Here Are the Mass Effect 2 System Requirements

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

wintermint

Distinguished
Sep 30, 2009
1,150
0
19,460
I played the first one (almost finished) and it's pretty good but I don't see what's the point of telling everybody the minimum specs since it's like almost ALWAYS the same with any other games :O
 

deathblooms2k1

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2007
123
0
18,680
I've become somewhat of a bioware fan as of recent. I purchased Dragon Age and it's the only single player game that's held my attention for 50+ hours in years. I fail to see how Dragon Age was tailored for console when it clearly looks/runs better on PC. It would be one thing if it only ran better, but the game looks much better on PC. The controls for PC also do not have me begging for a controller like some games that really feel like ports (Assassin's Creed). I see statements like "tailored for Console" as more opinion (Blog) then fact (News). It's my understanding that Bioware as released a dev Toolkit to the PC community. Marcus your statements just don't make much sense to me when you generalize all of biowares games... I'd love to hear a more detailed explanation.
 

reichscythe

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2008
100
0
18,690
[citation][nom]festerovic[/nom]My rig with an 8800 GTS 320mb was not capable of playing the ME1 at full frames. Once I switched to a 4870, it was alot better. Not expecting a lot more graphically if the recommended specs haven't changed.[/citation]

*scratching his head* Were you trying to play it at, like, 1920 X 1200 or something?? Because I played ME1 on an x1950 PRO with no frame rate issues--in fact, the whole thing was relatively flawless, apart from that stupid pixellated soft lighting glitch... Granted, I had the 512MB version, bus still, so maybe you had a memor issue? But even so, an 8800 GTS shouldn't (in theory at least) have any performance problems with ME1...

And, a 4870 SHOULD be a lot better... heh... it should be straight OVERKILL... I played ME1 on an HD3870 on full tilt and it ran like Quicksilver on amphetamines...
 

etrnl_frost

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2009
198
0
18,680
A lot of people talking about some of the older cards and not being able to play ME1... I've got a 9800GT 512MB, and I can play ME1 at full settings at 1440x900 - without anti-aliasing. Two factors to consider: nVidia cards pre g300 are very ... poor at the AA. So just keep it off and you'll see massive gains in FPS, and AA really doesn't hurt that much with today's resolutions, in all honesty. Also, keep your drivers updated - when ME1 first came out, the same card I had above couldn't run it at full settings. There have been so many driver updates, boosting performance quite significantly for this engine, that it's fine now. So keep both those things in mind. For those of you not running a current gen nVidia or ATI card, and are running a g92/g94 chipset, just turn off the AA and jack up all the other settings to max, you'll be fine.
 

kronos_cornelius

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2009
365
1
18,780
[citation][nom]adithya[/nom]IMO scaling is important. People can play crysis on 8600GT at lower settings at 1024*768. It runs on ultra high on GTX280 at 1680*1050. But avg guys with avg systems bitch when they are unable to run it at ultra high. They should run it avg settings.[/citation]

I run crysis fine with a 8800 GTS 512MB, I don't use AA, AF, and turn shadows lower than default ( to make 1900x1200), it is playable ( between 20 and 30 fps, with few scenes choppy). So, I agree that thankfully for PC gamers, we can boost the gaming experience by getting higher resolutions and eye-candy, stuff that does not demand too much extra effort from gamer developer, who are obsessed with consoles. Ifinity from ATI, and Stereoscopy glasses from Nvidia are other examples of features that don't need much developer input yet.
On the other hand, GTA4 has High res textures, which is clearly a feature specifically for PC gamers. They always start remembering us towards the end of the console cycle.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I spotted a neat tool where you can check your system specs against the games requirements using www.game-debates.com system tool
 

omnimodis78

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
886
0
19,010
[citation][nom]redgarl[/nom]I hope it's going to be better than Dragon Age... the most overrated game I have seen in the last couple of years with no story, dungeon loot and bad dialogue option.Mass Effect on PC was easily the best Bioware game I have played. Great gameplay, story, dialogues, level ups, story, character design (it was so deep in comparaison to Dragon Age) and with an incredible ending.[/citation]
Dude I'm sorry you're getting so many thumbs down because I agree with you (except the dialogue options, those were pretty solid in DA). Dragon Age was all hype and marketing - I mean, it was a good game, no doubt about it, but GREAT?! No. I think there are great PC games out there which deserve the rating, but not Dragon Age; that game was good, but that's where I would draw the line.
 

