What the hell?!? You're confusing expensive but rare with unavailable.

Jesus christ man. And I agreed with your post up until this point.

An almost decade old API that is even available on low-budget Intel chips is hardly requiring a "modern gaming rig". You just need to not own a complete piece of shit. I hate all this complaining about it. PC Gamers have been used to upgrading their machines for 30 years in order to get newer software to work. That's what this is. This is not the original Grim Fandango. This is a remastered version done using more modern techniques. Better quality = higher system requirements. But in reality, except for the RAM requirement (which I actually severely doubt is that high in reality) the system requirements for this game are extremely low.

Sometimes, you just have to update your tech. Once every 7 or 8 years really doesn't seem like too much to ask in my opinion. I've been building my own machines for decades, it's easy and fun. As for those trying to get this to run on laptops with older Intel integrated graphics, I find it hard to believe that you're not used to this kind of thing by now. Hardly any 3d engine games will play on those.

But I want to play it on my old 386 running Windows 3.1.

100 +1's ;) lol

I know, right? *So* funny, all of us, obsolete wannabe gamers complaining about something that is *clearly* our fault! Because, hey!, Batman Arkham Asylum clearly looks better than Grim Fandango Remastered, and it requires OpenGL 3.3, right? (hint: it doesn't, my obsolete GPU runs it just fine).

Go build your REAL GAMER RIGS, then, and let us complain all we want. Understand that it's not our fault if we can't afford an upgrade every six or seven years, for a multitude of reasons.

I'm only saying that things change pretty rapidly in the computer hardware and software world. You have to expect when they "redo" a game the requirement may change along with the hardware advancements. It doesn't surprise me it requires five year old OpenGL.

Batman AA runs on DirectX, not OpenGL. Still, these things should come as a surprise. I like you Groze, and your post was well explained. But when you know you have an old computer, it's just one of those things you have to live with. I can't believe that you wouldn't have run into problems like this before. I suppose OpenGL is not the heavy-hitter that it used to be in the Quake days, most everything runs DirectX and because of the old console generation everything included compatibility for DX9 which was very widely supported on hardware. However, I think GF Remastered is a good indicator of the changes to come. You're not going to be able to get away with super old ATI/nVidia and especially not Intel integrated graphics chips anymore.

Other people expecting the games industry to hold out on their advancements so that people don't have to update their systems is unreasonable. You've gotten a good 7 years out of that machine. If it's a laptop, hang it up and get a new one. If it's a desktop, upgrade. You can get a card that will play this game for super cheap online.

I know you said you didn't have money for a new rig, but until then it's just something we all have to deal with. Before I got my first job and could buy my own components, I was running a 486 DX 33MHz. I had to pass on games like Diablo and StarCraft because my machine wouldn't run it. I upgraded what I could afford and through trade, got a 66MHz and then a 100MHz processor for it, new RAM etc to run some games. But the best part of being a PC Gamer as opposed to a console gamer is that we have the freedom to upgrade our systems for newer and better games, and better performance and visuals.

Your post was more venting frustrations, others out right are really complaining that the devs didn't inlcude a better 'classic' mode. That's why the comment on running it on a 386 is so funny. It's a ridiculous sentiment.

Also, the 2-CD jewel-case only bargain bin variant of Grim Fandango is very much a reality and can easily be bought online for less than $30. Usually $15. It really isn't that rare, and hasn't been. Might just be a States thing, don't know about Europe.

Maybe they find away to release the original code as well to help you guys out. I'd love it if GOG were to have the original release as well, since there are a lot of gamers on here that like to play old games, like myself, even on original hardware.

If you lived in the US I could easily send you a motherboard, CPU, and GPU that would work great with the game and plenty others. I have tons of parts just lying around.

I should remind this has build up from some nice requests to lower the requirements OR release the original content along with the remaster. This has generated an ill response in the line that it's our fault that we can't see the greatness of the remaster and still want to have the original.

In parallel, some people argued that the game backgrounds hadn't been re-worked and the game being very much the same. This was answered with explanations that it's a remaster, not a remake, but the facts are that we got the remake requirements but the remaster contents.

All in all, what's dissapointing is the negative attitude answering these requests, not the game.

OpenGL being some years old doesn't mean much. Today's hardware may not support OpenGL 3.3 because is not powerful enough, not because is too old. It's also interesting to note that the game is 32bits, at least the Linux version from GOG, even when 64bits processors are 12 years old and 32bits-only processors aren't even manufactured in big numbers since a few years. 32bits-only processors couldn't run the game anyway. It's already a mix of old and new requirements.

Let me tell you what is the problem here from a technical perspective.

if you want to model realistic graphics, mathematics behind this is well known, and the trade offs that needed for good performance was obvious back then so this math was build in with the graphics cards in pre modern era. With hardware getting more and more powerful, programmers wanted to alter this mathematical work to get better graphics or special effects (ex. cell shading )

At some point Open GL dropped all prebuild math, provide flexibility to programmers. As you guess, this point is Open GL 3.3. From a prorammers stand point, I can say programming an application for both opengl 3.3 and any earlier version (lets say OpenGL 2) means writing two completely seperate graphics engine. Since this standart is supported by any half decent card from last 8-9 years, I am sorry but it is a waste of precious time.

