Debate

[Lemur]

This may not be meaty enough to qualify for a proper debate, but here goes:

Every game has to decide where to fall on the system requirements scale. Some games, such as World of Warcraft, use an art style to keep graphics requirements low. Other games, such as Oblivion, shoot for the moon and bring even the highest-end gaming rig to its knees. Where do we feel Rome landed on that continuum? Too high? Too low? And how do you feel about the anticipated requirements for MW2?

I guess the "debate" portion would be Too High versus Too Low. Hm, maybe this is a terrible idea for a debate ...

[Augustus Lucifer]

Well, currently it's all we got, and time will only tell if it's terrible, I think it's fine. The two stances as you obviously said, are too high or too low and then add a few comments on where you think MII:TW will fall. Try and make them as much in pro/con form as possible, or it makes it harder for me to convert to a final summary. Thanks for the idea Lemur, topic #2 begins now.

[Quickening]

In my opinion, Rome Total War got it dead right with the system requirements. I have an ancient 1.7 Celeron with 768 MB of Ram and a GeForce FX 5200. Despite this, I can run Rome with damn good graphics and large unit scale with absolutely zero slowdown. There are games of a far lesser scale that somehow manage to fare far worse.
As for Medieval 2, well if the minimum specs (1.8 Intel Processor) are tobe believed then Id say that they have done it right again and hit the perfect balance. Im not stupid. I know my PC is ancient and needs replacing and Im certainly not going to be annoyed because M2 isn't able to run on it. Thats progress.
In conlusion, with Rome, they got it dead right. Epic and beautiful game, more than reasonable system requirements.


Also I always have a million topics for debate I just wanted to see if anyone else had any. If we're really stuck for topics in future then I'll always have one.