey

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]I also fail to understand why a great game like Supreme Commander should be docked points simply for having high system requirements. Looking back, most of the all time great PC games have pushed the envelope with regard to their graphics, and almost invariably had high system requirements. The original Total Annihilation is a perfect example. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that Total A had even steeper system requirements for its time than Supreme Commander. Very few computers in 1997 had the RAM to run the largest maps in Total A. Honestly, I get the impression that Gamespot has become so "console-ized" that it just doesn't understand how to review PC Games properly anymore, which is why I trust PC Gamer alot more than I trust gamespot. I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. Kevin-V

I agree completely. Reviewers always act like everybody has piss-poor PCs and such. If anything - reviewers should only be allowed to make recommendations against whatever if you don't have a decent PC. Not only that but it makes PC games get lower scores than they should be getting causing people with great PCs to avoid great games that just didn't score so well because it requires a decent PC.Letesmetty

Most people do have "piss poor" PCs however.  You think a lot of gamers have dual core systems with 7 series nvidia cards or greater?  I dont think so; just go take the Valve hardware survey and look at the results.  You will see that most people have P4 2.4GHz (or AMD equivelent) processors with less than 1GB of memory and a Geforce 6600 card (and the poll includes a few hundred thousand systems, more than enough for a decent sample).  That is that standard to which all games should be compatable with.

While I dont know if docking points off the score is the best solution, I do not think it is totally wrong to do so.  If a game like NWN2 and Supreme Commander (both really demanding, yet both are not that pretty) has huge system requirements, I feel they deserve some sort of consequence.

The biggest issue I think is with the readers of the review.  They read the meat and potatoes of the review, see that it got a "low" score, and then complain about it.  They fail to take in the fact that Gamespot breaks down the components of a game (graphics, gameplay, audio, etc) and they only look at the lump sum score.  Even good games, with a 9 or 10 in gameplay, can still score a seven or so if they fall short in other areas (such as "Tilt", where I think a poor-performing game should be penalized).

Its not right to market games to only the rich people who can afford a new system every two years, and I do feel its right to penalize games if they are marketed towards high end rigs, and especially if they manage to slow down those high end rigs.  Games arent sports cars, targeted towards the wealthy elite; theyre targeted toward the masses, and the masses should be able to play the game.

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]I also fail to understand why a great game like Supreme Commander should be docked points simply for having high system requirements. Looking back, most of the all time great PC games have pushed the envelope with regard to their graphics, and almost invariably had high system requirements. The original Total Annihilation is a perfect example. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that Total A had even steeper system requirements for its time than Supreme Commander. Very few computers in 1997 had the RAM to run the largest maps in Total A. Honestly, I get the impression that Gamespot has become so "console-ized" that it just doesn't understand how to review PC Games properly anymore, which is why I trust PC Gamer alot more than I trust gamespot. I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. Kevin-V

I AGREE!! My PC specs are nowhere near fit to play any DX10 games. All the newer games as of probably july this past year,are even pushing me into the medium settings range. I JUST BUILT MY RIG 2YRS AGO. and have since upgraded to max all I can with what I have. So it means I'll have to build a whole new rig again, just to stay alive with DX10 in line. I think the reviews for the most part are fair and I am very glad that hardware is a consideration for those of us who don't have 6K to drop into a new rig.

I know it may not be right to dock a game points for poor performance or high requirements, but it may be whats best for the PC gaming community.

Lets be honest, PC gaming has suffered in the past few years because of the ease-of-use of consoles, and their relatively low price.  If PC gamers are required to keep updating their rigs ever two years or less, fewer people will be interested in PC gaming because of the costs, and we will get less good games and more and more crappy ports.

