Why Do Reviewers Not Disclose Their System Specs!

[WabeWalker]

There was a time, about ten years ago, when computer gaming magazines went out of their way to publish the system specs. of the computer that the reviewed game was played on.

Why has this practice stopped?

By way of example, take PC Gamer's review of Half-Life2. They awarded HL2 with a 98% rating, claiming that HL2 is 'possibly the greatest game ever made'.

Great. I was hoping that somebody would say that. Ah, but PC Gamer fails to inform us of their setup.

I'm guessing it was ungodly.

Playing HL2 on a High-End PC will be... let's face it, a completely different experience than playing on a Low-End rig. Is it fair to award a game with a 98% rating, and then fail to inform the reader that you'll need a super system to play it the way that they did?

What I really want to see is a reviewer play Half-Life2 on a kickass system, admit that he's played it on such a system, write his review, and then go back and try bits of the game on a Mid-Range and a Low-End system.

Am I asking for too much here?

 

[Maxi]

Finnish computer magazines do inform their system specs, guess it must be different over there?

 

[Solver]

Some magazines do inform of those, but I agree, everyone should. It's obvious that excellent gameplay is excellent on any computer, but no one would expect the game to feel as good on a machine that just meets the requirement as on the newest machine there is.

And yes, I do expect that PC Gamer played it on a 3.2 GHz rig with other details to match.

 

[Ownzed]

I can't remember if they do.

 

[WabeWalker]

Finnish computer magazines?

I'm not sure I follow that? Where are these so-called Finnish magazines located?

 

[Dynasty]

yeah before PCGAMER UK released their new mag design, they used to put a system spec helper on every review that had 2 pages or more.
they seen 2 have stopped now.

they do have a specs at the bottom of their score, as in recomended and minimum specs, so it should give you some idea. but im a little annoyed that they got rid of the spec box

 

[VodkA-HLC-]

it show specs on the last page in white minimal and reccomended right near where the price is. minimal was around a 1.4 p4 256 of ram 64mb vid card. This of course would play very slow and on the lowest settings. Reccomended was around 2.0p4 128mb card 512ram

 

[Maxi]

Finnish computer magazines?

I'm not sure I follow that? Where are these so-called Finnish magazines located?

At, for example news stands, book stores, grocery stores and etc.

 

[Letterhead]

There was a time, about ten years ago, when computer gaming magazines went out of their way to publish the system specs. of the computer that the reviewed game was played on.

Why has this practice stopped?

By way of example, take PC Gamer's review of Half-Life2. They awarded HL2 with a 98% rating, claiming that HL2 is 'possibly the greatest game ever made'.

Great. I was hoping that somebody would say that. Ah, but PC Gamer fails to inform us of their setup.

I'm guessing it was ungodly.

Playing HL2 on a High-End PC will be... let's face it, a completely different experience than playing on a Low-End rig. Is it fair to award a game with a 98% rating, and then fail to inform the reader that you'll need a super system to play it the way that they did?

What I really want to see is a reviewer play Half-Life2 on a kickass system, admit that he's played it on such a system, write his review, and then go back and try bits of the game on a Mid-Range and a Low-End system.

Am I asking for too much here?

PCG normally does test the game on multiple computers and mention if the game slows significantly on lower-end rig. They even have a recommended specs box so you can compare the "minimum specs" to what you will actually need to play the game. That being said the reason they probably didn't do this for Half-Life 2 was that they played it at Valve on a Valve computer, and weren't allowed to take it home and play it on a variety of computers.
Personally I don't think requiring a good system for a game to play beautifully should result in lower marks in a review, sometimes it is just the result of trying to stay on the bleeding edge. If these systems specs have been inflated by bad coding that's another issue alltogether.

 

[Stain_HHH]

Finnish computer magazines?

I'm not sure I follow that? Where are these so-called Finnish magazines located?

They are located in Finland!

 

[hmmmmm]

I have seen some Gamespot reviews starting with an alienware ad saying: Gamespot reviews on alieware systems......and so on.

There's one on the Gamespot MOH: Pacific Assault revew.

