Meeting Minimum Requirements and the definition

[jodas]

When you get a game that says you meet minimum requirements, you should be able to play at least with very little detail and on low settings. Apparently that is not true with KOTOR 2. I have an AMD Sempron 1.79 GHZ processor, 2 GB of RAM, Windws XP SP2, and an ATI Radeon Xpress 200M graphics card with shared memory in use that goes to the max. Well when I installed the product it said that the graphics card met minimum requirements. "That is ok," I thought, "so I will not be able to have high definition graphics. No big deal." Well wouldn't you know it, apparently you have to have the reccommended settings to even have the stupid thing play. I did update it think that because of the bugs maybe I was not able to play it. Well this turned out to be wrong. I was able to play the prequel before on a computer that was less upgraded and had Less RAM then this computer that I'm on does right now. Apparently these gaming companies really need to think twice before putting down minimum requirements because minimum requirements should at least allow for you to play the game and not have your character stand up on one foot and turn in circles. Thank you. Next time Company make sure that you know what to put down for minimum before you actually put it down on paper.

[Sand]

Um... It has never worked with shared memory. It says :

 

requirementsPC: Pentium III or Athlon 1GHz CPU, 256MB RAM, 32MB OpenGL 1.4 & hardware T&L compliant AGP or PCI graphics card, DirectX 9.0c compliant audio device, 4X Speed CD-ROM drive, Microsoft Windows 98SE/ME/2000/XP, DirectX 9.0c

 

That is 32 MB 3D acceleration of SEPARATE memory. It does not say 32 MB of SHARED memory as minimum. If it does not say shared then it means separate and dedicated. Maybe you need to read the requirements on the box more carefully or do some bit of research on the net before buying a game.

Edited May 3, 2007 by Sand

[Bokishi]

You should never expect to play a game properly on minimum. Minimum is what is needed to only make the game run.

[Wistrik]

Agreed; I always look at the "Recommended" hardware suggestion because minimum isn't guaranteed to run the game, even if you have all options at their lowest settings. Nevermind that most games look really ugly (or uglier than normal) with most options disabled. For instance, I can't stand to play NWN2 at any texture quality setting less than "high".

[Sand]

Also the game requires OpenGL 1.4. Everyone worth their salt in computer gaming knows that the ATI Express 200M can't handle OpenGL.

[taks]

For instance, I can't stand to play NWN2 at any texture quality setting less than "high".

fortunately, for me at least, texture settings don't have much of an impact on frame rate with NWN2.

 

"minimum settings," btw, typically also carry with them the notion of "slide show" behavior.

 

taks

[Wistrik]

For instance, I can't stand to play NWN2 at any texture quality setting less than "high".

fortunately, for me at least, texture settings don't have much of an impact on frame rate with NWN2.

They don't affect me much either. I experimented with them while trying to see what did have an impact, and quickly decided only "high" quality textures were worth looking at.

 

Where my video card has trouble is at resolutions beyond 1024x768; it's just not powerful enough to pump out lots of pixels with high FSAA and Anisotropic filtering. I can run HL2 at 1920x1200 so long as I use recommended settings (mostly max but low FSAA and Aniso), but it'll be two EVGA 8800GTX SLI on a quad-core Penryn or Barcelona before NWN2 will do that for me.

 

In my experiments, HL2 benefits more from a faster CPU, while NWN2 benefits more from a faster/more powerful GPU. I can OC my CPU (Athlon64 3800+ from 2400Mhz to 2625Mhz) and get +(10-30) extra FPS in HL2 but barely +1 FPS in NWN2, and if I OC the GPU (GeForce 6800GT from 350Mhz to 375Mhz) HL2 barely improves while NWN2 gains +(5-10) FPS. I probably won't be upgrading until the end of the year due to some unexpected circumstances, so in the interim I upgraded the CPU slightly (I'm limited by a 939 socket, but the 3800 gave me SSE3 instructions and faster clock at same temperature), and I have a XFX GeForce 7900GT on the way.

[Hurlshort]

Welcome to the wonderfully complex world of PC hardware. Is this a laptop? Seriously, you could buy a better graphics card than that for $60.

Edited May 3, 2007 by Hurlshot

[Sand]

Not if it is a laptop which the Express 200M is mostly used in.

[jodas]

You could but with a laptop that comes directly from a store you are kind of stuck with what you get. Seeing as though most laptops have their graphics cards sodered to the motherboard for some reason, it is kind of hard to update. For 60 USD I seriously doubt that. You would have to spend much more than that. As for it being able to handle OpenGL, my 3DS Max works fine with the card. So that statement is kind of false too. I meet over the minimum requirements except for the graphics card. I could play the old one on intel extreme graphics and I had it on the lowest settings. So there is something wrong witht that picture. It had shared memory and it worked most of the time. So saying that shared memory is the problem is kind of false and stupid when it comes to comparison. As for the graphics card being terrible, I do agree, but not all of us have a surplus of money in the back of our rooms to dish out on a graphics card. The old computer that I had was 2.5 GHZ with intel extreme graphics on 64 shared memory with 256 of RAM. If it could run the first one on low this computer should be able to run this game. As for research on a graphics card, you get what you pay for sometimes and other times you do not. There is not a point in researching when you have only a limited amount of time to make a purchase. So that statement must be if you are making your own computer. When dealing with a store they either have what you want or they do not. So the minimum requirements should run the game, and if they do not why bother to put them on there?