What I mean to say is that if developers know their game will suffer a bad review because of its insane requirements, they might be more likely to develop or better optimised game so they can get better publicity.

i actually think that the game hardware spec. are a sign of how great can the game be but still if you look at CoH it have great graphics, yet it manages to play between decent & law settings with GF6600 series , but a game like F.E.A.R. made all the hardware in it's time two yrs ago cripple inorder to play it . & y do they always have tomake the game reviewd at 1600 res & above ??? i know that higher res. are great , but not all of the people can manage to play at these res. I manage to play at res. less than 1280x1024 which i think is high , & I I also dont have a graphic card yet , I want to buy a 8800GTS 320MB so that it can last me around 2 or 3 yrs , but mostly 2 . each yr I upgrade only 1 part of my PC & this time it is the gfx , & this upgrade will last me for acouple of yrs , I think that the upcoming games should run great on both old & new systems , like H-L 2 it ran almost great on every system out there right . well y cant they make more games like that , Even Might & Magic Dark Messaiah who's graphical engine is an update to thats of H-L 2 but still that maden it playable !!! & what about Fear Xtraction pint , who's graphical engine might not have been updated , but it's textures surelly did upgrade & change , i was able to play Fear at highest settings with Double Pixel on , but the expansion pack i had to decrease to texture & lighting settings toward Medium . idk , all i know is that i want a Down Time in the hardware of the PC industry so that we can take a rest from upgrading , even Supreme Commander crippled the newest PC systems out there :P But after all this is a PC & it's hardware are subjected to be changed from time to time , not like consoles who have a steady hardware , so I think that we should judje on the game Quality depending on the hardware it needs , no matter how hardware demanding this game might be yet it might not be better than this game that came out two yrs ago , We should review the game deppending on it's quality on the hardware that it needs . idk i got confused :P , but yet stilln i like upgrading my PC from time to time . Shatilov

I would agree that a game shouldn't be docked simply because of high-end hardware requirements.  We all like the eye candy, and the more we want to see the better your system is going to need to be.  From that standpoint, there is a "buyer beware" element in that it's up to the gamer to assess a game's requirements against your rig's capabilities.

That being said, I think it's perfectly valid to dock a game in a review when the stated requirements have been understated in order to attract buyers, but then the game can barely run on your system.  I think too many publishers have gotten in a bad habit of undershooting on the system requirements.  I got a new PC about a year ago, so as of right now, I don't have to look too closely at the requirements (althought with the pace of technology and the introduction of Vista, that's sure to change soon).  However, prior to that, with my older PC, I never bothered with games if I just barely met the minimum requirements.. Yeah, you can probably run them, but performance will probably be lousy.

Even recently with my new PC, I was disappointed with the performance of Splinter Cell : Double Agent.  My PC was safely above recommended specs.  Even so, game was often choppy.  I had to turn down the resolution, AA, and some other features for it to run more smoothly.  (And as a small aside, don't even get me started with all the bugs in the PC version of that game.  I did write a review if you're interested).  There's no excuse for that.

Reviews are always bad in my opinion. To get a good review of any game I always read player reviews. Go read Burning Crusades player reviews, look at how many people agree with the bad reviews. I'm sure Silent Hunter 4 will be great and Gamespot will give it a 8.5 or something, but I could be wrong we shall see. I'm sure I will get a whole lot of flak for bashing WoW so BRING IT!!  lol  Vito25

8-8.9 = Great.

Supreme Commander is a beast. We write reviews for everyone that would conceivably be interested in playing the game, not just those with high-powered machines and one-day-old hardware. Nowhere in the review do we act as if everyone has a "piss-poor pc," but it would be an absolute disservice if we didn't take performance into account. You may be fortunate enough to have the most recent and expensive hardware, but our review is aimed at anyone who would consider spending fifty bucks on Supreme Commander, not just those so proud of their system requirements that they place them in their forum signature. Kevin-V

First, I'd like to know how a reviewer is going to determine how many points to take off?  How old of a machine should be considered worthy of playing a game?  Why does the reviewer think they have the power to determine what hardware a developer should design for?  Wouldn't it just be better to say that a game will run poorly for older machines, and let the general public decide whether or not to buy the game?

When did Gamespot come up with the idea to even take points off for games that have high system requirements?  I'd like to know how may points you took off for FEAR.  FEAR came out in 2005.  Its minimum system requirement for RAM is 512mb.   Many average people didn't, or still don't have 512mb of RAM.  Did the game score suffer because Monolith and Sierra decided to make a game that requires at least 512mb of RAM?

