Games with unreasonably high system requirements

[wildweasel]

I just assembled a new computer from $500 worth of new parts and a bunch of spare stuff I had lying around from my old computer. Now, this always seems to happen to me: every time I assemble a new machine or get a new piece of hardware, I always forget which games I couldn't play without it. So I suppose the question falls to you guys - can you suggest some games with unreasonably high system requirements? I'm eager to see what this new machine can do.

I've already got the following:
- STALKER series
- Crysis
- Far Cry 2
- Fallout: New Vegas
- Grand Theft Auto IV

What else can I throw on the list?

I've deliberately left out the exact specs of the machine in question - the point isn't to brag about my computer, nor is it to compare the specs to what the box says I'll need.

[Craigs]

Arma 2, but that has more to do with poor optimization.

Fallout: New Vegas

IIRC that was actually a problem they fixed in a patch. It had something to do with the game using the CPU to render characters' faces which caused a massive drop in framerate. Other than that, if you can't run NV, chances are your computer is shit.

STALKER series

CoP maybe but SoC and CS? Nah. In CoP, even on my dad's somewhat shitty computer, the only time he ever had trouble with performance was when a large amount of stalkers entered the same building as him during blowouts.

I've deliberately left out the exact specs of the machine in question

I'm guessing it's made of stones and twigs.

As for Crysis, well... Crysis isn't really a game you see. It's more of a way to show off your massive throbbing epenis by demonstrating how you can max out the game. The proper way to play Crysis is to just run the benchmark test, record how smoothly it runs with fraps, and then post the vid on youtube.

[Aliotroph?]

Yeah, pretty sure New Vegas is playable on my dad's garbage computer from six years ago. It wouldn't be really pretty, but it would work.

As for STALKER, throw STALKER Complete at it. The game is far more visually appealing that way, and as an added bonus it caused my old video card to overheat (though that was more the hardware starting to die...).

[wildweasel]

Aliotroph? said:

As for STALKER, throw STALKER Complete at it. The game is far more visually appealing that way, and as an added bonus it caused my old video card to overheat (though that was more the hardware starting to die...).

Yep, already done; basic STALKER ran fine on my old machine, but I didn't think the game was all that good out of box. STALKER Complete added some weapon balance changes, I think, but it also included so much new content that the poor thing didn't have enough RAM for it. =P

Craigs said:

IIRC that was actually a problem they fixed in a patch. It had something to do with the game using the CPU to render characters' faces which caused a massive drop in framerate. Other than that, if you can't run NV, chances are your computer is shit.

And that's pretty much what my last computer was: shit. I paid $2800 for that thing in 2005, and have regretted it ever since. The only hardware in that thing that didn't fail at some point was the motherboard.

[negke]

Aliotroph? said:

As for STALKER, throw STALKER Complete at it.

Thanks for mentioning this. I'll have to keep it in mind for the next time I replay the game. Last time I used the Oblivion Lost mod and it was great.

[Maes]

ZOG's Nightmare. As poorly optimized and implemented as a FPS Creator game can be ;-)

[Khorus]

Metro 2033 is a pretty punishing game for benchmarks.

[DoomUK]

If racing games are your thing, Need for Speed Shift and Test Drive Unlimited 2 ran poorly were in the "unplayable" category on my machine which usually performs quite favourably.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Paranoid, Stronghold, Serpent and Dawn of Reality with GZDoom :P

[pavera]

Try Dirt 2 with full DX11 turned on. That game looks great.

Craigs said:

As for Crysis, well... Crysis isn't really a game you see. It's more of a way to show off your massive throbbing epenis by demonstrating how you can max out the game. The proper way to play Crysis is to just run the benchmark test, record how smoothly it runs with fraps, and then post the vid on youtube.

Except not. Crysis is awesome, dude.

[Craigs]

neg!ke said:

Thanks for mentioning this. I'll have to keep it in mind for the next time I replay the game. Last time I used the Oblivion Lost mod and it was great.

STALKER Complete is great but it's more of a cosmetic thing. If you really want a different and more challenging (implying the game isn't hard enough already) experience, I'd suggest the AMK mod instead.

Except not. Crysis is awesome, dude.

Heh, it was more of a joke. Crysis is a fairly fun game but a lot of people see it more of a benchmark tool.

[DoomUK]

Craigs said:

a lot of people see it more of a benchmark tool.

Fact.

[Bucket]

You could play Doom 3 again and tweak it for maximum settings - and then you can say to yourself, "Wow, I guess I only thought Doom 3 sucked because my computer was a piece of shit!"

[Scripten]

Call of Pripyat is REALLY nice with the Atmosphear mod and Natural texture packs. Just try standing out in the rain when you have a chance, and that's when a really nice system shows what it can do. I love the wet surface effects in CoP.

[SyntherAugustus]

UDK or if you have it Unreal Tournament 3 in max settings.

[Graf Zahl]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

Dawn of Reality

definitely!

