I know - I have read all his DD posts and think he needs a new hobbie.

Rock - Paper - Scissors
Easy to use interface - very replayable - punished for loosing - winning is great.
;-)

HL 3 EP 4 :p

Very true. Personal opinion means that the only thing you can guarantee is that everyone will disagree.
Besides the 'perfect' game has been made. It was called Panzer Dragoon Saga.

There you go.

I think you both meant "Monkey Island".

And it's free! Brilliant! :)

EDIT FAIL :(
That's a problem. Playable is a matter of opinion. Everyone has different expectations. Take me for example. My first experience with Doom was on a 386DX20. It ran like total garbage, but I was having so much fun and didn't know any better at the time (I was shocked at how the slow firing chaingun was transformed into a totally different weapon on a 486). The experience shaped me. To this day, I can tolerate sub 20 FPS and don't notice screen tearing unless I'm consciously looking for it. Surely some people would be unhappy if I wrote system requirements. ;)
At the same time, I passed on the original Fallout when it was new, because I was just under the minimum system requirements. Maybe they were appropriate, but after purchasing it during GOG's interplay deal, it's apparent that I missed out on an awesome game.
You can't please everyone. :(

Anyone who has done even a small amount of PC gaming should be aware that when you read the minimum requirements on a game, it won't work well unless your system is above those specs, not at those specs. This is the way it has been since the very beginning of the PC and frankly, today it is a damn sight better than it used to be way back when. Back then, you could meet those minimum requirements and still have a game not even run because of some obscure config flag you missed when setting up your system. Now at least the game runs, albeit horribly. We would all love to see developers and publishers produce more "honest" system requirements on their games, but until that happens, useless rants are useless. You want better performance, upgrade your hardware.

What I consider as a playable game is a game that you can still enjoy even with all the graphics settings set to low (or off). You might get a glitch here and there, your frame rate might be lower than what it should be and your game might look uglier, but you should be able to decently enjoy the game.
This is what the mention "minimum specs" should be when the tests are correctly executed. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and beta testers are often asked to start the game, pass the main menu and see if the game crashes, regardless the frame rate. If the game doesn't crash, then it's good to go.
I sure hope that not all companies proceed this way, but I've seen that countless times.

Bearcat i think your life is a rant filled with rage and hate.
God knows how high your blood pressure is but may i suggest you play Harvest Moon whilst listening to whale song and being given big hugs and soothing words of comfort from a female friend or paid professional before you drop dead of heart failure.

$200 a game seems like something that would please Kotick more.

This is my favorite part.

I'd love to see a law enacted, so that no new game can be released until it has passed playtesting by people who have never even played a computer game before. If they cannot figure out the interface by reading the manual and playing the game, the company is not allowed to release the game.
So basically, you want games "dumbed down" to the point that even a brain-dead chipmunk can play them? And people blame this sort of "dumbing down" on the "console crowd". Have you ever considered getting a console?

Hey, I just noticed, bearcat made his way out of negative rep land again! How the hell does he keep doing that when nearly everything he posts is an irrational rant followed by insults at everyone who replies to him?