When Gamespot writes a review for a console and gives the game a great score for graphics after the reviewer plays the game on an HDTV, what considerations do you make for the multitude of people that don't have high-end HDTV's?  The game may look like crap to them.  Sure the console is capable of producing the great graphics, but the TV is part of the experience, and hardware for console gamers.  So when a reviewer is lauding the graphics of a console game, like with PC reviews, they should mention that an HDTV makes the game look best, and lower end TV's won't look as good, and as a result may affect the overall experience with the game.

I think the best way for Gamespot to handle this is to inform people how the game runs on low, medium, and high-end hardware.  Just like they should let people know what to expect from an Xbox 360 game running on an old TV.  Not everyone has HDTV for their console. 

Gamespot is judging the quality of the game, not the quality of hardware required to run a game.  Judging the quality of hardware is a slippery slope with many parameters open to debate.  Who put Gamespot in charge of determining how a game should run on given hardware? Pentium III, Pentium II?  Geforce GTS, on board Intel Video? 

Doing that is bad news, my friend.

Surely if i game has very high system requirements it suggests that the game is poorly made / optimised.

To me it shows that the devs have little interest in making a decent game that can run on a range of PCs.

I watched the Supreme Commander video review earlier today. They said that there is no system that wouldnt struggle to play that game on max settings on the biggest maps. Now whats the point in that?? Devs really need to optimise games better.
dbowman

And a professional game reviewer should inform the public that the game may run like crap.  This will cause many people not to buy the game.  The developer then will not make as much money, and the may realize that they need to design a game to cater to a wider gaming base.

But to take points off of a review?  That is way to arbitrary.

When a game does not look amazing, but has such steep requirements it will bring the best machines to its knees. It needs the score to be bumped down in gfx. I am aiming at SupCom. Company of heroes looks 100x better IMO and does not have remotely as steep requirements as SupCom.

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]I also fail to understand why a great game like Supreme Commander should be docked points simply for having high system requirements. Looking back, most of the all time great PC games have pushed the envelope with regard to their graphics, and almost invariably had high system requirements. The original Total Annihilation is a perfect example. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that Total A had even steeper system requirements for its time than Supreme Commander. Very few computers in 1997 had the RAM to run the largest maps in Total A. Honestly, I get the impression that Gamespot has become so "console-ized" that it just doesn't understand how to review PC Games properly anymore, which is why I trust PC Gamer alot more than I trust gamespot. I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. Kevin-V

I've been noticing a lot of pc games that have been reviewed lately have taken a hit in score simply because of hardware requirements. To me this doesn't make any sense since they are rating the game, not the harware its being played one. I mean I'm all for letting people know that said game is very demanding in the review, however you shouldn't make it a factor when grading the game and it certainly shouldn't be a negative factor. I thought we were suppossed to be encouraging developers to really push the envelopes of what games can do. However the reviews seem to say otherwise. And I know Crysis is gonna get curb stomped for this one.

What are your thoughts on this subject?
Santas_Hitman

When a game does not look amazing, but has such steep requirements it will bring the best machines to its knees. It needs the score to be bumped down in gfx. I am aiming at SupCom. Company of heroes looks 100x better IMO and does not have remotely as steep requirements as SupCom.100000

my recent concern is the review to Burning Crusade...somehow it seems much too endorsing.

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]I also fail to understand why a great game like Supreme Commander should be docked points simply for having high system requirements. Looking back, most of the all time great PC games have pushed the envelope with regard to their graphics, and almost invariably had high system requirements. The original Total Annihilation is a perfect example. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that Total A had even steeper system requirements for its time than Supreme Commander. Very few computers in 1997 had the RAM to run the largest maps in Total A. Honestly, I get the impression that Gamespot has become so "console-ized" that it just doesn't understand how to review PC Games properly anymore, which is why I trust PC Gamer alot more than I trust gamespot. I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. Kevin-V

When a game does not look amazing, but has such steep requirements it will bring the best machines to its knees. It needs the score to be bumped down in gfx. I am aiming at SupCom. Company of heroes looks 100x better IMO and does not have remotely as steep requirements as SupCom.

