PDA

View Full Version : Far Cry 2 System Requirements Revealed


Pages : [1] 2

SH64
08-08-08, 05:11 AM
Far Cry 2 System Requirements

Minimal:

* CPU: Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, Pentium D 2.66 GHz, AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better
* Video card: NVIDIA 6800 or ATIX1650 or better; Shader Model 3 required; 256 MiByte video memory
* Memory: 1 GB
* Media reader: DVD-ROM

Recommended:

* CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family, AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
* Video card: NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better, ATIX1900 or better; 512 Mb video memory
* Memory: 2 GB
* Sound: 5.1 sound card recommended
* Media reader: DVD-ROM

Supported Video cards: NVIDIA 6800, NVIDIA 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops. ATI X1650 - 1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=54577

Yay i meet the recommended reqs! :captnkill:

Revs
08-08-08, 05:15 AM
Yay, me too! :p

Cheers for the info.

crainger
08-08-08, 05:19 AM
Mee too! Ima pwn Far Cry 2.

SH64
08-08-08, 05:20 AM
Mee too! Ima pwn Far Cry 2.
You can't pwn FarCry2 , FarCry2 pwns you.

crainger
08-08-08, 05:24 AM
You can't pwn FarCry2 , FarCry2 pwns you.

Ha! You know it!

K007
08-08-08, 05:50 AM
i lol @ the recommended video cards...

bob saget
08-08-08, 05:50 AM
is far cry the one when the hot chick gets blowed up and you come to the island to find the trigens running around and you have to use the hang-glider to manuvir to the island and find the weirdo who is kind of like bigman but more vim?

see sig.

FastRedPonyCar
08-08-08, 08:11 AM
most of us met the recommended system requirments for Crysis but we all know how that turned out...

Badboy_12345
08-08-08, 08:24 AM
recommended = 30fps at 800x600, min graphics :bleh:

FastRedPonyCar
08-08-08, 08:27 AM
recommended = 30fps at 800x600, min graphics :bleh:

Exactly... Why is everyone trying to fool themseleves that this game will run any better than crysis?

SH64
08-08-08, 08:33 AM
Exactly... Why is everyone trying to fool themseleves that this game will run any better than crysis?
Because Crysis looks better so there is a chance ..

FastRedPonyCar
08-08-08, 08:36 AM
I think they look the same.

dookika
08-08-08, 08:42 AM
I think they look the same.

I think you need glasses.

SH64
08-08-08, 08:51 AM
I think you need glasses.
A big one too.

Dreamingawake
08-08-08, 09:40 AM
Far Cry 2 will run better than Crysis.

If you think otherwise you're just stupid.

I'm willing to bet $100 it will run better.

FastRedPonyCar
08-08-08, 09:59 AM
no. I've yet to see compelling screenshots of FC2 that shows any substancial difference in graphics. It's like they took cryengine 2 and rather than jungle, you're in the savanna.

It's like they tweaked the explosions and smoke and retained the same grass, trees, shading on textures, etc. They can say it's a totally different game engine all they want but the fact of the matter is, when I look at the screenshots posted at places like IGN and gamespot, it looks like a crysis mod to me.

Oh and you guys are referring to concept screenshots in your arguement, lets not forget what Crytek did with crysis by showing us one thing and giving us something else, not to mention Cevat Yerli saying they would eventually give us higher resolution shaders or whatever he claimed they didn't ship with the game that would re-revolutionize it's graphics when newer hardware was out. :rolleyes:


Anyways, yeah they can make a pretty game but that doesn't excuse them from all the lies and deceit they've fed us.

Quad core optimization? Lie
DX10 exclusives? Lie
Upgrade patch for next gen hardware? Pff.. don't count on it.
New engine for FC2? HA!
8600gts recommended? :headexplode:

They need to cut the BS and say look, bring at least an 8800GTX to the table or suffer with washed down bottom of the barrel graphics. They wouldn't make any friends with that kind of statement but it was the harsh reality crysis owners discovered during the betas which again, crytek promised better performance with the full release but OH What's that??? No performance increase at all? What a surprise!


Understand that I'm not slamming their product because I loved crysis; I'm mad at them for saying one thing and giving us something else. I'm mad that they still are playing us for idiots who don't know any better when the truth is right in front of us. It makes ZERO sense to totally build and engine up from scratch when they've got an engine that has years of potential right in front of them. It would be like valve taking source and tossing it aside to write a totally new engine for EP1 and another for EP2. No, they improved upon what they had and it seems like that's what was done for FC2. I see tweaks here and there to an already familiar face and if you guys don't see that, it's YOU who needs to take a good look at the screenshots and compare vegetation, smooth surfaces, the ground textures, the water surface, etc.

evox
08-08-08, 10:36 AM
no. I've yet to see compelling screenshots of FC2 that shows any substancial difference in graphics. It's like they took cryengine 2 and rather than jungle, you're in the savanna.
I hate defending a company like Noobisoft, but anyways:

It's like they tweaked the explosions and smoke and retained the same grass, trees, shading on textures, etc. They can say it's a totally different game engine all they want but the fact of the matter is, when I look at the screenshots posted at places like IGN and gamespot, it looks like a crysis mod to me.
Presumptuous of you to say that considering all the screens of FC2 look photoshopped and are not high-res enough to make judgment regarding the texture.s

Oh and you guys are referring to concept screenshots in your arguement, lets not forget what Crytek did with crysis by showing us one thing and giving us something else
What? Crysis looked the same in the screens they released (early screens of Crysis looked quite bad, infact) the performance was crap, it was to be expected, low level of optimisation and too much to render.


