What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
300 Comments
- quomen, on 10/18/2007, -21/+89I really have no idea, but could it be because of DirectX10?
- inactive, on 10/18/2007, -45/+109Minimum Requirements
XP - 1024MB RAM
Vista - 1536MB RAM
XP - Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz (or similar AMD)
Vista - Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz (or similar AMD)
Yeah microsoft, that vista sure is the gamers platform. Higher specs just because you use vista? Ouch. - wageslaven, on 10/27/2007, -30/+73Uhm, The requirements are because the XP runs against DX9 and is inferior to the Vista version that will run against DirectX 10.
Vista is the gamers platform, its called "progress"? Get with it son. Its the same *exact* thing that has happened with the technology industry for 30 years.
10 New software does new things that need new hardware.
20 New hardware enables software to do new things.
30 Goto 10. - wilsonthecat, on 10/18/2007, -8/+44What gamer doesn't have 1gb ram and a 100gb+ hard disk. The graphics card requirement and CPU requirement isn't that great either.
I've played the multiplayer beta and was quite smooth with an 8800 and dual cores. - kevptim, on 10/18/2007, -0/+34I suppose when my 6600GT is no longer even meeting the minimum specs, it's time for an upgrade.
When does the G92 chipped 9800s hit? I want to grab an 8800GTS for a good price. - Neiby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21Or maybe even the new Far Cry.
- inactive, on 10/18/2007, -2/+22No, but the specs I posted were minimum.
What I'm saying is, it does not run it in DX10, but in a older version of direct X.
***** it, I can't win. - lime148, on 10/18/2007, -4/+24Why would the minimum requirements be using DirectX 10? The minimum requirements should be what you need to play it with everything at its lowest.
- Verdanic, on 10/18/2007, -1/+20What the hell? That's nothing. You can get that in a $7-800 Dell. Not that you'd want to do that, but the minimum required parts come relatively cheap nowadays.
- smallanditalian, on 10/15/2007, -0/+19Are we forgetting what game we are trying to play? This isn't Pong. It needs power. And if you have said power, you get a game experience that is unrivaled. So stop complaining about the game requirements, which aren't even that bad. Either get the specs or don't get the game.
- bdhughes, on 10/15/2007, -0/+18Games and gamers have always driven the PC industry to greater heights. Who needs a dual core processor, 2 GB of RAM and a 512 MB Video Card to create Word documents?
- Malik05, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16straight from the source...http://www.crysis-online.com/?id=405
UPDATE: These system requirements were released by accident and are not an indication of the final minimum requirements for Crysis. Crytek are still optimizing Crysis and so as soon as they get a clear understanding of what will be able to run this game, they will release the final requirements to the public. I'll leave the unfinalised requirements below for reference only. So at least we know what the minimum requirements are not :-)
CPU: Intel P4 2.8Ghz or AMD equivalent
RAM: 1GB
Video Card: 6800GT (256mb) or ATI/AMD Radeon 9800 Pro (256mb)
HDD Space: 16GB
OS: Microsoft Windows [XP and Vista I imagine]
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible - inactive, on 10/18/2007, -7/+22So wait, let me get this straight. Vista is required to use DX10 even on MINIMUM settings, and DX10 also needs more of your System's RAM and processing power?
I think you might not know what you are talking about. - Nowheredan, on 10/15/2007, -1/+15Uh, yeah... these are not high system requirements. An ATI 9800 or GeForce 6800? A P4 2.8? That's a three-year-old system they're describing there. The recommended specs, of course, are much higher, but they always are.
- msarge, on 10/18/2007, -5/+19As a poor college student trying to support himself, it looks like I won't be getting Crysis for a while...
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -7/+21Stop the presses! Latest OS takes better hardware to run!
I guess you should stick to Win98SE or something. - chrispeters, on 10/18/2007, -4/+16You speak of progress, yet you use a GOTO instead of a for or while.
- tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22wow. my 2 year old computer could handle that with one hand behind its back
my current (1 year old) gaming rig could handle that with one hand behind its back
and the rig i'm building now doesnt even need hands. it could run this game using only its left testicle - shredswithpiks, on 10/18/2007, -2/+13yes indeed. RAM is wayyy cheap (2gigs is like $60 on newegg. for some good stuff, too) and a 3.2GHz P4 is very 2003 (four years ago)
also was it smooth with an 8800gts 320MB, 640MB, or 8800ultra? this is important - stigma15, on 10/18/2007, -2/+13"Vista is the gamers platform"
Do you work PR at Microsoft? You say that like it was impossible to get DX10 to work with XP. It's "progress" for MS's revenue, but not for the consumer. - fuzzmeister, on 10/18/2007, -0/+111gb RAM: cheap.
100gb+ HD: cheap.
8800GTS: not cheap. - Davers, on 10/28/2007, -4/+15Correction - Your linux box will not run crysis on high in wine - at least not at a playable speed.
- skyshard, on 10/29/2007, -0/+10A little slow, so..
Crytek states that the minimum system is as follows, depending on the operating system;
Windows XP
* Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz (or similar AMD)
* 1024MB RAM
* a 256MB Shader Model 3.0-compatible video card
* 12GB disk space
Windows Vista
* Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz (or similar AMD)
* 1536MB RAM
* a 256MB Shader Model 3.0-compatible video card
* 12GB disk space
A 256MB SM3.0 card would probably translate to something like a NVIDIA GeForce 6800GT or ATI Radeon X1650 series. According to Crytek, a system meeting the minimum requirements will run the game at 800x600 using low/medium settings.
Recommended setup is;
Windows XP/Vista
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
AMD Athlon X2 4400+
* 2048MB RAM
* NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB
* 12GB disk space
Windows XP, using DX9 is limited to "high" graphical settings, while Windows Vista, using DX10, can be set to "very high". According to Crytek the recommended system will run the game in high resolution at high/very high settings.
The minimum requirements are surprisingly high, lending support to the rumors that the multiplayer version (currently in NDA-bound open beta test) is chomping heavily on any hardware it comes across. The recommended setup on the other hand is pretty much what I expected. The current-generation DX10 hardware is the first take on this new technology - the features are there, but the performance is far from optimized, and you have to choose between taking full advantage of DX10, or developing for the widest possible audience. Crytek has simply chosen to develop for the latest and the greatest hardware - so you pretty much need a GeForce 8800 GTS or a Radeon HD2900 XT to run the game properly in DX10 mode.
You can compare your system to the requirements using our handy Game-o-Meter tool. Note that the Game-o-Meter currently assumes that you are using Windows XP for the minimum requirements.
Crysis is currently scheduled to ship on November 16.
Update: Some sites are reporting that the minimum supported video card would actually be Radeon 9800 Pro:
Supported chipsets: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT or greater; ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.
YouGamers asked about the Shader Model 2.0/3.0 support from directly from Crytek, and they stated clearly that Crysis requires Shader Model 3.0 to run. That rules out Radeon 9800 Pro and Radeon X800 series cards, as they do not support Shader Model 3.0. - snowpatrol, on 10/18/2007, -4/+14Woah, what's with all the dudes hating Vista. I've been using it for months and had no problems. I think these are the same dudes that were saying how ***** XP was when it first came out. BTW, if you're a gamer the extra RAM and CPU power isn't going to put you off getting Vista. Gamers don't tend to have systems with the bare minimum requirements.
- jeremymccurdy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14What you don't understand is that no one gives a *****.
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10it should be around release, at which that card will be some 4 generations old. Thats definitely not a bad life, my old 6800 has similarly served me well.
- Nowheredan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11If you didn't like BioShock, it may well be impossible to please you. In any case, this is a totally different kind of game by an entirely different developer, so I don't know how you're drawing a parallel there.
- wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15..uhm, no?
- Typhoon2009, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9My slightly boastful friend is right. The few things keeping me from switching to Macs are: price, compatibility (please, if I wanted to run Windows, why would I bother getting a Mac), and the system specs. For such an epic machine, the Mac Pro has pretty lame video cards. Yes I know it's not meant for gaming, but regardless.
- sdlvx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13HAHAHA the pro version comes with one of the crappiest cards available.
Have fun paying for the "special" mac version which costs more than the rest of the world.
