PC game reviews....
This topic is locked from further discussion.
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
So true. In fact I have a subscription card for PC Gamer filled out on my desk right now.
     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.....
Gladestone1
I agree with you 100%. This is really the nature of the PC world. A pcs lifespan is about three years, after that you really think about getting a new computer. 15 years ago it was like this, five years ago it was like this, 10 years from now its going to be like this. If there are people who like to play games on their pc, then those people are aware of spending the big bucks to play the current games.
I have to agree with some of the people. I've been disagreeing with alot of reviews lately. Some of these reviewers seem so hyped on the mmo thing that(wow) for example that they don't seem to be able to see the bad. I've read some reviews of games that I've got and when I read the reviews, it's like where is this and this problem. They ignore it. Good example, how many of you have set controls for most of your games. You know where you want it and thats where you program it too, or you've bought a nice programmable keyboard just for good gaming. Most of have our set spots, yet when we run acrossed a game like Scarface in which there is no programmable keys, that we have to use there set up. What kind of company refuses to let the player set up a game to where he or she is most comfortable. They've been doing it for years. Small deal to some, huge deal to others. I returned the game just because of that. Yet not one reviewer mentioned it. Reviews aren't in depth anymore, they're hurried and shoved out the door, with alot of messed up stuff.
Reviewers killed Dark Messiah, yet alot of player loved it. It was because of reading forums and not these piss ant reviewers, that I bought the game and loved it. As far as dropping the score on a game cause of it's specs, why not review the game for what it is and give a warning instead. Mention it in the review, let people know but don't slam on it cause it's runs better on a newer machine.
If you really want to slam on something do it for all the right reasons like Splinter Cell Double Agent. Over a quarter of the people that bought the game can't even play it. Take alook at Ubisofts forums, with all the people trying to find a way just to play the game. I myself can play every game out there except Double Agent. I bought the game, installed it, and can't even get to the starting menu. Thousands of people are in the same boat. Why don't you piece of sh++ reviewers get off your asses and get out good reviews so this kinda thing doesn't happen or is that to much to ask for, dip sh++s.
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?_deadrat
Exactly what I think of. The ultimate game is the game that can run on as much as possible machines AND can become the most beautiful game with the correct system.
the UT series was so awesome with its ability to be playable even on my older computer, and after getting a proper vid card it looked awesome.
If SupCom had lower "minimum" graphical-quality, everything was ok. But the devs are too arrogant to think about people who don't have enough money for the currect minimum-requirements.
As I have said 2 times already: If the game doesn't appeal to a big enough market-segment\slice, it can't be considered a good game.
I just figured it out: Â It's like trying to sell gourmet stakes to fish owners. The stake is good, but fish can't have it.
I have to agree with some of the people. I've been disagreeing with alot of reviews lately. Some of these reviewers seem so hyped on the mmo thing that(wow) for example that they don't seem to be able to see the bad. I've read some reviews of games that I've got and when I read the reviews, it's like where is this and this problem. They ignore it. Good example, how many of you have set controls for most of your games. You know where you want it and thats where you program it too, or you've bought a nice programmable keyboard just for good gaming. Most of have our set spots, yet when we run acrossed a game like Scarface in which there is no programmable keys, that we have to use there set up. What kind of company refuses to let the player set up a game to where he or she is most comfortable. They've been doing it for years. Small deal to some, huge deal to others. I returned the game just because of that. Yet not one reviewer mentioned it. Reviews aren't in depth anymore, they're hurried and shoved out the door, with alot of messed up stuff.
Reviewers killed Dark Messiah, yet alot of player loved it. It was because of reading forums and not these piss ant reviewers, that I bought the game and loved it. As far as dropping the score on a game cause of it's specs, why not review the game for what it is and give a warning instead. Mention it in the review, let people know but don't slam on it cause it's runs better on a newer machine.