They need to cut the BS and say look, bring at least an 8800GTX to the table or suffer with washed down bottom of the barrel graphics. They wouldn't make any friends with that kind of statement but it was the harsh reality crysis owners discovered during the betas which again, crytek promised better performance with the full release but OH What's that??? No performance increase at all? What a surprise!
Right, because the best marketing strategy is alienating the gamers before the game itself hits the shelves? Get real, I am not sure why people think game companies/developers should be Barnie-esque fuzzy/clean. It's a business, you lie and mess with people's perception to make money and sell copies. This happens in every field, gaming is no exception.

Regarding Crysis's performance, blame Crytek's apathy.


Understand that I'm not slamming their product because I loved crysis; I'm mad at them for saying one thing and giving us something else. I'm mad that they still are playing us for idiots who don't know any better when the truth is right in front of us. It makes ZERO sense to totally build and engine up from scratch when they've got an engine that has years of potential right in front of them. It would be like valve taking source and tossing it aside to write a totally new engine for EP1 and another for EP2. No, they improved upon what they had and it seems like that's what was done for FC2. I see tweaks here and there to an already familiar face and if you guys don't see that, it's YOU who needs to take a good look at the screenshots and compare vegetation, smooth surfaces, the ground textures, the water surface, etc.


You're rather delusional if you think Ubisoft would license CE2. In all honesty, even know they can, they wouldn't; because that would shoot up the developmental costs for every IP they make. Plus, with an in-house proprietary engine, you can tweak everything to your liking, you can remove what you don't need and add what you do. You can't get that level of personalization/customization from a third-party engine, regardless of how much you mod it.

And really, I don't care enough about FC2 to compare screens of it to another FPS. It's a trivial matter at most, and I suggest you stop taking it so seriously.

methimpikehoses
08-08-08, 10:51 AM
I wonder if 512mb of VRAM is going to be enough for 1920x1200...

FastRedPonyCar
08-08-08, 11:09 AM
And really, I don't care enough about FC2 to compare screens of it to another FPS. It's a trivial matter at most, and I suggest you stop taking it so seriously.

It wasn't about comparing screenshots, it was originally about the fact that the recommended system requirements for Crysis yielded sub par performance and that judging from how crysis performs, the now released FC2 requirements and recommended hardware leads me to beleive that once again, those in possession of say an 8600gts will be quite dissapointed when they're only able to play at a very low detail and resolution.

nekrosoft13
08-08-08, 11:28 AM
It wasn't about comparing screenshots, it was originally about the fact that the recommended system requirements for Crysis yielded sub par performance and that judging from how crysis performs, the now released FC2 requirements and recommended hardware leads me to beleive that once again, those in possession of say an 8600gts will be quite dissapointed when they're only able to play at a very low detail and resolution.

recommended specs are not for 1920x1200 with everything on ultra high 8xaa.

recommended specs are mostly for about 1280x720, medium/high no aa, no af playing at about 30fps.

Igor Vitaly
08-08-08, 11:41 AM
recommended specs are mostly for about 1280x720, medium/high no aa, no af playing at about 30fps.

As the consoles -high though 30fps on consoles I doubt unless they make great perfomance improvement since the latest showcase on the consoles, and then if they will do true HD res... :smoking:

If people can find the medium settigns on consoles satisfying I think PC gamers with low-ned hardware can to, all running at 720p!

Crow_Nest
08-08-08, 11:49 AM
My CPU doesnt meet the recommended! I guess i'll go to my emo corner and emo for the next few days. :D

evox
08-08-08, 12:12 PM
It wasn't about comparing screenshots, it was originally about the fact that the recommended system requirements for Crysis yielded sub par performance and that judging from how crysis performs, the now released FC2 requirements and recommended hardware leads me to beleive that once again, those in possession of say an 8600gts will be quite dissapointed when they're only able to play at a very low detail and resolution.
Do you want them to say "yeah, F that, you need a 600 dollar card to run the game" ? It's a business man, you can't alienate or scare away potential buyers by listing inane requirements.

Screwing your perception and deceit are just part of the game. (no pun)

Vanzagar
08-08-08, 12:34 PM
I've lost track, when is this one due out, eta??

Instead of 8800gtx, recommending a $150, 4850
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102747

prob wouldn't sting too many people and would prob get you pretty good fps at a decent resolution...

evox
08-08-08, 01:17 PM
I've lost track, when is this one due out, eta??

Instead of 8800gtx, recommending a $150, 4850
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102747

prob wouldn't sting too many people and would prob get you pretty good fps at a decent resolution...

I remember Steam had the date listed, but they removed it. It now shows October 2008. Can't remember the date sadly. :(

http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=app&AppId=900587&cc=US