These days, it seems you can't play a single AAA PC game without having extremely high system requirements. Now I'm not a game developer, and I do know that making the newest games scale down in the low-end in extremely costly and difficult, but don't you think that lowering the system requirements to open the game to a larger installed base would be worth the cost?

That's utterly false. My "high system" specs on my laptop are 2 years old and they run Fallout 3, Dead Space, Crysis perfectly well.

Id have to go with vlad321, alot of these triple a games that i want on the pc are easily playable on my 2 and a half year old laptop... with hard drive space being my biggest issue

You can play all the new ''AAA'' PC games with a Pentium 4 and a medium-end GPU card minimum. I mean, what's better:

- A low resolution with max graphics, full AA and anisotropic?
- A high resolution at low graphics, no AA (doesn't matter much though) and no anisotropic?

I'd pick the former.

I agree with this, all the graphic-intensive games can be played on that PC...except for GTA IV (I'm still waiting for Rockstar to debunk those insane requirements)

i dont think they will, mainly to keep complaints off pop in down, and better draw distance on the game whcih could help with pop in the ram requirement shows this. 

You cant keep using 10 year old tech and expect to play the newest games...

there has to be a point where older tech falls off the scale of scalability