If you really want to slam on something do it for all the right reasons like Splinter Cell Double Agent. Over a quarter of the people that bought the game can't even play it. Take alook at Ubisofts forums, with all the people trying to find a way just to play the game. I myself can play every game out there except Double Agent. I bought the game, installed it, and can't even get to the starting menu. Thousands of people are in the same boat. Why don't you piece of sh++ reviewers get off your asses and get out good reviews so this kinda thing doesn't happen or is that to much to ask for, dip sh++s.
wallydog63
I agree with you 100%, I was one of the lucky ones that could run SC: DA but after an UPGRADE I can't run it because it wasn't optimised for dual core or the nVidia 8800 series. I used to love the SC games to the point where my MGS addiction was completely broken and I started to think the MGS games sucked. But Ubisfot has shot themselves in the foot. I pretty much hate SC and will probably avoid Ubisoft games until they can prove themselves again. Atleast MGS games run smooth. But hindsight, where were the warning? And even if yousee a post in a forum about this, theres so much hate between the diffrent systems you can't tell if its genuin or just another console fanboy being an idiot. And as for putting games down for needing high specs, thats ridiculous and should only be used if the game was high spec from being poorly optimised.
There should be a requirments section in reviews split off from the normal review that has no affect on the score, but just warns you of high resource usage. Also if a game developer picks up on a bug and fixes it quickly, maybe they original score should be reivaluated then maybe some companies would think more about patch work after a game more *cough*EA*cough*.
   The one thing i think that, most developers are missing these days...Is the fun factor we had years ago...Remember how simple gaming was...It wasnt all about graphics...Baldurs gate 2 is one of my favorate games of all time...Why because it was awesomely done..Remember how easy though simple an fun it was...Hit the space bar, control your spells an wham it was real dnd...Now look at elder scrolls now i love there games...One would think they, can come up with a real good, sword fighting system for it..What made bg2 fun, was how big it was...So simply made though..
   Even wing commander...Cant these game companies, not worry about graphics for a change...Bring us back the fun in games...Than work on the graphics...Thats why i think the sims sells well...Its simple but has a complex system in it...Im so looking foward to spore its not funny...Hell even hellgate london....These two developers know how to make games...Im getting so bored right now of mmorpgs...Everqust 1 was complex an i think developers, got away with the complexity of depth in mmorpgs...They dumbed down wow so bad..It was borish to me...Even the way they dumbed down everquest 2....After awhile it gets boring...
     Ive tried games like Titan quest...Sure for awhile it held me..It didnt have the complexity that diablo 2 had in it..Meaning every time a drop item dropped it was garbage...Diablo had a ton of items in it that where great...Which is why im so looking foward to hellgate london....I think its time developers go back to the old days an look at what made games fun an stop trying to make games 1 2 3 an 4...Im looking at my desktop atm...If im not mistaken i think ive got like 10 games that are 1 2 3 an 4...Its rediculas...Come up with original ideas..I know its how they keep making a prophit for sequel games but dont yall get bored of sequels an come up with some thing fresh..If where lucky now we get maybe 1 or 2 original ideas a year...Thats just pathetic in my eyes...What are your thaughts on this area....
Â
But thats just me i guess. maybe by 2010 you might see it that way, and for people that dont want to spend money on upgrading, tough it or go to consoles thats what i say. i fear some great games this year are going to be bashed (like this one) because of their "high" requirements. because like OMG dx10 graphic cards just came out in NOV, and why should everyone have one by now? (saying by the time crysis comes out) better write it against it because of that...give me a break....
You may have a decent rig that as you say, can run the game at 70 FPS+ at high settings, but consider if that wasn't the case. What if Supreme Commander ran at sub-30 FPS at medium detail?
And I disagree with your idea that if your computer can run a game that has steep system requirements, it should have the points put "back on". Quick points (I've explored them in more detail in my earlier post; look there if you wish):
- Multiplayer, you would have less people playing the game due to steep system requirements, and graphical lag might become an issue when the game gets bogged down by a plethora of things going on. And that has to be less fun.
- Less people playing, may possibly mean a smaller community, so for your single player experience, less user-created content, impacting longevity of the game. This is speculative at best.
An obvious counterargument is that neither of those points concretely contribute to GameSpot's review score. But it is something to consider.
The biggest problem I see that gamespot reviews 'are aimed at anyone who would consider spending fifty bucks on Supreme Commander' rather than the people that actually read game review sites on a regular basis, Gamespot knew back in the good ol' days that everyone who bothered to look them up to read what they thought of a particular game generally had better machines than John Q. Public, this is obviously why Gamespot's review of Total Annihilation never brought up it's at the time steep hardware requirements despite it being a "absolute disservice" not to mention it. The true question is how did Gamespot go from being quite alright with a beastly game to docking it because the developers had the gall to stress the computers they used?
