Info > Feedback and Suggestions

Remove bridges in water hazard

<< < (8/8)

Imagine:
Minimum specs are never useful. Someone at Muse should make a recommended specs, those are much more telling.

Hoja Lateralus:

--- Quote from: Imagine on January 04, 2015, 02:45:41 pm ---Minimum specs are never useful. Someone at Muse should make a recommended specs, those are much more telling.

--- End quote ---

That's a good idea. For me minimum specs should be the specs to run game smoothly on lowest (or almost lowest) graphical setting. Should the bar of "smoothly" be set on 30 fps or 60 fps is a matter of opinion (but I think 60 is more like it).

Queso:
I mean, min spec hasn't been updated in a while while the game has changed a lot. Happens to a lot of games. One must remember though that even near identical hardware can run the same game differently. The closer you toe the line, the more unpredictable performance gets.

The game still does get tested to ensure it runs on min spec though, which reminds me of a picture I took over the summer.

Imagine:

--- Quote from: Queso on January 06, 2015, 12:07:16 am ---I mean, min spec hasn't been updated in a while while the game has changed a lot. Happens to a lot of games. One must remember though that even near identical hardware can run the same game differently. The closer you toe the line, the more unpredictable performance gets.

The game still does get tested to ensure it runs on min spec though, which reminds me of a picture I took over the summer.

--- End quote ---
Oh I don't doubt that a min spec machine can still run the game, but min specs are basically only made to say yes, if you have this the game will run on your computer.

Run optimally, or in a consistently playable condition though? Completely different story.

Wundsalz:
min settings are a wishy washy line. What's considered playable, really?
E.g. Phelan has played a couple of competitive matches on a really crappy notebook which is below the min spec.
All settings minimal, resolution turned down to mid-90s standards and voila he was able to run the game with occasional lag spikes if someone placed a flare. Technically the game was just barely playable with that system... still I'd personally consider it a bit daring to state it fulfills the minimal requirements because of the non-game breaking performance drops during peaks and because I think noone wants to play games with a 640x480 resolution anymore these days.


--- Quote from: Mr.Disaster on January 02, 2015, 07:55:46 pm ---Sadly I had the "pleasure" of playing GOIO on older computer (I'm having mine repaired) which has
-Dual Core 2,6Ghz processor
-4GB RAM
-Dedicated video card with 512MB memory

And the game set to 1300-something x 700-something resolution, with all graphical options set to LOW or DISABLED was pretty much unplayable (10-20 fps). This speaks for itself I think.

--- End quote ---
I ran the game with a very similar system just decently a while back. Min settings + 1680x1050 resolution.
now, after I've upgraded my graphic card I can run GoIO fluently on max settings:
Dual Core 3Ghz,
4GB RAM
GeForce GTX 560Ti

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page