[John Smith]

WildWeasel said:

- Grand Theft Auto IV

Huge meh. GTA IV is mostly a benchmark for having RAM (both GPU and System) and CPU cores. Pretty much any otherwise decent graphics card with 1GB of RAM will easily do the job, unless you're going heavy on the AA. And you'd have to work hard to find a quad core CPU that held GTA IV down, something like an Athlon II 610e or some such ridiculousness. It's just not a great benchmark when stacked up next to the rest.

On the other hand, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is fairly taxing on your system overall without too much emphasis on GPU or CPU or any other specific component. Also Starcraft II is a great CPU benchmark in big battles, and is probably the best test of how good a CPU is for gaming I've seen in a while.

[Sharessa]

Dragon Age has pretty steep requirements, and looks nice when you turn up the graphics.

And yeah, Crysis really is just a benchmark program. I'm fairly sure no one has used it for anything else.

[SYS]

Bucket said:

You could play Doom 3 again and tweak it for maximum settings - and then you can say to yourself, "Wow, I guess I only thought Doom 3 sucked because my computer was a piece of shit!"

Then find out it won't save your newly applied graphical settings for whatever reason. Editing the .cfg yields a similar result then you all like wtf? Then you post about it and nobody knows how to fix it. So then you go on to the Steam forums and you try every suggestion there only to have the same problem and you give up and write a pointless paragraph months later about it.

[scalliano]

Don't let the relatively modest spec requirements on the back of the box fool you, Saints Row 2 is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get any decent framerate from. If you can achieve a framerate in any way comparable to the PS3/360 versions, your system is pretty damn good.

@Potgeisser: Must be a Steam-specific issue - my settings save no problem.

[Megamur]

Though I've not personally played it, I know the somewhat absurd requirements for the PC version of Ghostbusters: The Video Game kept me from ever picking it up.

[Maes]

Anything made after DOOM.

[Bucket]

POTGIESSER said:

Then find out it won't save your newly applied graphical settings for whatever reason. Editing the .cfg yields a similar result then you all like wtf? Then you post about it and nobody knows how to fix it. So then you go on to the Steam forums and you try every suggestion there only to have the same problem and you give up and write a pointless paragraph months later about it.

Yeah, Windows 7 is pretty Nazi-like about moving and editing things in the Program Files folder. What I've learned is that your tweaks will have to be done in the in-game console while at the main menu. For example, here's how to change your resolution:

Launch game
Go into VIDEO settings
Click on ULTRA QUALITY
Open console (CTRL+ALT+~)
"r_aspectRatio 2"
"r_mode -1"
"r_customWidth 1920"
"r_customHeight 1200"
"vid_restart"
Close console
Click APPLY SETTINGS

That will write the changes to the .cfg file permanently. I assume this works for any tweaks to your game that can't be done in the menu.

[Belial]

scalliano said:

Saints Row 2 is almost IMPOSSIBLE to get any decent framerate from.

25-30 FPS was decent enough for me.

[Maes]

Belial said:

25-30 FPS was decent enough for me.

inb4 the usual three-digit fps e-shafters with "golden eyes".

[StoneFrog]

Just for fun, I'm going to mention Magicka. Aside from the shiny and colorful death rays and some particle effects, you honestly would be quick to believe this is pre-rendered from the screenshots. It's not, of course - but even stylistically it looks comparable to Torchlight in detail and system requirements. Oh, and need I remind you that Torchlight doesn't even require pixel shaders if memory serves, so that you can run it on even the crappiest netbooks ever conceived.

Well, I got the game over the weekend and it runs 1024x768 windowed at a steady 15 FPS on my computer. I can run Civilization V at more manageable settings.

[Xeros612]

WildWeasel said:

- STALKER series

A big thing for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is that it runs a fairly complex AI system for everyone and everything.(More noticeable in SoC with more free AI that you'll find doing new, strange things even after playing the game for a long time.) Even with a maximum switch distance of 150m, it's got to tax the system a bit. The particle effects for anomalies(at least when you get close to them on settings your system can't handle), shadow system, and bump mapping implementation seem to be the biggest chuggers in my experience. Also considering Ukraine's economy isn't particularly great I can't imagine a lot of optimization was able to get thrown into it.

GTA IV was a horribly optimized console port.

I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with Magicka. It's not a high detailed game. Why does it run so poorly?

[caco_killer]

Danarchy said:

Dragon Age has pretty steep requirements, and looks nice when you turn up the graphics.

And yeah, Crysis really is just a benchmark program. I'm fairly sure no one has used it for anything else.

Dragon Age has very reasonable requirements, even for Max settings.

[Catoptromancy]

nuts.wad -timedemo on various ports with and without gl.

[Craigs]

caco_killer said:

Dragon Age has very reasonable requirements, even for Max settings.

I had some really weird performance issues with Dragon Age 2. Occassionaly it would chub but it would never do so in really large and detailed areas like Orzammar. A lot of times it would just do it if I was looking at a corner in an otherwise barren room.