That's quite true.The biggest problem I see that gamespot reviews 'are aimed at anyone who would consider spending fifty bucks on Supreme Commander' rather than the people that actually read game review sites on a regular basis, Gamespot knew back in the good ol' days that everyone who bothered to look them up to read what they thought of a particular game generally had better machines than John Q. Public, this is obviously why Gamespot's review of Total Annihilation never brought up it's at the time steep hardware requirements despite it being a "absolute disservice" not to mention it. The true question is how did Gamespot go from being quite alright with a beastly game to docking it because the developers had the gall to stress the computers they used?
mikemil828
The biggest problem I see that gamespot reviews 'are aimed at anyone who would consider spending fifty bucks on Supreme Commander' rather than the people that actually read game review sites on a regular basis, Gamespot knew back in the good ol' days that everyone who bothered to look them up to read what they thought of a particular game generally had better machines than John Q. Public, this is obviously why Gamespot's review of Total Annihilation never brought up it's at the time steep hardware requirements despite it being a "absolute disservice" not to mention it. The true question is how did Gamespot go from being quite alright with a beastly game to docking it because the developers had the gall to stress the computers they used?
mikemil828
It's hard for me to personally buy that argument seeing as a lot of time has passed since the days of Total Annihilation.
GameSpot has changed hands in terms of its staff many times since then, and methodologies may change with such shifts. Secondly, back then, you're right. Only enthusiasts (essentially) would visit the website on a regular basis, but that doesn't neccesarily imply they're packing the hardware. Period.
Today, GameSpot is online the WWW, where millions of people are online at any given moment. Web surfing is an accepted social practice nowadays, and GameSpot is linked from many websites on the 'net (refer to the bottom of this page for a few, GameFAQs, MetaCritic, GameFly...) and is getting fed a fudgeload of advertising dollars. You have a wider audience, so it won't neccesarily be those enthusiasts looking at the reviews. Such a audience may necessitate a few changes here and there.
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.Usually games that demand a monster pc but fail to justify that demand by not looking graphically impressive tend to get points knocked off. And I for one welcome it. Too often you get games that look like they were made in 2004, but need a computer made in 2009 to play them. Besides, since when did pushing the envelope only involve graphics? Instead of encouraging developers to push graphics and force consumers to sell their mother-in-law just to keep up with the times (and even then only for a few months), I want someone to encourage developers to come up with better presentation, deeper storylines, fresher ideas and interesting settings.
What are your thoughts on this subject?
Santas_Hitman
If this is the trend, why not lower scores on some next-gen console titles, because the graphics can't be fully enjoyed without a $1,000.00 hdtv set? Or how about lowering the score, because you have to pay monthly for the online service?
[QUOTE="mikemil828"]The biggest problem I see that gamespot reviews 'are aimed at anyone who would consider spending fifty bucks on Supreme Commander' rather than the people that actually read game review sites on a regular basis, Gamespot knew back in the good ol' days that everyone who bothered to look them up to read what they thought of a particular game generally had better machines than John Q. Public, this is obviously why Gamespot's review of Total Annihilation never brought up it's at the time steep hardware requirements despite it being a "absolute disservice" not to mention it. The true question is how did Gamespot go from being quite alright with a beastly game to docking it because the developers had the gall to stress the computers they used?
Aspyred
It's hard for me to personally buy that argument seeing as a lot of time has passed since the days of Total Annihilation.
GameSpot has changed hands in terms of its staff many times since then, and methodologies may change with such shifts. Secondly, back then, you're right. Only enthusiasts (essentially) would visit the website on a regular basis, but that doesn't neccesarily imply they're packing the hardware. Period.
Today, GameSpot is online the WWW, where millions of people are online at any given moment. Web surfing is an accepted social practice nowadays, and GameSpot is linked from many websites on the 'net (refer to the bottom of this page for a few, GameFAQs, MetaCritic, GameFly...) and is getting fed a fudgeload of advertising dollars. You have a wider audience, so it won't neccesarily be those enthusiasts looking at the reviews. Such a audience may necessitate a few changes here and there.