But that's ok, BECUASE YOU CAN DRAG AND DROP AND YOU HAVE A "HIP" GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE. - MutatedNantuko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Yay, my 7600 GT, +3800 AMD will run this! Pretty sweet for parts I payed ~600 dollars for a year and a half ago.
- Tenoq, on 10/18/2007, -0/+8No, DX10 isn't a minimum requirement. Regardless, DX10 is supposedly MORE efficient, so requirements should be less. Given that - Vista is the problem here. But we all knew that anyway.
- MutatedNantuko, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Nah.
- Mononuclear, on 10/18/2007, -3/+11Comparing identical games on identical systems with and without DX10, vista loses in FPS battle everytime
- noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9wow. some of the linux people are starting to get as bad as the mac people in spewing out utter nonsense. have fun getting crysis to work in wine right away there bud...
- Nowheredan, on 10/18/2007, -0/+7Probably not, actually, because Crysis DOES NOT REQUIRE VISTA. The game looks fantastic in DX9, too.
- frazw, on 10/18/2007, -2/+9I'm gonna go out on a limb but I expect that this will end up being the Vista seller that MS wanted Halo 2 to be. I'm still extremely miffed that DX10 won't be on XP when there is no reason it can't be except fabricated ones for marketing reasons. I think I'd prefer to pay a small amount for DX10 on XP than pay for Vista and suffer the resource hit it needs.
Why don't computers get any faster despite exponential increases in processing power? Marketing. - screwattackthis, on 10/28/2007, -1/+8Yup, my linux box will run Crysis in Wine. Next year.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9That sound you hear is of the obvious sarcasm in ScornForSega's comment whizzing over your head.
- Nowheredan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7No, but if you've seen or read anything about the game, you'll know it's got more than just graphics going for it.
- frazw, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7I fully expect that progress should move on of course technology should march forwards but in a linear fashion where possible.
No I don't expect backporting of software but to include XP is not backporting, it is still an active OS, still sold on new machines, and still maintained by Microsoft. DX10 should have spanned XP and Vista for that reason. To my mind it show you are interested in your customers rather than seeing them as walking wallets.
Since DX10 is an API that should have been possible. MS made a marketing decision to make the DX10 and Vista inseparable. Perhaps it made their life easier in some ways and enhanced vistas capabilities but they could have made that move with DX11 and a service pack if the groundwork had been laid cleverly with DX10. Since DX10 is simply an API that is simply a means to access hardware features why should OpenGL or OpenAL be able to do it but DX10 not unless it has been a conscious decision.
In case you are wondering I am against integration to such a high level. It's like a machine with too many moving parts. More moving parts means breakdowns are more threatening. - Evacide, on 10/15/2007, -3/+9Get a better computer?
- Aaronraw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The only thing that has the potential to rival Bioshock this year in game play and looks is Crysis. I suggest you stop gaming altogether. You have no idea what "amazing" is when you see it.
- Hoxie, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6I'll call you the second steve jobs grows a penis... on his face.
- bagboyrebel, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6what if you're not using directX 10?
- Nowheredan, on 10/15/2007, -3/+9You only have $350? Get a job.
Besides, Crysis does not require Vista. - inactive, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6Buying a console is a waste of money for the price of a console you get a good video card, more memory, and a better processer, which will have better graphics than a console, and it will improve performance for other things like surfing the web, email, etc.
- natenovs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6except for the video card. im pretty sure the imacs have crap for vid cards
- lacronicus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7THey haven't been lying, they came out to exactly what they said it would be: A computer that can run Far Cry maxed can run Crysis, that comes out to about this.
These are the min specs for Bioshock:
CPU - Pentium 4 2.4GHz Single Core processor
System RAM - 1GB
Video Card - Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550).
Sound Card - 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card
Hard disc space - 8GB free space
Thats about a .4 ghz processor increase, absolutely no ram increase, and a slightly better graphics card for the min spec. And the recommended specs are even closer. And lets not forget that this has a MP portion, so the specs must have headroom for that as well so as not to have the same issues as BF2 had with different settings. That a computer 3 years old (more than that actually, i got my 6800gt august 05, and the 7 series didnt come out all that much later) can still play the most tecnically advanced games today is definitely not a bad thing. -
Show 51 - 100 of 302 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is