100000

Does CoH have thousands of units on screen, each with complex AI computations going on, with MASSIVE maps, and a million things going on at once? No. I am sick of people comparing CoH and SupCom. Two totally different RTS's.trix5817

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]I also fail to understand why a great game like Supreme Commander should be docked points simply for having high system requirements. Looking back, most of the all time great PC games have pushed the envelope with regard to their graphics, and almost invariably had high system requirements. The original Total Annihilation is a perfect example. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that Total A had even steeper system requirements for its time than Supreme Commander. Very few computers in 1997 had the RAM to run the largest maps in Total A. Honestly, I get the impression that Gamespot has become so "console-ized" that it just doesn't understand how to review PC Games properly anymore, which is why I trust PC Gamer alot more than I trust gamespot. I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. trix5817

I think he said they docked it because even with their high-powered system, they still had struggles, not because someone with a lower system would struggle.  I think some of you are being too hard on GS if they take into account the average system.  If you really want PC gaming to grow and not be taken over by consoles, you'll be all for games that can use lower system specs.  PC gaming can't endure on games that require the latest hardware along.  That's just not practical. 

I think I should point out that graphics aren't the only thing a pc has to process. So just because a game doesn't look mind blowing doesn't mean it won't take lots of power. Supreme Commander is an excellent example of that. It doesn't look super fancy, but when you think about it there is a hell of a lot of stuff going on. Its the first RTS to be this big, because its the first one daring enough to try it. I just don't think we should be penalizing those game that really push hardware to its fullest, in fact I think we should reward them. Because lets face it, without developers constantly doing this games would never evolve, and I'm not talking just graphically either. Just thought I'd say that I am one of those people with a very underpowered system (AMD Athlon 2600 , Ati Radeon 9600xt, 1.3 gb Ram), and it doesn't upset me that I can't play Supreme Commander on high settings or on the really big maps, because I am being realistic about it. It doesn't make me appreciate it any less, in fact it makes me appreciate the game more. It means that in 4 years time this game will still blow me away.Santas_Hitman

I agree....very well said, you make some excellent points .......... 8)

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"]

Supreme Commander is a beast. We write reviews for everyone that would conceivably be interested in playing the game, not just those with high-powered machines and one-day-old hardware. Nowhere in the review do we act as if everyone has a "piss-poor pc," but it would be an absolute disservice if we didn't take performance into account. You may be fortunate enough to have the most recent and expensive hardware, but our review is aimed at anyone who would consider spending fifty bucks on Supreme Commander, not just those so proud of their system requirements that they place them in their forum signature. Subcritical

First, I'd like to know how a reviewer is going to determine how many points to take off? How old of a machine should be considered worthy of playing a game? Why does the reviewer think they have the power to determine what hardware a developer should design for? Wouldn't it just be better to say that a game will run poorly for older machines, and let the general public decide whether or not to buy the game?

When did Gamespot come up with the idea to even take points off for games that have high system requirements? I'd like to know how may points you took off for FEAR. FEAR came out in 2005. Its minimum system requirement for RAM is 512mb. Many average people didn't, or still don't have 512mb of RAM. Did the game score suffer because Monolith and Sierra decided to make a game that requires at least 512mb of RAM?

When Gamespot writes a review for a console and gives the game a great score for graphics after the reviewer plays the game on an HDTV, what considerations do you make for the multitude of people that don't have high-end HDTV's? The game may look like crap to them. Sure the console is capable of producing the great graphics, but the TV is part of the experience, and hardware for console gamers. So when a reviewer is lauding the graphics of a console game, like with PC reviews, they should mention that an HDTV makes the game look best, and lower end TV's won't look as good, and as a result may affect the overall experience with the game.

I think the best way for Gamespot to handle this is to inform people how the game runs on low, medium, and high-end hardware. Just like they should let people know what to expect from an Xbox 360 game running on an old TV. Not everyone has HDTV for their console.

