View Single Post
Old 11-15-2006, 10:50 PM   #12
No Body
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar Da Kookee
re-read that no body. "At the time a standard PC"

a 'standard pc' usualy doesn't take account for any extra RAM and/or a better video adapter.
Since when? As a general rule, most games don't run well on systems that are considered "standard" at the time. This is why pretty much every single DOS/Windows game from the last decade has options to adjust the screen size, detail level, lighting effects, particle effects, draw distance.

You could say that these options are provided to allow people with slower systems to run the game, but the truth is that probably 99% of the time, these options are needed to allow the game to run at an acceptable speed on "standard" systems of the time.

Can you name a single game that when it was released, the majority of people could run it with all the settings on maximum? I can't. Every game seems to be designed to run on top of the line systems while everyone else has to settle for running the game on medium or low settings.

In fact, just a short while ago, I saw a commercial advertising the latest version of MS Flight Simulator which had scenes of the actual game being played. It seems likely that they would use a top of the line system in order to present the game in the best light possible. Even so, I noticed that while I wouldn't call the movement "choppy" it wasn't 100% smooth either. It gave me the impression that if they had panned the camera view just a little faster, you would have noticed the game dropping frames.

In any case, there's no reason that they couldn't have waited a year or two and then ported the games.
No Body is offline   you may: quote & reply,