XXwildthingXX_78

Distinguished
Mar 21, 2010
2
0
18,510
"Laptop or mobile versions of the above supported video cards have not had extensive testing and may have driver or other performance issues."

There's our developer's problem, right there. The vast majority of PC's sold in the USA in particular, and on earth generally, are notebooks ~ and their proportion of total sales continues skyrocketing, with a strong concentration on "substitute desktops" e.g. gaming notebooks.

The quote I gave is on the box or gaming notes of every computer game on earth. But very few top houses make a strong effort to write the code to make that game doable under the condition mentioned (... the condition that min and rec specs do not count at all because laptops GPU specs are eseentially meaningless).

BioWare is a perfect example of a great house who won't pay the price to give a little in order to get a little).

What's my point and what's it got to do with the title of this article?

Everything.

ME2 is an example of a game that truly requires every centimeter of spec quoted based on poor coding unworthy of a PC and that's for a desktop in the bargain! Where laptops are concerned - even something fully loaded with two times the horsepower that was available the day this article was written on a 12-lb 18.3" Toshiba Qosmio i-5 Nvdia's GTS 360M 1 GB vRAM running 1650 x 945p (native) monitor no backlighting on the $1,099 machine, Harmon-Kardon Surround Sound or what I just finished playing ME2 on ~ an MSI 15.6" i5-750 with ATI Mobility 5850 running 1680 x 1050p (native) double backlit LED / LCD monitor and keyboard ~ no one cares about old-fashioned horsepower because this is a new game.

I don't need quality speakers for a 18" monitor because they don't exist no matter the name on them but I need power to run a set of Sennheiser 7.1 Surround Sound cans and sufficient juice in DX11 3D to double up on our 36" Samsung.

You have to decide what sort of gamer you are. If you require 100 fps (exaggeration lol) on any hardware in order to deliver fluid gameplay, there's something wrong with your configuration and the quality of your monitor. If you're not a FPS gamer ~ I could care less about FPS ... am a ME 2 / FO 3 / Bioshock type of immersive gamer and the only game I'm looking forward to this year is FO Vegas.

Gimme two great games a year and I'm a happy camper but they need muchos meat in terms of interactive RPG fiction with just enough kill-the-mutants blam power to rebuild the next dystopia. All you need is 20 - 30 fps to view well-coded 3D visual FOV.

The fact that I got lucky and nailed a third game this year ... L4D2 has been too funny for words. And exciting too. OK the story, well, doesn't need to make a lotta sense as in from beginning to end, but still it's not a fps game. Crysis is my idea of a fps demo - Crytek are brilliant and the art of their work is brilliant but the game still bored me silly.

I'll tell you when stuff gets weird. When you have Mike Dell flogging an 11" Alienware with a 335M with a single core 1.3 GHz Pentium and no need for an optical drive cos it's a mobile broadband speed demon taking its games down down from the cloud for $800?? At most, it's worth $450 because it'll take $1K of Verizon garbage and all the rest to have a hope in heck of running any current game.

The critics loved it @ CES for the same reason they love all pc games - because they get freebies to keep after running a 15 minute demo 12 minutes of which is streaming video + blaring tinny sound from two 1/2" alienspeakers.

And it's not even a game - every time you go online at mobile broadband rates, you gotta watch the same one hour movie to play eight minutes of gaming and on an 11" netbook in the bargain.

My husband got one for free from his work - they make real big computers lol and he collects all kinds of hardware - and I saw him throw it on his desk in the den like he does with his wallet when he gets home from work. I asked him what the heck it was. He explained, grinning, and said two words "Steam pre-loaded, no less". We broke up. He asked me what should we do with it .. when our six year-old daughter walked in and we looked at each other and back at her and I asked him for a live broadband cable line, jammed it in ... it lit up and I handed it to her. Her eyes went up and her jaw dropped - totally speechless.

"Whatsit do??? Movies?"

"No. You play games on it. Daddy built it just for you at work today."

"OH, I LOVE IT!! How do you play it?"

"Umm. Lemme look. [Portal lights up]. OK, there ya go. Chase the lady and catch her."

Pure heaven. It's perfect for 6 year-old old's. All we heard for the next hour was "ohh! I can't catch her!! How do ya catch her and win???" :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.