The same goes for Directx too, but microsoft forces for good directx drivers, on the other hand, nobody cared for OpenGL side on last decade. From the games you listed, I can tell your card supports OpenGL 3.3 on hardware level, but you don't have the drivers for it, and this is simply your laptops manufacturer not caring about you, not Double fine.

One can play the game (in Original quality) with a software OpenGL solution. Google "Grim Fandango llvmpipe" (I can't post a direct link because I'm too new to this forum).

One needs to copy two files: registry.sav in the Saves folder and opengl32.dll in the folder where GrimFandango.exe is.

Thanks for the tip!

I am terribly saddened that the game won't run on my Intel SandyBridge card, I was really looking forward to playing this weekend.

I have determined this is due to Mesa support for OpenGL 3.3 occurs in version 10.6.9 (released October 3, 2015), so barring having to compile Mesa from source, installing a dual-boot or running a Live-USB seems a fantastic alternative!

* http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes/10.6.9.html

I feel it is more due to licensing issues. To develop drivers OpenGL requires licensing, and they industry works in such a way that vendors pair up with hardware manufacturer (mostly for bulk licensing and monetary gain), which leaves gaps with the remaining vendors, and gaps in the drivers they provide.

This affects in particular the GNU / Linux world, as license fees sometimes cost more than what is justified by a non-profit business model. Intel, for example, have people that work in the Intel drivers for the GNU / Linux kernel by volunteer work, so the team is small in comparison.

If these licenses were removed, an entire world-wide force of developers could contribute.

From the OpenGL Site:
> Generally, hardware vendors that are creating binaries to ship with their hardware, or software developers that write an OpenGL driver, are the only developers that need to have a license

P.S. I love your country, Turkey. I visited there last year, it is a beautiful country! Greets from South Africa

Hmmmm..... funny, this is the ONLY game I can't get to run on this computer....

The fact still stands that if you have Intel integrated graphics from pre-2012, there are a good deal of 3D graphics engines that are not supported by that chip. Also, you should understand from the get-go that Intel integrated graphics are not designed for gaming and do not give good performance when they work. That is the reason there are laptops built with discrete graphics solutions. At least the integrated AMD APUs found in many laptops are built around modern gaming and 3D rendering standards, but Intel has never made gaming a priority and their graphics solutions pre-Ivy Bridge are notoriously incompatible with many modern engines.

So whatever your personal anecdotal evidence you have about getting games to run on a chip that is not built for running games, you are guaranteed to encounter compatibility issues at some time if you keep trying different modern games. The only thing I see that is funny about this is people trying to play games with Intel integrated graphics.

I'm not claiming that Intel Integrated is a gaming platform. Not in the least. What I play, I play at lower quality graphics settings and don't care. I'm not all about the graphics. All I was pointing out was that the ONLY game that absolutely will not launch, at all, with or without performance issues, is this one. If I plop down the cash for a game that's gonna drag on my system, and it bothers me, that's on me.

Again, I agree with the original poster: This was a bad idea. MANY of the people who want this game badly (such as myself) are gamers who played it the first time around. And for those people, people who cut their teeth on LucasArts adventures, a gaming rig just isn't their speed or NEEDED for anything they play.

Do I think it's a bad idea with the latest FPS or RTS or MMO or anything else? No, not in the least. If the new hot shooter is out and I want to play it competitively in multiplayer (I don't, but hey, examples...), and my rig won't run it, no problem. That's new and cutting edge. Releasing a remaster (not a remake) of what many claim to be the best adventure game of all time with a built in, already gonna buy it, fan base and then making it inaccessible to a large swath of people who are just using their off the rack Dell or HP or whatever computer, which might indeed be older or a bargain refurb, is a mistake, that's all.

I guess we'll agree to disagree then, because I don't see a "remaster" as having to be of a drastically lesser quality by default than a remake. I mostly despise remakes. Also, I'm a 31 year old gamer that very much "cut my teeth" as you say on LucasArts' (and Sierra's) adventure games. I've been playing computer games (instead of sports, lol) since the late 80s. If the devs got some value out of using OpenGL 3.3 for this, by all means they should go with it, even if it just meant simplified coding for a small portion or a more advanced or optimized library. OpenGL has been heavily supported by everybody except Intel since 2006, a full decade ago. I firmly believe that if you use Intel dedicated graphics from the second generation of Intel HD or prior, you should feel lucky to get any game to run at all and not complain when something doesn't because those chips were dog shit. Even when those processors were top of the line, most games did not officially support them (without a dedicated GPU of course).

I wasn't even able to play the original Grim Fandango (even though I read bunches of PC gaming magazines about it throughout its development and was really looking forward to it) because I had to use a 486 DX 33 until 2000 (when I was able to get my first job) because my family was so poor they couldn't afford anything better. So I understand completely how much it sucks not being able to play game because your hardware does't support it. However, I never once felt that a developer should have ensured their game worked on crap hardware.

You don't need a gaming rig at all even to play this game. Any budget AMD or nVidia card can handle it, even models from multiple generations ago. There are plenty of old integrated GeForces that can play it fine. Have realistic expectations about your Intel chip and feel lucky that this is the first game you couldn't get to run.