IGN - 10 Trends That Are Destroying Videogames

Gorath said:

I doubt this. Even simple web surfin' needs some horse power nowadays due to Flash and other crap. A P4 2GHz and 1 GB RAM is okay I would say. Was your PC in 2001 that fast?

Click to expand...

Pretty much ... with 2GB RAM. And what I was saying was that the year-on-year increase in horsepower demands now is nothing like it was a decade ago.

Which means that I agree with your second point.

As it stands now my old Dell from late 2001 will run most everything *except* new games.
====================================

That's exactly my point. My PC is maxed out in RAM, CPU, and video card/GPU, etc. Virtually any and all software except the very latest games are perfectly happy on it. And probably will be for years to come. Gothic 3, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and a number of others will run well enough. Anything that requires Direct X 10 is a no-go, same for a dual-core CPU.

Can you make a serious and convincing argument that quality games can only be written for machines that run Vista, dual or quad core CPU, 4-8GB RAM, 10,000 RPM RAID, and some sort of Crossfire PCI Express video?

I don't feel I'm alone when I think many game devs are just wanking with the glitz and effects at the expense of good playability in a well-written and intriguing story. They seem to feel we'll be in awe of the effects and the eye candy will camouflage the weaknesses.

Zephyr said:

Anything that requires Direct X 10 is a no-go, same for a dual-core CPU.

Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from, but the underlined point is a bit shortsighted, I think, unless your PC cannot handle dual-core CPUs. The boost in performance such a CPU delivers in everyday's work can be immediately felt. The simple fact that you no longer have to wait 2 seconds here or 3 seconds there until your only CPU gets unlocked by its current task is worth the money. A dual-core system simply "feels" faster. The 20% boost for gaming (compared to a single-core CPU on the same clock) is just a gimmick.

Gorath said:

The simple fact that you no longer have to wait 2 seconds here or 3 seconds there until your only CPU gets unlocked by its current task is worth the money. A dual-core system simply "feels" faster.

Click to expand...

Definitely. Our upstairs computer is a P4 3.2Ghz, while it is still certainly capable of most basic applications and web surfing, there's a noticeable difference when trying to multitask more than 2 or 3 things at once. The bottom line is that once you get accustomed to using a PC with a dual-core cpu, a PC with single-core feels sluggish and annoying by comparison.