Edited May 3, 2007 by jodas

[Deraldin]

The Xpress line is not really meant for running games though. It's designed to be as cheap as possible and run all you desktop applications. It's not designed to play games.

[Xard]

"Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer."

 

Thanks Sand

[Sand]

[Hurlshort]

The Xpress line is not really meant for running games though. It's designed to be as cheap as possible and run all you desktop applications. It's not designed to play games.

 

QFT

[LadyCrimson]

I could play the old one on intel extreme graphics and I had it on the lowest settings. (snip) If it could run the first one on low this computer should be able to run this game.

Tho it looks much the same graphically on the surface, it's not the same game, technically. Unfortunately, just because your pc will run one, doesn't mean it'll run the other.

 

It had shared memory and it worked most of the time. So saying that shared memory is the problem is kind of false and stupid when it comes to comparison.

Same thing. There are many factors in what make a game work on any given computer, even beyond what's stated on the box, and it is very possible - as opposed to false & stupid - that a game may not like shared memory while others may be able to 'work around it' better.

 

Without you understanding computers a bit better than it appears you currently do, it's not easy to give a reason why stuff like this happens that's going to make sense to you. But as frustrating as it is in your shoes, minimum (or sometimes even the recommended) specs given on boxes do not mean an absolute 100% guarantee that the game will work on your computer, with your specific hardware, driver, and software configurations.

[Tigranes]

Short point: As sad and frustrating it is, the current situation regarding the complexity of computers is such that seemingly logical statements like "I could play that game, and this one has the same specs" or "I could play newer games than this one" do not work: each game is a different nut to crack and there can be problems in places you had never thought of before (i.e. shared memory). You could complain that there is no affordable and practical method to bring your system up to scratch in your current situation, but again, sadly, it's not within the capabilities of a game developer or the computer industry to rectify that.

 

By the way:

 

I meet over the minimum requirements except for the graphics card.

 

If you say that, then that means your computer as a whole does not meet the minimum requirements, right? Then it's only logical that your computer cannot run the game. 49% in a test is still a fail, even if it's only by 1%. If you do not meet the minimum requirements in all areas, then sometimes you can get lucky and play it anyway (i.e. you with the prequel), but that's just a lucky break.\

 

Don't think that we don't have sympathy for your plight - hell, we all have trouble with running games, even when they "should" - but I'm afraid there's not many places you can yell at to change the situation.

[Kiwi]

Don't think that we don't have sympathy for your plight - hell, we all have trouble with running games, even when they "should"

 

The way I read the two KotOR games' requirements, they were the same. I hardly played KotOR2 at all, but whatever video card I had in the very same old(er) PC used for K-1 seemed to work the very same for me (probably the GF3 Ti-200 I upgraded it to from the prior TNT2 card).

 

For this particular game buyer (OP), something untoward is happening. There are IGPs of all kinds, mostly Intel's, which generally are crap. The only one worse is SiS. Both ATI and nVidia have a couple of onboard graphics chips that blow anything from Intel totally away. The Express200 Chipset uses the silicon that was in their X300 GPU -- not a world-shaker there, but well above either KotOR game's needs. Of all the 2006 IGPs, that was the best of them.

 

For the record, all game playing opinions are very subjective; some undiscriminating folks are happy with what they get for low cost PC investments, even when I consider their results really crappy myself. Trying to run a newer game, such as NWN2 or Oblivion, on an IGP is a bad joke. That is a slide show for real . .

[taks]

If you say that, then that means your computer as a whole does not meet the minimum requirements, right?

any system is only as strong as its weakest component.

 

taks

[greylord]

I've had similar problems with both KOTOR games on Radeons. If this is a 1.0 game you might try d/ling the latest patch and try it then. KOTOR2 is unplayable on my Radeon cards unless I d/l the patches, then they run great.

 

Just something to try.

[Sand]

If you say that, then that means your computer as a whole does not meet the minimum requirements, right?

any system is only as strong as its weakest component.

 

taks

 

That is the truth. My weakest component is my CPU. Poor lil' Sempron...

[metadigital]

I'm not going to say that the weakest component is between your chair and keyboard.

[Sand]

I'm not going to say that the weakest component is between your chair and keyboard.

What? My desk?

[Bokishi]

no, u!

[Sand]

What? My speakers?

[Bokishi]

noooooooo uuuuuuuuuuuuu