Rack said:
There is no need to redesign the renderer to use the latest tech though, it's not as though Mass Effect wouldn't work on a 580GTX
You mean the PC version that already has its renderer designed for the PC? Well yeah, if the 580GTX is backward compatible, which it is, then sure, it would run.
and while there were compatability problems with Dual Cores back in the day I'm sure this was patched without demanding the user has 3 extra cores to produce a lesser effect.
No clue what the heck this means, but it seems you just don't get the idea of technological compatibility.
If they designed it around 2005 tech the game would look vastly superior on tech a couple of years old and addmittedly only marginally better on the bleeding edge.
Actually it would look exactly the same.
But there's no bad there, the only disadvantage is it's easier for the developers to bodge together a quick port that's horribly horribly inefficient.
Right, so we're back to the compatibility thing. Efficiency has nothing to do with this. Like I alluded to before, it is not at all a terms of power thing, it is that the older cards simply can't reproduce the image the game is outputting. You can still try it out and see what it does, though.
That might make economic sense but it's sickening to see them lionised for producing a game that could easily run well on a 7800 GTX with a single core processor needing a Quad core and a 5850 for exactly the same effect.
Part of this is true, and does relate to efficiency. They could spend another year on it or hire more people for creating the
port PC version, to optimize everything and maybe get it 50% faster. Would that make it run on a 7800? Not at all. Does it mean a 8400GS could get playable framerates? Perhaps.