SubJeff on 24/8/2012 at 11:07
But the baseline on the PC may be higher than on the consoles. In fact it almost certainly is since they usually use 720p and PC monitors are typically much higher res than this.
jay pettitt on 24/8/2012 at 11:56
HD isn't exactly minimum though is it.
Fafhrd on 25/8/2012 at 08:07
1024x768 kind of is, actually. Everything is designed for a 720p frame, minimum. Dropping below that you get unreadable text, UI going off screen or UI taking up way too much screen real estate.
Shocked_ on 25/8/2012 at 12:50
Quote Posted by Ahris
A vid covering sneaking in Dishonored. It's in the spirit of Thief of course. :)
I don't know about those vison cones and seeing icon of someone making a sound moving on the screen. Vison cones worked with Commandos because, at least at times, it was a damn hard game. Do we need those in this game which is probaply too easy anyway? Seems just gimmicky.
Malleus on 25/8/2012 at 13:30
Quote Posted by Shocked_
[vison cones]Seems just gimmicky.
They're optional (it's one of your abilities), if I'm not mistaken.
henke on 25/8/2012 at 13:39
They could defenitely be useful seeing as the guards in this seems to look sideways as well. In Thief the guards always looked in the direction they were facing/walking so you could easily tell which way they were looking.
jay pettitt on 25/8/2012 at 13:43
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
1024x768 kind of is, actually. Everything is designed for a 720p frame, minimum. Dropping below that you get unreadable text, UI going off screen or UI taking up
way too much screen real estate.
Firstly 1024x768 is a good chunk less pixels than 1280x720. Secondly, as far as I can tell 800 x 600 is common as a supported resolution for PC. Though granted, I don't think there's a law or published industry standards.
But anyone with a laptop will appreciate support for lower resolutions because the graphics hardware struggles otherwise.
Loosely speaking, minimum system specs should be those that get you running ok on the most basic set of the options the game supports. Subjective values like whether the HUD might be a bit big or whether the text isn't as crisp as it could be in HD are things for recommended system requirements.
Thirith on 25/8/2012 at 14:33
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Loosely speaking, minimum system specs should be those that get you running ok on the most basic set of the options the game supports. Subjective values like whether the HUD might be a bit big or whether the text isn't as crisp as it could be in HD are things for recommended system requirements.
Isn't "running okay" just as subjective? However you handle it, there's going to be an element in there that is entirely subjective.
jay pettitt on 25/8/2012 at 15:10
Perhaps, but I think you could be objective about it. Double blind tests on frame rates/playability and so on. But the point is that minimum hardware requirements should reflect the various options the game provides set at their most basic level.
Fafhrd on 25/8/2012 at 23:04
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Loosely speaking, minimum system specs should be those that get you running ok on the most basic set of the options the game supports. Subjective values like whether the HUD might be a bit big or whether the text isn't as crisp as it could be in HD are things for recommended system requirements.
No. Minimum specs are the least you need for an
optimal gaming experience at the loss of some graphical fidelity (i.e. lower overall resolution, no AA, no texture filtering, no ambient occlusion, etc). Could you make the game
run at 640x480 with no textures, shaders, or lighting on less powerful hardware? Sure. But nobody in their right mind would consider that
playable.
Recommended specs are for the game being playable (30 FPS average or greater) with every graphical option turned on, but not set to its maximum value.