Sure Gamespot has "changed hands in terms of its staff many times since then" but wouldn't you think that something that is an "absolute disservice" today, would also be an "absolute disservice" then? After all it's not like there were no games the that pushed the limits of PCs back then. As for ethusiasts not packing the hardware, how could you consider yourself one if you do have a decent machine? My dad is a model train ethusiast and he spends a lot of money on model trains and has one of the bigger collections I've ever seen, a friend of mine is a car ethusiast, he spends a lot on parts and devotes a lot of time and energy to making his car run faster. Generally if you are a true enthusiast in something then you are very likely to want the best you can afford, and because of that you'd probably have a better machine than the guy who buys his run of the mill HP computer from Best Buy. Period.
As for your comment that Gamespot is the WWW itself, you are giving Gamespot a little to much credit, although it looks like gamespot is a huge site, it's still just a microcosm of the internet itself, ask yourself how many people on the internet actually visit Gamespot, 10% 5% 1%? Not even that, Alexa estimates that Gamespot has about .378% of every person on the internet visiting it, compare this to say....myspace.com which has 4.05% and google.com with 26%, clearly gamespot still remains a website largely frequented by enthusiasts in the subject. There may be more enthusiasts, but they are still enthusiasts nonetheless. Millions may be online, but chances are 99.622% of those millions are not going to gamespot. Should gamespot tailor it's reviews to the 99.622% who don't read their reviews (seeing that probably all of them have have computer and might benefit from the reviews) or the .378% who do?
[QUOTE="cmdrmonkey"] ... 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. AufbanAmen brother!That bugs me too. But I was reading old Red Faction reviews where PC version got 7.9 but PS2 version 8.8 despite them stating in the pc review that:
The PC version is technically superior to the earlier PlayStation 2 version on account of its higher-resolution graphics and its multiplayer mode, and it controls much better using the PC's keyboard-mouse combo compared with the PlayStation 2's gamepad. The PC version even retails for $10 less. Greg Kasavin
Their explanation was that the competition on PC is much harder than on PS2 ..personally I think that kind of rating sucks even more than reducing points for high system requirements.
But why on earth Halo(pc) then got 9.0 I cannot understand, based on that logic it should had been 7 something.
[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-VSo what you are saying is that if a game can bring even a high-powered system to its knees, we should overlook that and instead base the review text on hardware that doesn't yet exist? Since you seem to be an RTS enthusiast, you certainly know that sluggish performance can make for excruciating gameplay both online and off.
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.
Great Post. I don't understand why devs make pc exclusives with such high hardware requirements, especially when it's a RTS game.
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.
SunnySimantovIt 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?
I disagree with that. Let's take art for an example...most masterpieces are waaay out of reach for your average art lover, does that make it any less of a masterpiece? How about cars? A Saleen S7 is way out of reach financially for most car enthusiasts, does that mean car and driver should dock it points when it does a review? A review is an evaluation of the quality of a product, not the marketability of a product. I agree, making a game that is out of reach for most gamers is not smart business, but to dock the game points becuase of this is an injustice against such game. I consider games to be somewhat of an art form, and when you take things like that into consideration, you are reducing it to a mere "product" like a big mac or something.
And to answer this question:
"If a decent amount of customers can't enjoy the entire product experience, is this game worthy?"
Absolutely. If a game is revolutionary and brilliant, the fact it is out of reach for some gamers is null and void. Rate games based on their attributes, not who can and can't play them.
[QUOTE="SunnySimantov"]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.
dnuggs40It 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?
I disagree with that. Let's take art for an example...most masterpieces are waaay out of reach for your average art lover, does that make it any less of a masterpiece? How about cars? A Saleen S7 is way out of reach financially for most car enthusiasts, does that mean car and driver should dock it points when it does a review? A review is an evaluation of the quality of a product, not the marketability of a product. I agree, making a game that is out of reach for most gamers is not smart business, but to dock the game points becuase of this is an injustice against such game. I consider games to be somewhat of an art form, and when you take things like that into consideration, you are reducing it to a mere "product" like a big mac or something.
And to answer this question:
"If a decent amount of customers can't enjoy the entire product experience, is this game worthy?"
Absolutely. If a game is revolutionary and brilliant, the fact it is out of reach for some gamers is null and void. Rate games based on their attributes, not who can and can't play them.
Comparing Art and Games doesn't work. I get where you're going at, but Art is actually pretty much in reach by anyone. I can go to the Van Gogh museum and see everything he has created. You can buy copies and actually google any piece of art to see it.
