Silent Hill 2's PC system requirements are here, and they are STEEP

Besides system requirements, it would be Awesome to rate games by how optimized they are.

Poor coding can mean you need a system twice as powerful to run a game compared to a optimized game - with the same complexity and visuals.

Like we need to know the miles pr gallon on a car, we should have something similar on games. I’d personally be much more inclined to buy a optimized game. Without some kind of system, it’s quite difficult to know before purchase.
 
Besides system requirements, it would be Awesome to rate games by how optimized they are.

Poor coding can mean you need a system twice as powerful to run a game compared to a optimized game - with the same complexity and visuals.

Like we need to know the miles pr gallon on a car, we should have something similar on games. I’d personally be much more inclined to buy a optimized game. Without some kind of system, it’s quite difficult to know before purchase.


How on earth would you even begin to come up with ANY sensible algorithm to rate optimized vs unoptimized games? You're comparing apples to oranges for literally every game in existence. This is just a perfect example of gamers thinking they know everything about programming, let alone game development.

You can have the latest C++ standard using the latest optimized techniques and libraries and STILL have an "unoptimized" experience. Why? Because sometimes games require heavy processing. Heavy processing just means slower real time performance. If you want simple games then by all means play those.

Big games require more advanced hardware. It pushes hardware manufacturers to produce more efficient products. Software pushes hardware. It's always been that way.

It's not always possible to get every function or algorithm down to an O(1) running time.
 
How on earth would you even begin to come up with ANY sensible algorithm to rate optimized vs unoptimized games? You're comparing apples to oranges for literally every game in existence. This is just a perfect example of gamers thinking they know everything about programming, let alone game development.

You can have the latest C++ standard using the latest optimized techniques and libraries and STILL have an "unoptimized" experience. Why? Because sometimes games require heavy processing. Heavy processing just means slower real time performance. If you want simple games then by all means play those.

Big games require more advanced hardware. It pushes hardware manufacturers to produce more efficient products. Software pushes hardware. It's always been that way.

It's not always possible to get every function or algorithm down to an O(1) running time.

Thank you for posting this. I wanted to say something like it, but I knew I'd screw it up.

I don't wanna be mean to anyone, but it's always irked me that us newbs (gamers) think that optimising a game only involves going into the config files and finding the "optimise" file and running it as admin, and BAMM!!! FPS increases by 50% with no visual loss. That's just no reality.

When games like Assassin's Creed Unity started coming out, the whole Internet became obsessed with the word "optimise". It became a meme that people didn't know was a meme. Every game that didn't run like Doom was considered "unoptimised" and was lambasted. But it just doesn't work that way.
 
I think I get what Mino is saying and to extent is right but there are many many ways to optimise, the old days of having very limited hardware and space are long gone, now devs don't even think twice about the size of textures, space on a disk, or like in this case, what it takes to run it, so long as they can get a stable port onto current gen consoles. These are things that are now just cut, i am sure texture artists don't even get budgets anymore, but to re-create a 15 year old game and need a 1080 as a minimum feels like its a bad engine port or something. I could be wrong and maybe we are going to see some next level graphical fidelity
 
Back
Top