If I buy a game and it actually plays, then i`m happy. I remember buying Doom3 and found it wouldn`t play on my graphics card, an ATI 7500 i think, so i bought an ATI 9550, not expensive, and it ran ok.

I'm going to have to chime in, because there wasn't a whole lot regarding WHY they went the route they did.

Part of the reason is, indeed, pushing the hardware envelope. Cryteam did this to Far Cry with much less fanfare. There was a significant portion of graphical effects that the majority of people playing Far Cry never saw because you had to manually edit the config file to render them. As such, the equivalent of an entire level of quality was missing because the consumer base would have been outraged that they can't play the game on "highest."

The level of quality sliders are largely arbitrary; They're there so that people who don't want/learn to tailor their configuration to their hardware can do so relatively easily.

It isn't meant as a slight to the individuals who don't fork out $1400 every 6 months for the bleeding edge, it's meant as a demonstration of what the hardware COULD do. I honestly give kudos to teams that do this, I LOVE games that scale with my hardware over time. Total Annihilation being one of the earliest examples that comes to mind. Games with this kind of potential lifespan become benchmarks in their own right, serving a dual purpose.

Personally, I enjoyed Far Cry when it came out (the steam rolling out of my case notwithstanding). And came back two years later to find that once I turned all the dx9 eyecandy on, it was STILL on par with games just being released, if not better in some regards. Crysis and Supreme Commander will probably continue to be part of my gaming for some time to come because of this.

It flies in the face of the current gaming market that would LOVE to sell you the same game slightly upgraded every time you get new hardware. Software that gets BETTER over time? this is entirely counter-intuitive; But if it's done well, you'll wind up playing the game more than once. There's something to be said for that.

I for one applaud the teams who have the talent, skill, and foresight to create a quality game that stands as tall at release as it does 2 years hence.

It's a hell of a lot better than $50 leapfrog titles.

Ah now THERE'S some worthy opinions I was looking forward to read. I'm glad I got a lot of feedback on this because it really had my curiousity to hear what you guys have to say, so thank you for the lovely input. And now for my response:

First to what Tabun had to ask: "...why do you want the highest settings available right now?" Thats definitely a legitimate question Tab. And the answer is "Because I'm just that geeky." And now to reiterate my question to a more refined response. And let me start out by saying that I'm glad to say that I'm growing up in a time where graphics are starting to truly BOOM on the market and the limits of what computers and games can do is ever maturing beautifully. When I saw some low resolution video reviews of Crysis, I was astounded on what it could do on its highest settings from what they showed in the videos. And now as to really answer your question, I want to play it on its highest settings because I want to not only enjoy and drool, but truly GRASP what game makers have come up with in today's gaming design. I want to fully enjoy its beautiful design and atmosphere and how far its come in making a nastier A.I. for enemies.

I want to see it for what it is, not for what I can only "afford" to see it as. But to go back to what others were saying, yes medium settings is usually just fine. And games such as Assassin's Creed on my FIRST and new hdtv looks beautifuly. So beautiful you can even catch the small light reflection/sparkle off of Altair's eyes when the sun hits them. They definitely went into detail on THAT game.

I guess you could say im digitally spoiled and I just prefer to see things at their fullest, waiting years later to see what comes out next.

On the game F.E.A.R that Pho was bringing up, that is quite a nice amusing game. I LOVE the series and the expansion packs are JUST as good, continuing the story and waiting for Project Origin (F.E.A.R 2) to come out. But now Pho you got me curious. I might be able to run the first F.E.A.R on its highest settings thanks to my new graphics card and motherboard....and pretty much all the other upgrades I got.

In the midst of my almost poetic ramble my next questions are this: (slightly off topic but not really)

How will Crysis run on my new e-GeForce 8800 GT graphics card supported by an nForce 68oI LT SLI? The same question for the game F.E.A.R. With the new graphics card and mother board, can F.E.A.R be run on highest settings now?

I think the "highest setting" is available (either hackable or by default) for both Dx9 / 10 cards, but: some effects on that setting only work on Dx10 cards.

I would disagree with that to some extent. I think that F.E.A.R. looses much of its appeal without having the graphics up at a pretty decent notch. Without the debris flying everywhere, the entire experience (that is to say, small firefight after small firefight) is lost. Sure, the enemies still have good AI, but it's no where near as fun. The game is fairly hefty as well, to the point where it won't run within that sweatspot unless your hardware was purchased within the last two or three years. I keep wanting to try it out on the LAN, but we only have the one computer capable of running it well enough to make it fun. The lack of said debris could even provide you with an advantage in multiplayer!

F.E.A.R. multiplayer is plagued by 1-2 shot melee kills.

Game stops being fun when every spawn is a bicycle-kick to the face waiting to happen.

Also, the penetrator is the best stolen gun ever. go go ragdoll pincushion!