THE BORE
General => Video Game Bored => Topic started by: Mondain on July 09, 2007, 09:34:11 PM
-
July 9, 2007 - Debating which version of Irrational's BioShock to get? Well, straight from the official site come the PC specifications. Check the requirements below, and weep or cheer.
- Operating Systems -
Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) or Windows Vista
- Minimum System Requirements -
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
- Recommended System Requirements -
CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo processor
System RAM - 2GB
Video card - DX9 - Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT or better) / DX10 - NVIDIA GeForce 8600 or better
Sound Card - Sound Blaster X-Fi series (Optimized for use with Creative Labs EAX ADVANCED HD 4.0 or EAX ADVANCED HD 5.0 compatible sound cards)
So in clear terms, it means that if someone hasn't got an absolute top of the line PC with the latest Nvidia GPU and the latest Intel CPU, it will be nigh unplayable. Sigh... and some people still wonder why PC gaming gets more and more marginal by the month...
-
BIOSHOCK IS GONNA ROCK MY DICK OFF
I SAW THE ACHIEVEMENTS AND THEY ROCK
Gonna buy it because I dunno why.
-
yeah uh
I just bought a new PC this week
and I have the minimum DX9 "recommended" specs
WTF
I <3 Blizzard, great art and shitty specs
-
? quit overreacting and upgrade people.
It's minimum requirements are less than Shadowrun's.
-
or forget PC gaming and buy a 360!
-
? quit overreacting and upgrade people.
It's minimum requirements are less than Shadowrun's.
Will look like crap with the min. requirements.
-
The recommended specs aren't that bad. That's a huge gulf between 7900 GT and 8800 GTX in terms of performance. I'm also glad to see that Core 2 Duo and 2gb are recommended. It's nice to see that I didn't waste my money on a dual core CPU & 4gbs of high end ram.
-
I'm glad devs are making games that push the boundaries on specs. That's how PC gaming has always been until recently.
-
I'm glad devs are making games that push the boundaries on specs. That's how PC gaming has always been until recently.
That's the thing. It's not pushing the boundaries of PC gaming graphics at all. It's the diametral opposite of Crysis. It's just some terribly unoptimized console code.
A PC with a costly hardware configuration which can run the uncanny, photorealistic NVidia human head tech demo, performs much, MUCH more poorly on this game than a 2005 console configuration with a 2005 ATI GPU that's exponentially less powerful in every single way.
-
I'm glad devs are making games that push the boundaries on specs. That's how PC gaming has always been until recently.
That's the thing. It's not pushing the boundaries of PC gaming graphics at all. It's the diametral opposite of Crysis. It's just some terribly unoptimized console code.
A PC with a costly hardware configuration which can run the uncanny, photorealistic NVidia human head tech demo, performs much, MUCH more poorly on this game than a 2005 console configuration with a 2005 ATI GPU that's exponentially less powerful in every single way.
I agree with that and I wish fools would also realize that the PS3's GPU is in the same category so that we don't have to hear anymore nonsense about how PS3 graphics would exceed Pixar movies. And no, Cell won't make up for the RSX's deficiencies. If Cell were that powerful, then Sony wouldn't need Nvidia. 8800GTX + top end PC processor/ram destroy all consoles. Only fanboys/distinguished mentally-challenged fellows would disagree with this.
-
uh, wtf are you putting words into my mouth... tsc tsc...
I agree with that post of yours, and know that the RSX roughly is a 7800 GT more or less, and that consoles with much less RAM can't compete with killer PC gaming rigs of today... but if we have the impression at some point that console games look better than PC ones it's because big console projects get all the multi-million dollars budgets, the extravagant production values and the talented teams
plz don't turn it into another console war thread mang
-
uh, wtf are you putting words into my mouth... tsc tsc...
I agree with that post of yours, and know that the RSX roughly is a 7800 GT more or less... but if we have the impression at some point that console games look better than PC ones it's because big console projects get all the multi-million dollars budgets, the extravagant production values and the talented teams
plz don't turn it into another console war thread mang
Not putting words into your mouth. It's just ironic to me that the same people who recognize the 360's technical inferiority to high end PCs would also somehow think that the PS3 is some kind of supercomputer.
-
Argh
I really want to play Bioshock but I guess not.
-
A P4 and a 6600 is top of the line now?
Recommended specs are if you want to run that shit at the craziest resolutions with 8x AA. Going from the minimum specs the game is playable on 3 year old hardware.
Typical GAF PC cluelessness.
-
Looks like I can run this maxed out. Fuck you people with pussy computers that think games should run on your lowest common denominators.
-
A P4 and a 6600 is top of the line now?
Recommended specs are if you want to run that shit at the craziest resolutions with 8x AA. Going from the minimum specs the game is playable on 3 year old hardware.
Typical GAF PC cluelessness.
wtf
minimum specs means low resolution, low framerate, constant hiccups while in game... something not playable and enjoyable
if you look at the PC port of Rainbow Six: Vegas, it doesn't even support widescreen resolutions, and it eats the most powerful PCs alive, which really STRUGGLE to maintain a stable 30 FPS
-
? quit overreacting and upgrade people.
It's minimum requirements are less than Shadowrun's.
Will look like crap with the min. requirements.
it was just a point of reference
-
owning a 360 just got 10 times more awesome