No system specs though.

 

[phantomdesign]

I don't see anything to whine about. If your concerned about graphics, then get a better graphics card. If it's not as big of a deal, stay with the one you've got. If you want physics down to the last spec of dust, get the baddest MOBO and processor out there. If not, just stick with what you've got. It seems obvious to me that HL2 focused on gameplay, and when stripped of all of it's graphical goodness....it's still a 98% game.

 

[WabeWalker]

...the reason they probably didn't do this for Half-Life 2 was that they played it at Valve on a Valve computer, and weren't allowed to take it home and play it on a variety of computers...

Of course.

 

[Dr0ndeh]

if you look at the very start of the reviews section, you'll see the setup for the pc they use for every review.

 

[Tab]

I don't see anything to whine about. If your concerned about graphics, then get a better graphics card. If it's not as big of a deal, stay with the one you've got. If you want physics down to the last spec of dust, get the baddest MOBO and processor out there. If not, just stick with what you've got. It seems obvious to me that HL2 focused on gameplay, and when stripped of all of it's graphical goodness....it's still a 98% game.

Amen to that

 

[cadaveca]

They cannot say what the game is played on in some situations, as them saying what they use would be like endorsing those parts, and some companies hold out, trying to get cash for those endorsements. Very good question, and it WOULD make reviews easier to relate to, but i don't think it will become widespread.

 

[WabeWalker]

... It seems obvious to me that HL2 focused on gameplay, and when stripped of all of it's graphical goodness....it's still a 98% game.

This is an absurd statement.

What you're saying is that a game is a game, that graphics don't really matter, that a game that's played on a High-End system and is awarded a score of 98% will still be the same experience as played on any other system.

Take this test then.

You can play Half-Life2 on...

1) An Xbox.

or

2) An Alienware 3.6 GHZ P4 with an X800 XT video card and 2 GIGS of RAM - and let's just throw in an Apple Cinema Display for the hell of it.

Which would you choose?

By your standards you're saying that it wouldn't matter, and that the experience would be... the same...

... are you barking mad...

Dude, it's like jumping into the seat of a beat up Honda civic and driving five miles down the road by yourself... and then going for the exact same drive, but this time in a Ferrari with a Playboy Playmate seated beside you and stroking the back of your neck as you drive: yes, the scenery is still the same, the road is still the same, the speed limit is still the same... dude, the experience is a completely different one.

Why the **** do you think that at this forum there about ten million posts about system upgrades.

Because people want to ride the Ferrari, you dolt.

 

[Ages120]

They played with a DX9 256mb card, atleast a 3ghz rated proc, 1 gb of memory, and an audigy 2 and surround sound. Why does it really matter anyways. You want to know what it will run like on your system? Not like a review is a benchmark or something.

Oh wait also the fact that some games are cpu dependent while others are gpu limited . Because of those factors people seeing review specs might think thiers is close enough cause they have said cpu or gpu when in reality thier system is bottlenecked and will not run anywhere near the review systems speed.

 

[Prone]

I do inform my readers about the specs I run it on. Actually I always do reviews on two rigs to see the difference.

 

[Naveed]

I don't see anything to whine about. If your concerned about graphics, then get a better graphics card. If it's not as big of a deal, stay with the one you've got. If you want physics down to the last spec of dust, get the baddest MOBO and processor out there. If not, just stick with what you've got. It seems obvious to me that HL2 focused on gameplay, and when stripped of all of it's graphical goodness....it's still a 98% game.

What a fanboy! Just read it again. So it is only gameplay right? Then, why Valve made the Source engine is beyond me! They could have only used Havok.

 

[phantomdesign]

... are you barking mad...

It's one thing to disagree with something I said, but it is another to insult my intelligence.

While the graphics are great candy, from what I've seen they aren't the pivotal factor for HL2's ratings. In relation ot the first post, it would be more fair to subtract points from Doom3 or Farcry if you're thinking about low system specs than it would be to subtract points from Half Life 2 because you have a crappy computer.