Pc games are made for people that own a pc and that is how gamespot rates them. GSG decided that their game is so important that they would want the oposite. I agree that this doesn't take away that SC is a good game, but it's getting way too common for games to be badly optimized. I think gamespot is getting tired of this and punishing devs for this. (rightfully so)
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="SunnySimantov"]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.
_Pedro_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?
I disagree with that. Let's take art for an example...most masterpieces are waaay out of reach for your average art lover, does that make it any less of a masterpiece? How about cars? A Saleen S7 is way out of reach financially for most car enthusiasts, does that mean car and driver should dock it points when it does a review? A review is an evaluation of the quality of a product, not the marketability of a product. I agree, making a game that is out of reach for most gamers is not smart business, but to dock the game points becuase of this is an injustice against such game. I consider games to be somewhat of an art form, and when you take things like that into consideration, you are reducing it to a mere "product" like a big mac or something.
And to answer this question:
"If a decent amount of customers can't enjoy the entire product experience, is this game worthy?"
Absolutely. If a game is revolutionary and brilliant, the fact it is out of reach for some gamers is null and void. Rate games based on their attributes, not who can and can't play them.
Comparing Art and Games doesn't work. I get where you're going at, but Art is actually pretty much in reach by anyone. I can go to the Van Gogh museum and see everything he has created. You can buy copies and actually google any piece of art to see it.
Pc games are made for people that own a pc and that is how gamespot rates them. GSG decided that their game is so important that they would want the oposite. I agree that this doesn't take away that SC is a good game, but it's getting way too common for games to be badly optimized. I think gamespot is getting tired of this and punishing devs for this. (rightfully so)
I can go watch someone else playing a game too can't I? I could go to a friends house who has a awesome PC and play couldn't I? It's exactly like Art and Cars. Some are for enthusiest, some are for the general collector/owner, some you can only enjoy in a museum or through a magazine if you don't have the means. I want games rated on content, not who can't play it. Thats a side issue and doesn't apply to the quality of the game.
Now, I 100% agree with you regarding unoptomized games. A game that has crappy performance yet does not look any better (or worse) then a similar game is obviously of poorer quality. But that is not the issue here...
  My feel on it buddy is gamespot should dock points for high performance requirements that doesn't fit the population. Why? Because there are COMPETITIVE RTS's out there that are just as good and look just as good as Supreme Commander (Company of Heros for instance) but have much better performance.. If a product thats already out that is similar in genre, with lower requirements, and just as much quality get higher ranked? Yes it should... If we were comparing it to a vacume enviroment where this game had no competition, sure I would see why they shouldn't dock points.. But thus we are not, and why should any person be lead astray because of reviews not taking graphics into mind? They do the EXACT same thing for consoles, they dock points for performance issues as well.  The people who are reviewing this game are comparing this to numerous RTS's out there, Company Of Heros as I said earlier was recently released and arguably has just as good grpahics yet far lower performance hits.. Thus it should be ranked higher, and thus why Supreme Commander got ratted lower due to this..  Now I am not claiming that Company of Heros is better, I am just saying Reviewers must take into mind the competition in rating in whats the best buy.
  Another thing I don't understand is why people even making such a big deal about it? who cares it got rated a 8.8.. Reviewing isn't a exact science its a generalization. Off chances or not you CAN not see the difference between a 8.8 game and a 9.0, you will get just as many people who loves one as many people love the other.. So as far as I see stop looking to far in to it.
 The same can be said for cars.. If both are the same price, same qauiltiy, similar type of car, but one has way lower gas milage then the other, then the higher one is gonna get a better rating.. And if money is not a object, then why the hell should you care for such 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'm not encouraging the developers to push it that much my Pc can barely handle the games out now and I don't want to spend another $300 just so I can play a $50 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-VSo what you are saying is that if a game can bring even a high-powered system to its knees, we should overlook that and instead base the review text on hardware that doesn't yet exist? Since you seem to be an RTS enthusiast, you certainly know that sluggish performance can make for excruciating gameplay both online and off.
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. then your really not reviewing the actual game. and since you guys do include hardware in the score, how is it reflected? will you re review when the hardware is more readily available? i think not.
