That's the specs by the devs or pubs they get, kind of the "official" specs. And that has legal reasons too - if a user meets the specs, but the game doesn't work, it's not GOG's fault. If however they did their own tests and made the results "official" it would be.
Many games work "below minimum requirements" but nobody want to guarantee that. They rather play it safe, and it's understandable.
Good call... Dishonored felt to me like Bioshock meets Thief - if you like stealth gameplay, you'll love it.

I'm playing Bioshock right now... there's a lot to love, especially the atmosphere. I wish it was less of a shooter, that there was more (other) interaction with the environment.
No, I don't consider it the "spiritual successor" to SS2 (that's what 'they' said when it was released)... Prey IS (imo).
I actually ignored Prey for a couple of years because it was called a shooter (and that's what the original (unrelated) Prey was).

edit: I guess I like stealth gameplay... but I'm less interested when it's a 'militaristic' game (like Splinter Cell for example). I once started Thief (1), enjoyed it, but never got far into the game (other priorities at the time). One day I'll rectify that!

I don't like "maxed out" settings generally, especially at the cost of gameplay, and don't feel the need to play the newest games (decreasingly so, but that's a bit off-topic). Sorry to have miscommunicated.

I like demos rather than specs on paper or videos of gameplay. (Many fine games here on GOG have demos too, and some have been good enough that I decided to purchase the full game.)

Rather than only seeing the best possible system in all available gamplay videos, devs could release more realistic gameplay from lower-end systems: people who are still being marketed the game for their older hardware.

I think buying games which don't provide either demos or footage from minimum-spec hardware will lead to more of the same. I hope the trend decreases, but I'm not sure if that'll happen.

I get where people comparing Bioshock to SS are coming from, with the audio logs and the general state of decay of the environment and you being the one sane person still alive...
It's more about the setting than the gameplay for sure though. Bioshock is more on the action. Prey really has the SS vibe of course. But no spoilers please, I still have to seriously play it.

Dishonored took a lot from Thief (gameplay) and in parts from Bioshock (upgrades and stuff) when it comes to gameplay. The aesthetics remind me a lot of Bioshock, which with Infinite - Burial at Sea Part 2 actually returns to a common root - Thief. Full circle if you will :-)

I only play most games once (so many interesting games, so little time on this earth). I'd like it to be the best possible experience: Graphics/sound AND gameplay.
Maxed out graphics don't come the cost of gameplay, IF you just wait until you have the hardware (and play older games in the meantime).

The butler did it!! Oops, now I spoiled it... well... something. :-P
Anyway, I'm sure you'll LOVE it....
Mooncrash on the other hand... I played it for a couple of hours. It really looks interesting and well-made; but I just don't have the time for this roguelike gameplay. Maybe one day, when I have finished all the other games that are still waiting. Please, Dracula, find me and bite me! I just want a few hundred years more!
I would've played it a lot when I was 15 years old. No money, no life, few games, and a week seemed to last a year.

System requirements tend to be useless. Especially so a few years after launch, or when gaming on laptops or some other sort of low power PC... You don't know what they based it on.

Performance? On what kind of settings? Maybe I don't mind playing at 45 fps or dropping the resolution to 720p. Or maybe the game doesn't let you play at 720p but they don't tell you that?

Some ISA extension that may or may not be possible to emulate in software with sufficient performance?

Some GPU feature that may or may not be implemented in the driver at a later date?

The problem is that there are "hard" requirements (game WILL NOT work at all or will crash unless a certain feature is available or a spec is met), and then there are "soft" requirements (the experience won't be good enough, according to someone's arbitrary and subjective assessment). Hard requirements are often poorly communicated or not communicated at all; instead of stating that you must have feature X (or Y amount of free RAM for the game, or Z amount of VRAM), they just list some known "minimum spec" part from one or two manufacturers that have said feature (together with others that may not be necessary for playing the game). And some hard features are indeed actually soft features in the sense that they can be emulated or implemented in drivers at a later date even if they're originally available only for some specific parts.

Some piece of hardware that comes out in the future may or may not have feature X, and may or may not be more performant than the one that was listed in requirements..

ROFL... and *hugs*

I checked the gpuboss site and they don't have the Intel HD 4600 GPU that's in my desktop.

Any GPU (discrete or not) that you can buy new will be faster. Why do you want to compare it? What do you wish to know?

Uh you know there's a search.

Whether the game will run without said upgrade.

(Of course, that doesn't say anything about whether the game will make the computer overheat and throttle to the point of the game becoming unplayabe.)

Here:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Intel+HD+4600&id=2451
Some extra extrapolating powers are always useful! ;-)

I did actually send an email to AMD to tell them just exactly as you said. Why not call it the Navi 2020 6GB?

Remember when cards had cool names, like the Diamond Stealth?