• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

"Recommended Hardware"... for what?

O

Olle P

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
331
Usually when a new game is released the producer also provide some list of "minimum" and "recommended" hardware requirements.
Sometimes, rarely, the game won't even start unless one or more of the minimum requirements are met.
What irritates me is that the "recommended" list state some level of computing power without stating what level of performance one should expect when running said hardware.

There's quite a difference if the recommended is just good enough to be playable at "medium" settings in 1080p vs being playable at "high" settings in 1440p...
 
Some developers are getting more detailed by providing what you're saying. I don't remember which game it was, but there was one that gave a selection of resolutions and expected framerate for given hardware configurations. It went from like 720P 30 FPS up to 4K 60 FPS.
 
It can usually be chalked up to "recommended for the developer's minimum ideal gameplay experience".

What that translates to depends on the dev in question, but most recommend for the average user who's running 1080/1440p.
 
It is my understanding that the default resolution is 1080p and the default fps rate considered playable is 30fps, for the average PC user. This should be what the minimums target on the requirements listing with the recommended being completely up to the developer in question.

For example, Ubisoft released a public statement that 24 fps was acceptable for a cinematic experience.

In contrast to DICE who sees 60fps as the recommended.
 
Shantarr said:
For example, Ubisoft released a public statement that 24 fps was acceptable for a cinematic experience.
Click to expand...

When I want a cinematic experience, I go to the movies. That BS line is just their way of saying "we can't get the game to run at 60FPS on the PS4 or Xbox One due to our crappy engine and lack of optimization."
 
BlueWeasel said:
When I want a cinematic experience, I go to the movies. That BS line is just their way of saying "we can't get the game to run at 60FPS on the PS4 or Xbox One due to our crappy engine and lack of optimization."
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the idea of 24 FPS being cinematic is 100 years old. Due to technological limitations it was considered the minimum frame rate needed to provide fluid motion on film. Film being the keyword here. The laws of motion with film don't translate to 3D images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top