The point is that Valve did their best to make half life 2 available on a wide range of hardware and run well at the same time. If we limited system specs on all games to a 3 year old computer, Half Life 2 would probably be deserving 100% ratings (when compared to other games).

 

[WabeWalker]

Hell ya.

Why did PC Gamer award Half-Life2 with a 98% score.

Because - and these are their words, mind you - the game has everything: great story, intense gameplay, gripping sound, AND cutting edge graphics. It's the whole package.

Let's face it, Half-Life2 played on a bleeding edge system WILL be a different experience than played on a low-end rig.

I'm sorry, but had Half-Life2 been an Xbox only title then there's just no way that it would have been awarded with a score of 98% - with this particular software, hardware WILL make the difference.

 

[phantomdesign]

What a fanboy! Just read it again. So it is only gameplay right? Then, why Valve made the Source engine is beyond me! They could have only used Havok.

Graphics and technology enhance gameplay, but they don't make gameplay. I'm not denying the importance of graphics or technology, but what makes some really old games 10x more fun to play than doom3?

Fanboy? I might or might not be one, but where did that comment come from.

 

[WabeWalker]

And nobody's insulting your intelligence... how can one insult something that doesn't exist?

... just kidding.

 

[StardogChampion]

It's one thing to disagree with something I said, but it is another to insult my intelligence.

While the graphics are great candy, from what I've seen they aren't the pivotal factor for HL2's ratings. In relation ot the first post, it would be more fair to subtract points from Doom3 or Farcry if you're thinking about low system specs than it would be to subtract points from Half Life 2 because you have a crappy computer.

The point is that Valve did their best to make half life 2 available on a wide range of hardware and run well at the same time. If we limited system specs on all games to a 3 year old computer, Half Life 2 would probably be deserving 100% ratings (when compared to other games).

I agree. I remember playing the first HL on my P120. The minimum requirements was a P133 and I had to make-do with Software mode graphics. When my bro eventually bought a 3dfx card that supported OpenGL it didn't necessarily make the experience any better.

 

[WabeWalker]

I agree. I remember playing the first HL on my P120. The minimum requirements was a P133 and I had to make-do with Software mode graphics. When my bro eventually bought a 3dfx card that supported OpenGL it didn't necessarily make the experience any better.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Judging by the number of people at this forum who are upgrading their system - or are even buying a brand new system from scratch - I would say that you're in the minority.

I suppose that, yes, you could take the gameplay in Half-Life2 and overlay it onto a much weaker graphics engine - but would it still earn a score of 98% from PC Gamer?

I think not.

 

[Naveed]

I agree. I remember playing the first HL on my P120. The minimum requirements was a P133 and I had to make-do with Software mode graphics. When my bro eventually bought a 3dfx card that supported OpenGL it didn't necessarily make the experience any better.

Trust me, had HL1 only supported software mode for rendering, it would have received 4 for Graphics and 80% overall score. Go figure!

 

[phantomdesign]

You're entitled to your opinion.

Judging by the number of people at this forum who are upgrading their system - or are even buying a brand new system from scratch - I would say that you're in the minority.

I suppose that, yes, you could take the gameplay in Half-Life2 and overlay it onto a much weaker graphics engine - but would it still earn a score of 98% from PC Gamer?

I think not.

I don't think you understand.

If you handycap Half Life 2 of it's graphical goodness, you still have to handycap all other games. What if we backed HL2 all the way to 1999 and had it compete with Half Life 1 on the Half Life engine. Wouldn't it be a bettter game? What if we put it on XBox. Wouldn't it slaughter Halo 2?

If you shoot a racer in the foot before a race, and then laugh at him for not doing well...then you're being unfair. If you shot all racers in teh foot before the race...the race would deffiently be a different race (ability to withstand pain & run), but it would still be a fair race.

Whether or not you're upgrading has little to do with what I'm talking about. Remember I'm trying ot stay on subject of the first post which seems to complain that they aren't going to have a good computer. Well, assume all games are played on the same shitty computer, Half Life 2 would still win and relatively maintain a 98% score. (Note: I am upgrading my graphics card also, but that doesn't negate my argument at all).

You have to think relative and on the same scale.