Comparing poorly made games to standards isn't helpful.
Comparing poorly made games to standards isn't helpful.
Some folks just need to know which graphics card they have to buy for a certain game. Most people want it all set up and ready to go without any fuss. That’s why consoles are popular—so I used to play only on them for a while. I get really frustrated when games stop working because of old tech, like when I can’t run Mirrors Edge even with the right drivers. I can’t load Sonic Adventure 2 on my PC anymore, not after it just stopped working without any updates or fixes. Mass Effect is the same. I’d love to play all the good games again, but sometimes it’s just not possible. I enjoy simpler or poorly made games too, especially when I can just check specs online. My boyfriend even asked me to build a PC for him after reading about it—he could have done it himself. But some games, like Watch_Dogs, are tough to run and still give me that same bored feeling.
It’s actually a reasonable approach to test on less efficient systems. With strong enough hardware, performance in a well-optimized engine should translate well to most applications.
Hardware critics would seem out of touch if they don’t test current titles. Given its status as one of the year’s most significant releases, it makes sense to include it for comparisons. Ultimately, regardless of performance, users should experience how well the system handles it before making a purchase.
Find a game that performs poorly for the average player and compare its speed on the latest hardware. This should help you understand how newer GPUs compare to older ones in extreme situations.