Gamespot is judging the quality of the game, not the quality of hardware required to run a game. Judging the quality of hardware is a slippery slope with many parameters open to debate. Who put Gamespot in charge of determining how a game should run on given hardware? Pentium III, Pentium II? Geforce GTS, on board Intel Video?

Doing that is bad news, my friend.

the thing about pc games is that companies dev game engines that arent even possible as oppsed to consoles wich will get ports of these engines, but most games will hav engines made for that system. i dont argue that pc games shouldnt be worked over if they start requiring quad core procs. u jus hav to remember that even with the reviews unless there is major problems with the game itself, people dont really care and buy the game regardless because it is a gd game. gs could giv a game 10, but if people dont lik it they stil wont pick it up.

u hav to look at the break down and actually read the review instead of going by a number score and judging from that, jus cuz it dosnt get a 9 or higher dosnt mean its not an amazing game. its lik all those ppl complaining about zelda cuz it didnt get a 9/higher(while gow got 9.6), yet gs stil says its a phenominal game in the review.

A game is designed to be a first person shooter. Do you take off points for it not being an RPG? Of course not.

A game is designed to\run only on high end hardware. Do you take points off of it because it doesn't run on your Commodore 64? No? Well, Gamespot does. They do this because they pander to consoles and have no idea how to review PC games. PC has always, and will always be a bleeding-edge platform -- it almost always caters to the high-end. If developers just made games for the unwashed masses, we would still have Super Mario graphics because nobody would ever upgrade.

Now, what they CAN do, is they can take points off for poor optimization resulting in bad performance, because this is a flaw in the game, not the hardware it is being run on.

You might as well take points off the score for being a PC game.

Face it, Gamespot is a console biased website.  I have to agree with the comment earlier about Halo 2 scoring higher than Half Life 2, that is just ONE example.  Another one, the polls always exclude PC gamers in almost all of their questions. I could go on but nahh...

I 've heard a justifications for PC games being rated lower overall because expectations are higher - true are not - most people are just going to go by the final score.  You will see alot of inconsistencies on this site.

http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?type=top_rated&mode=all&sort=score&dlx_type=all&date_filter=all&sortdir=asc

Need I say more.  Look how low the first PC game comes in.

Right now there is no BIG monopolized website dedicated to just PC gaming which can compare PC games to just PC games (PC gamer's website is terrible).  Personally I think any FPS on a console should be docked 2.0 points right off the bat LOL but thats my opinion :)

There has been a discussion about this topic in another thread, this one:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/show_msgs.php?board_id=314159267&topic_id=25396310

And I still think what I have said is correct:

Steep hardware requirements should be taken into consideration.

If some people can't run a game the way it's supposed to be just because they can't spend a couple more hundreads of bucks for their system, it means it has a shortcoming. The ultimate game is a game that appeals to everyone, and if some are 'discriminated' for their systems, the game doesn't appeal to the whole gaming market (or even the genre market) and thus can't be rated as the same game that runs perfectly on all systems.
You simply can't say "this game rocks and if you can't run this game it's your problem." The problem is with the developer, denying the customer from enjoying the product. And I'm not saying requirements should be like P1 CPUs and Geforce 4 cards, but atleast make the graphics level go way down for the matching people. It won't be the same graphic-expereience, but the gameplay expereience will be the same.

It slightly bothers me some of you seriousely think that if the game is not playable on many machines it doesn't have to take a hit in score.... it affects the entire marketivity of the "product". If a decent amount of customers can't enjoy the entire product experience, is this game worthy?

Ive got to agree with Kevin. I should be able to enjoy a new game without having cutting edge hardware. If your getting a slideshow while running a game on low settings with 2-3 year old hardware than its too ahead of it time imo._deadrat

Turn the settings down.

