Wolfram01 said:
That's BS. If they can say "you need at least these specs to run it" they can at least say run it at what settings and resolution. Presumeably lowest settings, sure, but then what resolution?? And for "recommended" how do they come up with that? They MUST do some sort of benching, and the least they can do is say if that's at medium or high settings and what resolution as well. I'd be willing to bet with a 1080p monitor and those recommended specs you be lucky to get medium, let alone high settings.
And what do you personally consider playable? 25 fps? 30 fps? 35 fps? 40+ fps? I know people that will moan if the game doesn't run on their hardware with at least 45 fps.
Sure they do benching, but they avoid detailed information because then people would complain their low quality manufacturer card doesn't pull those promised fps, and they can't put the manufacturers names in such information because it would be adversing. They would have to add booklets listing every resolution behaviour with different AA and AF settings...
I'll send you the address where you should deliver the monitor later tho, as i'm pretty sure good old gtx260 with 1GB VRAM sipported by quad core cpu will be able to pull modified Aurora on medium with at least 25-30 fps in 1680x1050, especially if all the bragging CDP did about optimization will be at least halfway true. The card pulled nearly 30 fps on Crysis at 1920x1200.