WIndows Vista with Aero requires a 256 MB video card--how many people are running that kind of card as a percentage of people running Windows? They deserve criticism for that. Just like a game manufacturer who releases a game that cannot be run with all detail on on even a maxed out SLI system--why do it?Â
You'd think doing so would be its own deterrent--one poster abover mentioned Vavle's PC profiles, showing most people running an older card, 512 of ram and a 2.4 GHz, single core processor. Blizzard is one of my favorite companies, and is also one of the most financially successful because--you guessed it--they GET IT. It doesnt matter who ahs the best technology--it matters how many people buy your game. Make them for as many systems as possible...
??
The cars / game comparison works. But the Art / game comparison doesn't. You don't watch games, you play them.
As for comparing SC and CoH.
CoH has much better graphics than SC, the number of units has nothing to do with graphics. Technically more advanced? Maybe, but it's hard to compare the two.
??
The cars / game comparison works. But the Art / game comparison doesn't. You don't watch games, you play them.
As for comparing SC and CoH.
CoH has much better graphics than SC, the number of units has nothing to do with graphics. Technically more advanced? Maybe, but it's hard to compare the two.
Some don't meerly look at art, some collect it... If my hobby was collecting art, the fact I am on a limited budget doesn't make more valuable peices any less of a masterpiece.
Performance issues and high requirements are two completely different things. They are not related one bit... dnuggs40
  Uhh from the benchmark the highest computers at gamespot are having trouble getting tolerable performance.. THAT IS A PERFORMANCE issue when compared to other games.. As I said before its rightly so that the game got docked some points, now if you want them to review it next year when its easier to run, be my guess.. But as it stands for the average person on the market there are better RTS's out there when it comes to performance vs visuals.Â
  Now if money is not a object and you have the highest hardware possible then why does it even matter?.. Honestly does it really make a difference if the game got rated a 8.8 instead of a 9.1? It just sounds like a few people that are very insecure that their game they hyped all year long isn't the second coming.. Its a opinion!! For crying out loud, if you want you can axe out the graphics part and put it to 10 when you have that computer thats able to run everything.
  As it stands the majority of the pc player population doesn't have the top hardware out there. When it comes down to it, its a product.. And a product must be rated on ALL levels when it comes to possibility being purchased.. When quite a few people make sure to see how the game performs on both benchmarks, real game play, if they meets the reqs etc etc, why shouldn't the reviewers? After all its suppose to be their indepth review on every aspect to either warn, educate etc etc on a product to make the customer decide whether to buy this or not.
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]Performance issues and high requirements are two completely different things. They are not related one bit... sSubZerOo
  Uhh from the benchmark the highest computers at gamespot are having trouble getting tolerable performance.. THAT IS A PERFORMANCE issue when compared to other games.. As I said before its rightly so that the game got docked some points, now if you want them to review it next year when its easier to run, be my guess.. But as it stands for the average person on the market there are better RTS's out there when it comes to performance vs visuals.Â
  Now if money is not a object and you have the highest hardware possible then why does it even matter?.. Honestly does it really make a difference if the game got rated a 8.8 instead of a 9.1? It just sounds like a few people that are very insecure that their game they hyped all year long isn't the second coming.. Its a opinion!! For crying out loud, if you want you can axe out the graphics part and put it to 10 when you have that computer thats able to run everything.
What the hell game are you talking about? If it's SupCom (the only game I saw you talking about in your post)
#1Â ALOT of people play SupCom just fine
#2Â You obviously dont have a clue about the difference between CoH and SupCom...little hint here...1000's of unit on screen...
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]Performance issues and high requirements are two completely different things. They are not related one bit... dnuggs40
  Uhh from the benchmark the highest computers at gamespot are having trouble getting tolerable performance.. THAT IS A PERFORMANCE issue when compared to other games.. As I said before its rightly so that the game got docked some points, now if you want them to review it next year when its easier to run, be my guess.. But as it stands for the average person on the market there are better RTS's out there when it comes to performance vs visuals.Â
  Now if money is not a object and you have the highest hardware possible then why does it even matter?.. Honestly does it really make a difference if the game got rated a 8.8 instead of a 9.1? It just sounds like a few people that are very insecure that their game they hyped all year long isn't the second coming.. Its a opinion!! For crying out loud, if you want you can axe out the graphics part and put it to 10 when you have that computer thats able to run everything.
What the hell game are you talking about?   Company of Heros ring a bell?
You have performance issues playing CoH? Is that what you are saying? I have a 6800GT and play it fine...
