My take is: good, by the time I'll satisfy those I'll be able to get the game for 1€ in the HumbleRequirementsBundle. <.<
While it's kinda positive to try and push forward the 64bits and stuff, I find hard to believe the game won't be able to run on a more average system in a satisfactory way.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a problem...let's hope the game is not shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find the reponse to this highly interesting. When Call Of Duty Ghosts announced the 6GB requirement everybody lost their minds. But with Watch Dogs it's perfectly fine for some reason. Both were originally set for release at about the same time, so why the big change of mind? It's not like beforehand either one of them promised stunning "next-gen" stuff.
And just to get it out of the way: I'm not a Call Of Duty fanboy. In my opinion the last decent game was Call Of Duty 2 and then just went worse and worse. I am aware the the 6GB requirement for Ghosts was based on nothing. I'm talking simply about the response of people here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you know, COD has shitty graphics,we can't deny it; Watch Dogs seems to promise something better, or at least according to some trailers.
However still can't understand those 6GB ram requirement, if i remember well Crysis 3 was below 2gb ram usage, but i should check it again to be sure. Hope those requirements are not due to bad optimization; except far cry 3 ubisoft always released bad optimized games
Comment has been collapsed.
I do believe RAM has more to do with the scripts used in games than it does with actual graphics, hence why we have dedicated RAM on graphics cards(GDDR1-5). That said, Ghosts was using the Havok engine for scripting (with IW6 Engine for graphics), granted Havok's AI scripts are quite good, I don't believe it would require 6gb RAM. IW, being the cheap and crap dev they are(It may have just been Activision trying to heavily market the game), decided to up their min requirements for RAM, hoping it would make people think Ghosts was going to look better than their heavily(yet poorly) modified IW6 engine could produce. IW themselves put in the lock that refused to let someone play the game if they didn't have 6gb of ram, because they wanted you to still believe it actually required it.
Now Watch Dogs; All I know is they're using Disrupt Engine and Havok's physics engine (unsure about their AI scripts, probably tacked onto their Disrupt Engine) so we'll just have to wait and see I guess. If they pull an IW and put a lock in place even if the game doesn't even use 2gb of RAM, I will be sorely disappointed in Ubisoft.
Comment has been collapsed.
It used to be 6GB but they removed the requirement during the first week of release because a lot of people were whining about it. Apparently, the game refused to run if you had less than 6GB of RAM.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welp, my cpu needs upgraded. I can't even hit minimum 0.0
Comment has been collapsed.
Time to see if my laptop can handle these "next-gen" games. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I was thinking the same. My i5 is a few generations behind, and the graphics card will probably melt if I try to play this. I really hope there will be a demo of some sort so I can see whether or not it's worth the money. I really, REALLY want to play this one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Graphics card: Triple checks
CPU: Double checks
Ram: Lol ok no
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure I can.
AMD A6-3500 2.1 gHZ
Nvidia Geforce GT 630 2GB DDR3
4GB RAM
:D
Comment has been collapsed.
cause its nerfed to hell to work on those older consoles.....
Comment has been collapsed.
My 2 year old configuration can handle this... so why is this called "next-gen"?
I just hope that this is not some lazy port and only reason for "high" requirement is poor optimization.
-- nothing has been overclocked --
CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 960 black
RAM: 2x4GB HyperX
GPU: GTX 560 1GB
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, I was being sarcastic.
The thing I don't understand, why PC gamers use those terms, this is a PC games dedicated site/forum... Also, isn't "next-gen" already "current gen" for past 4-5 months now?
And to be complicity honest current consoles are just mutilated versions of barely average PCs.
Even my 2 year old PC has better hardware then consoles and it was cheaper back then, then consoles now...
Comment has been collapsed.
294 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by OwieczkaDollyv21
189 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BlazeHaze
375 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by AnonymousBroccoli
47,195 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by Mhol1071
49 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
19 Comments - Last post 12 hours ago by FranEldense
49 Comments - Last post 15 hours ago by RileyHisbert
168 Comments - Last post 51 seconds ago by gus09
56 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by pampuch721
113 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by drbeckett
45 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by 0ldNick
37 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by ChaosCVZ
17,018 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Riszu
42 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Rinocap
They look like this.
What's your take on that ?
Comment has been collapsed.