I may not have the 5850, but my Dual 2GB GTX285's are very hungry for something to test them out, that combined with my 3.6GHZ I7920, 6GB of 1600mhz ram, with an X-Fi Titanium pro, all on my EVGA X58 board.. I need a real game to play, Crysis just doesn't cut it anymore.
Free Universe at War with every AVP classic game on Steam for 4.99... That was a step in the opposite direction than trying to get me to buy the AVP classic title... Universe at War blew so many chunks... And I am an RTS guy even (not that I dont enjoy an fps now and then)... Slim pickings lately I tell you... Too bad CNC4 is going to suck more than CNC3 abandoned its roots...
Those are not correct recommended system specs. Those are recommended system specs of a PC game about 1-1.5 years ago. This game is not even out yet. Unless it is the most efficient game known to man, an 8800GT will only run it well on low settings, and a core 2 duo will not run it with ease.
[citation][nom]2t43bere[/nom]I'll say it again, these are not the correct recommended system specs. For example, you can not 'recommend' DirectX 9.0c when it supports DirectX 11. Makes no sense..[/citation]
Perhaps it has DX9 code also, ie. Crysis DX 10 vs Crysis DX9.
This is a step up from some even lower minimums
Minimum System Requirements
Processor: Pentium 4 @ 3.0GHz or Athlon 64 3000+
Display Card: GeForce 6800 GT 256 MB GDDR3 /Radeon X1300 or above
Free Disk Space: 12.5GB
Operating System: Windows XP
You guys need to remember they have to sell alot of these games to make
money or go bankrupt which means no more games. Thats why the minimums
allow more gamers to play. these are a step up from the avg of last
SO EASY !
Come on notty2, sales like that will only net a few dollars from people who don't know anything about computer gaming. Since when can anyone actually play a game with the "minimum requirements"? Heck, most games are still barely playable with the 'recommended requirements'.
When I got into computer gaming, FPS took the crown for graphics power and MMORPG were lower specs games for mass appeal. These are the minimum specs for Star Trek online to be released within a month of each other.
OS: Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit)
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Memory: 1GB RAM
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics
Sound: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard
DirectX: Version 9.0c or Higher
HDD: 8GB Free Disk Space
Network: Internet Broadband Connection Required
Disc: 6X DVD-ROM
[citation][nom]flyinfinni[/nom]specs look about the same as every new game that comes out- catered to low-end hardware so that the consoles can play it.[/citation]
Your wrong its catered to the lowest denominator so they dont have to spend loads of money or countless hours to port it.
Consoles dont have lower end hardware in them per se (cell rules almost any cpu if used correctly).
[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]Your wrong its catered to the lowest denominator so they dont have to spend loads of money or countless hours to port it.Consoles dont have lower end hardware in them per se (cell rules almost any cpu if used correctly).[/citation]
the cell is basically a GPGPU with 6 shader units...
consoles are lame.
it's good to see them making a DX11 version, but what’s the point if they aren't maxing out current hardware!? the benefits of DX10 and 11 are to make existing processes faster! so what’s the point?
and if there is a DX11 version, then they have already done the 'hard work' in 'porting' it. all they need to do to max it out is give it higher res models and textures... which isn't that hard.
take Bioware and Dragon Age Origins, they cared SO LITTLE for the PC version, and making it look as good as possible that they accidentally shipped medium res textures as the high res textures, and then they're like 'meh'.
I'm so sick of game devs not trying just because "the lowest common denominator would have to upgrade to run it, and its REALLY EXPENSIVE AND HARD to make the game scalable" this is completely false now anyway! the whole point of the tessolator in DX11 is that its scalable, you basically just give it an infinite res mesh, and THE CARD decides how powerful it is and generates an appropriately high res mesh! how hard is that!?
scalability WAS really hard before shaders, you had to write different rendering pipelines based on what different hardware supported BUT THOSE DAYS ARE PAST US!
devs need to wake up or the console makers are going to find in 5 years "well, what the hell do we do now to make the next gen!? usually we just copy the advancements in PC tech, but they're all copying the old crappy consoles now!"
I'm still running an 8800GT from a couple of years ago, and I wish there was a reason to upgrade...
[citation][nom]matt87_50[/nom]I'm still running an 8800GT from a couple of years ago, and I wish there was a reason to upgrade...[/citation]
8800GT is awsome isn't it? Yeah I just upgraded my 8yrs old ti4200 to the 8800GT....and man, wut power!! I have no reason to upgrade for another 7+ yrs. L4D2 on 8800GT vs L4D2 on ti4200....is like night and day - really!!!
Your getting me all wrong,
Developing for any platform will allow you to get the max out of that platform since the lowest denominator is not shared all games that are to be ported fast easy and cheap don`t get the max out of the platforms they are released on.
This means that PC games wont be scalable enough to the gamers opinion while the cell is hardly doing anything.
And this goes not only for the ps3 vs PC but also for in example xbox360 vs ps3.
For as far as consoles go only platform exclusive titles will be able to shoot for maximum potential.
PC games should be scalable and consoles should be no excuse for the lack of scalability however like you stated above developers (or in my opinion publishers) prefer portability over scalability and since there are few common denominators it all comes down to the lowest denominator this means that both PC games and console games are crippled from the start if they are multi platform releases.
Programming for consoles should be less complicated since you only have to ensure one set of hardware and or instructions works and you can push it to the consoles limit without getting compatibility issues(I.E. crisis).
Thus the conclusion should be porting is bad not consoles are bad.
I'm running a laptop with a 9600GT card built in, it's brilliant, I can throw anything at it and it plays fine. As long as I can play anything I like at medium-high settings I don't see any reason to upgrade.