Depends on how the game is coded. If we cannot see the code, we can't talk whether its silly or not. For example, maybe the game at launch loads most of the resources in the RAM, so that's why it would require 2GB. Maybe one of the cores is utilized to process the physics, and the other is about everything else, like some very heavy math for all calculations. A "high end" GPU is required because the textures and models are highly detailed, and are of a big resolution.

Again, if one can't see the code, he can't tell if those requirements are justified or not (talking about the actual game code, the resources fall under RAM, Video RAM and HDD usage, something which can easily be judged). ;)

I felt this way about Magicka, but to be perfectly honest, I'm on a laptop that qualified as a 'gaming laptop' five years ago.

My point is though I've seen similar things done on lesser systems. This pretty much dates back to asteroids. So when it could've been optimized to run on an Pentium III - did they feel that it would awesomely uber-tastic to crank up its graphical prowess (which in this instance didn't pay off anyway) to give the casual gamer and novice computer user the sense that we were going to be the first kids on the block with the latest tech?

Would'nt this be like using golden fleece instead of toilet paper just to look cool?

Indeed, in the modern era I can turn the graphics down from 1920x1200 to something lower and then just sit further away. I do have trouble sometimes running games at full res, but they generally run just fine at lower resolutions, but then again my computer is several years old at this point, IIRC.

Same here, investet roughly 600 quid (w/o screen) in 2009 for my gaming rig, and it still plays everything damn fine.

Generally I feel, that "real" requirements don't advance as fast anymore. Back in 2002 and before I invested a lot more money for a lot less performance ...

It's in fact a very old discussion. I have owned (and played on) PCs since the 8086, CGA, no HDD era. and that issue has been discussed at lenght since the appearance of graphic accelerators... I remember that the first time I changed my rig to play a specific game was when I upgraded my second PC from a 80826 to a 80386DX with a Viper graphic card. The games in question were Red Baron and Aces over the Pacific...

As a matter of fact, I feel that the market is much more stable than it once was. A 5 years old PC, core 2 duo E6600, Geforce 7950 still plays a huge lot of things correctly. A brand new config takes 3 years or before you really start to get a real feeling of obsolescence. At a point it was down to 1 year or so. And the nature of the evolution is not a "graphical" or "gameplay' revolution like it one was ( like the introduction of ultima underworld, or the first true 3d flight sims were ) , but graphical candy.

On the other hand, the issue remains true and is indeed mainly linked to some form of disregard for the user base. Or is it just that optimzation costs time and money, so why bother ? they don"t want us to play their games for long, they want us to buy them.

Eventually, no, massive hardware requirement don't make great games. They could as well be boring, repetitive and flawed, or true innovative gems. There is in my view no correlation. I'm currently playing with Commander : Conquest of the Americas, Hegemony : Philip of Macedon and... TIE fighter win95 ( on a core i5 / win 7 laptop) . The latter is probably the greatest of the 3 ;-)

A lot of games need high requirements just because they are bad ports, as some have said. I know for instance Splinter Cell: Conviction runs pretty poorly on my GTX 480 and quad processor when it has no right to.

At the end of the day though technology moves on and you're either on board or not, as the saying goes. Someone on another forum recently was complaining about Battlefield 3 requiring DX10 and how he can't afford to upgrade from Windows XP. That makes sense and I feel for the guy, but still he's using a 10 year old OS and trying to play a brand new game.

Anyway, I don't think a high-end system makes someone hardcore, or high-end graphics make a game better, but I do think things move on whether you are on the train or not.

The real deciding factor on getting a "high-end" rig is when you want to go obsolete

Obsolete?

I do pretty well on this eight year old Presario. I shouldn't complain too much because there's been a about a good 150 or so games that I've tried on this system that have worked.

I have slowly done upgrades to it with free and cheap parts. It's my partner's PC but when she got her laptop and I took it over it was filled with all sorts of virus and failing parts.

I remember just seven months back I was worried that I wasn't going to be able to get Pirates! to run with my on board Pro Savage 64 mb.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your Presario will go obsolete eventually. If your rig works fine for your needs, then more power to you. Anyway, what I was trying to convey in the few words I used was that increasing amount of resources demanded by software is merely a natural form of computing evolution.

With the increased performance of newer hardware, video game companies are rightly pressured to "push the envelope" of graphic quality and complexity of gameplay in order to compete in a modern market. Massive system requrements don't = "hardcore" in my view, but rather an inevitable creep towards the future.

I started using computers when 320 * 200 was ultra high resolution ...

Massive System Requirements = Licence to blame piracy when sales are low because only 5 people can run the damn game

I actually BSOD'd on the Arkham Asylum demo, despite meeting the minimum requirements, passing the test on CYRI, and turning everything minimum and playing windowed with 800x600 resolution. I haven't seen a BSOD in months, and I haven't seen a game related one in years o.O

Either that's really bad programming, or really bad fact checking for listing minimum system requirements.

Canyourunit was always bad for checking if your computer can actually run it. It takes the memory and speed of the components rather then the actual architectural power of them.
Yougamers.com have a far, far better tool to determine what you can and cannot play.