This is a strange argument to me.  This game has pushed the envelope in a big way.  There are not only possibilities with this game but actual capabilities that are incredible.  To knock it because it is ahead of it's time (slightly) in its hardware requirements is just plain strange.  As has been noted, there should be a warning that the system requirements are steep, but to actually dock it for such makes little logical sense.  With that argument, the same game premiering next year, when more advanced systems (dual-core etc) are mainstreamed, it might have garnered above a 9.  If there had been other things noted that were 'cons' I would buy the (relatively for this game) low rating.  But there wre none, it was a gushing review with a last second back handed slap at the system requirements.  Very strange indeed.  Lastly, to argue that the companies should try and scale back their ambitions in order to appeal to a larger base of less capable hardware does have some merit, economic/buisness etc.  However, and this is a big however, I for one do not want all the companies basing their development on this type of model all the time.  That smells like dry rot to me, bravo to the makers of Supreme Commander, and what the heck took you so long?  (rhetorical question answered by understanding why we are having this very discussion).

JS

There have been four other games last year that have been marked down due to high system requirements.  I dont agree gamespot should mark down any game that have high system requirements.  Instead they should note that in the reviews to let people know what kind of pc specs they should have to run any game smoothly.

Both IGN and PCgamer rated Supreme Commander 90 and above.  They both mentioned in their reviews Supreme Commander does have high system requirements and still kept the rating above 90.  Its not important enough for them to effect the rating and instead they will rate the game as they see regardless it have high system requirements.  If the game have crappy graphics and lousy gameplay then the game should get a lower score, same thing if the game have great graphics and amazing gameplay it should get a high rating.

PCgamer even mention you should have a dual core cpu to run supreme commander if you want it to run more smoothly.  Dual core cpus have been around for over a year now.  There is hardware availiable now and have been avaliable two years ago to run Supreme Commander at a decent FPS.  Most people dont play their games at the highest resolution, that will kill any high end computer.  Testing a game at 1600 x 1200 resolution is impractical while most people will keep it down to 1024 x 768.

I doubt Gas Powered would make a game only 2% of the PC gaming market could play.  They will try to make it so computers with two year old hardware could run it at the same time push the envelope.  The developers are also trying to make Supreme Commander timeless, so players with future hardware could still play and enjoy this game.  It will help extend the life for those people who like to keep playing supreme commander with their buddies for years to come.

This board is full of graphics whores imo. Anything that speeds up the upgrade cycle is bad news for PC gamers.

The Unreal Tournament series has always been very scalable. I was able to run UT2004 on my old P3 650, Geforce 2, 200MB RAM. And yet if you increased the settings then it was able to push the new hardware. Why cant all games be like this?

      If your a Pc gamer...One should keep up with the hardware...Only a few years back...Ive had to replace my ram an my video card to keep pace...Just recently id say the last five years...Ive not had to do so..Im running a ati 1300 500 meg card 2 gigs of ram..Run every thing on high...Including doom3 when it came out...Nothing glitches with my card...Gamespot should no bye now that, if you are a gamer serious one..You need to upgrade your pc...Its the nature of the pc business, always has been and always will be...

    Gamespot has forgotten this for sure...People who complain about there pc...Also should note this is the nature of the pc industry...Other wise stick to a xbox, wii, or a ps3....Even now there are changes that are coming..Vista just hit its shores...One is going to need, to change there video cards again...Im not buying a new card just yet..In the near future ill have to though...Its the number of the beast...

     Remember this in your future reviews gamespot.....

... I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. cmdrmonkey

[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"]I also fail to understand why a great game like Supreme Commander should be docked points simply for having high system requirements. Looking back, most of the all time great PC games have pushed the envelope with regard to their graphics, and almost invariably had high system requirements. The original Total Annihilation is a perfect example. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that Total A had even steeper system requirements for its time than Supreme Commander. Very few computers in 1997 had the RAM to run the largest maps in Total A. Honestly, I get the impression that Gamespot has become so "console-ized" that it just doesn't understand how to review PC Games properly anymore, which is why I trust PC Gamer alot more than I trust gamespot. I lost all respect for Gamespot when they only gave Half-Life 2, probably the greatest game of all time, a 9.2, and gave that dog turd of a game Halo 2 a 9.4. Kevin-V