Also....calm down dude...
dnuggs40
 No I am not saying that.. I am saying when compared to other visually great looking games that run on lower specs that must be taken into mind when reviewing a new product that was just released of the same genere. I am not saying SC is better then the other or vice versa, just that must be taken in mind.. Because in the end its a product and people are always trying to find the best and newest one, SC as it stands with the hardware that many have is just too high thus why its docked some points.. And for those many people with ultra high end hardware, why should they care to begin with? But in the end the reviewers are trying to give a general and broad review of the game that the average pc player can use on whether to make their purchase or not, with that in mind a reviewer must talk about the reqs and performance as if they are planning on buying the game themselves..
Â
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]You have performance issues playing CoH? Is that what you are saying? I have a 6800GT and play it fine...
Also....calm down dude...
sSubZerOo
 No I am not saying that.. I am saying when compared to other visually great looking games that run on lower specs that must be taken into mind when reviewing a new product that was just released of the same genere. I am not saying SC is better then the other or vice versa, just that must be taken in mind.. Because in the end its a product and people are always trying to find the best and newest one, SC as it stands with the hardware that many have is just too high thus why its docked some points.. And for those many people with ultra high end hardware, why should they care to begin with? But in the end the reviewers are trying to give a general and broad review of the game that the average pc player can use on whether to make their purchase or not, with that in mind a reviewer must talk about the reqs and performance as if they are planning on buying the game themselves..
I agree the reviewer should talk about req's and inform users about high requirements. It would be an diservice if they didn't. Where I don't agree is that they should dock points for a game having high requirements, when it is obvious the game is cutting edge in the graphics department (or like SupCom in the technological department). SupCom is on the cutting edge and the only way they could create the masterpiece they did was to push the boundaries. Sure let users know it is a tall order, but dock points becuase they decided to have some vision? I don't agree there.I would go as far as to say that the review trend is doing a great disservice to the PC games industry. Developers aren't going to look at these reviews and say, "Hey, we'll do better on the next PC game!" Oh please guys! Be realistic! Do you know how many millions it takes to produce these games? They are just going to ditch the PC altogether and move to the consoles. EA already announced(and practiced long before) that the PC market is not as valuable to them and will not be making(or supporting)as many games as a console. The companies making these games have long ago perefecting the art of attempting to code these in an efficient and timely manner. So, say these companies take these reviews to heart...? Are they going to dumb down these games(like they aren't already for consoles) so that it can play on every single system? When it looks worse because of this, is gamespot going to give them a higher graphics score? ... yeah, this trend is poor show.
 SnakeIRye
  There is a fine balance to make.. For instance games such as Half-Life 2 was a great looking game in its time and yet could play on multiple different lower, medium to higher end systems.. What gamespot was probably expecting was more scalable graphical options with greater performance vs visuals.  They imo arn't saying "make graphics worse so every oen can play".. Because as you can see they gave Company of Heros which in its own right is a pretty hefty game no reduction in points but not as demanding as Supreme Commander.. Which brings high end systems to its knees.
Another point to add, is that SupCom's only problem was when you play the HUGE 81kmX81km map with FULL AI players at HIGH graphics. This can all be scaled down to reach acceptable frame rates. They even mentioned this in the review. I applaud what the developers have done here, they have truly pushed the boundaries while also allowing scalability. SupCom is a game that will grow with the industry, not just be a point in time demostration of current hardware. Bravo!dnuggs40
  Yeah by all means.. Thats why I think they should re-review games alot of times after numerous patchs, as well as the advancement of technology..
I definitely agree that poor performance should degrade the score of a game to a certain point. If a game has a horribly unoptimized engine, like Oblivion, NWN2, GRAW, then that just displays the laziness of the developers and the game should get marked down. But for games that are just demanding in nature and ahead of PC hardware, then there is nothing wrong with that at all.Colonel_CoolYeah, Oblivion and NWN2 are very very poorly optimized, but SupCom is not, did they dock points from Oblivion and NWN2? If they didn't and they did for SupCom, I will be pissed.
Looks like they did some shorting somewhere. Suprise really, considering if you had a great machine at the time it came out, it already looked better than the 360. After a year, the PC version already has so many graphical and gameplay improvements from mods and peoples general hardware has caught up a bit, it's like a whole new experience. How about docking the 360 version because it can't play mods?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment