Questionable descriptions!

  LastChip 22:17 25 Dec 2003

Today, for Christmas, one of my son's presents was Battlefield 1942.

Amongst the requirements, were a CPU speed of 800MHz 128Mb RAM a graphics card with 32MB and so on.

His machine met all the requirements, albeit marginally.

He eagerly went to load the program and it refused about 95% into the process. Call Dad!!

After some effort, I managed to load the program and there was much glee, when the splash screen arrived, and the demo video began to run. However, this game absolutely refuses to load any further. On checking the web, I found a patch (1.5) and downloaded that and tried again. The same result. Now to a much deeper look at the help files and the accompanying manual, which has a recommended graphics card of 64Mb - Only DOUBLE that published on the front cover.

The point of this post (apart from a needlessly frustrating Christmas day for both myself and my son, is to warn others about what I would call "QUESTIONABLE DESCRIPTIONS" on front covers of games.

People have every right to expect the game to run without huge amounts of effort provided their machine meets minimum standards. Further perusal of the web, sees many in exactly the same position, so I would suggest, anyone thinking of buying a game from EA Games, take their specs. with a pinch of salt!

  Sheila-214876 22:35 25 Dec 2003

LastChip, I agree with you entirely. I have been given (today) five games from a friend who says they won't run on his computer, even though it is within the minimum requirements as listed on the box. All of these games are from EA. Now, I am not a games person but I tried them on my PC (which is twice the specification required) and at the moment 3 out of the 5 are running OK. (haven't tried the other 2 yet). I don't know how to play them of course but at least they installed and run (they need a joystick, which I don't have). So, is it a case of "look at the minimum requirements and then double it?"

  Starfox 23:03 25 Dec 2003

"Look at the minimum specifications and then double it"

Yes most certainly,most games also give a reccomended specification as well as a minimum spec but EA games tend not to do this so as you say "Double the specs".

Regards Starfox.

  bfoc 23:21 25 Dec 2003

That if the games needs a higher spec than shown on the box then it is likely to be in breach of the sale of goods act, since it is not 'as described'.

Not much comfort today, but at least a refund should enable a suitable game to be bought!

  powerless 23:29 25 Dec 2003

Mobo drivers, g-card divers are all up to date?

  terminus 23:37 25 Dec 2003

I think you've raised a good point Lastchip, and I've little doubt you're far from alone in your frustration.... Today particulaly

Selling via the minimum specifications seems to be endemic with the software industry and is not illegal.

As a by the by here's the MS min specs for XPpro click here I wonder how many forum members would agree with those?

I've little doubt that EA can prove their mimimum requirements work... I just wonder what else would be left on the PC?

Sorry to hear of your problems.

t :o(

  rickf 23:44 25 Dec 2003

What if you were to close any progs.running in the background such as screensavers etc.,?

  simonp1 10:17 26 Dec 2003

what graphics card do you have, this could well be your problem. 1942, can cause many problems anyway.

The min requirements i feel are pointless, if you dont have a good Gf card and 512 of ram then the newer games really wont run that well.

My brother had 256 ram, and couldnt play certain 512 stick and it works...just. Once he gets his new GF card then he will be fine for most games.

  LastChip 12:50 26 Dec 2003

for your kind comments.

bfoc. I am sure you are right and I would not expect to have any difficulty in returning the game.

Powerless. Yes, everything slap bang up to date.

terminus. I am sure EA could prove this game will work within the specs, however, as I am sure you understand, the purpose of the post was to warn others about questionable claims by manufacturers.

Perhaps respected magazines such as PCA, should carry out their reviews on minimum spec. machines as stated by the game manufacturer, and then give a true reflection on whether these games will run or not, and if so, whether they are playable at that level. Only then, are peope likely to get a more honest answer as to whether the game is viable for them or not!

rickf. Yes everything closed down other than systray.

simonp1. I am sure you could be right, However, as stated (in a different way) above, it is my opinion that you should not have rebuild a machine just to load and play a game. If the machine meets the spec. as printed on the cover, in this day and age, you should be able to take the game home, load it and play it!

Until more consumers kick up about what is basically badly written code and/or inflated claims by manufacturers, the status quo will remain.

Incidentally, a search of the web revealed the original version of this game was riddled with bugs, some of which have been ironed out with the patch 1.5. To me, this is an example of a game not ready to be shipped into the main stream, effectively in BETA form, being tested by a frustrated public. In 2003, this is unacceptable.

  Gaz 25 21:47 26 Dec 2003

"Look at the minimum specifications and then double it"

Yeah, better be careful running Maya. That needs a huge spec.

  simonp1 00:44 27 Dec 2003

The biggest gripe i have is that a lot of games now you have to download patches to get them to work, i feel this is a major issue for most people, and personally i see no need for patches when a game has only just been relised.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Dell XPS 13 9370 (2018) review

The art of 'British' pulp fiction

Best password managers for Mac

TV & streaming : comment regarder le Tournoi des Six Nations 2018 ?