RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Risen 2 - System Requirements (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16161)

Dhruin February 6th, 2012 20:54

Risen 2 - System Requirements
 
World of Risen has announced the system requirements for Risen 2. As is usually the case on cross-platform titles, the requirements are quite modest:
Minimum requirements:
Quote:

  • Operating system: Windows XP (with Servicepack 2)
  • CPU: dual core with 2.1 GHz
  • Memory: 2 GB system RAM
  • Disk space: 5.5 GB
  • Graphics adapter: AMD Radeon 3870 or NVidia GeForce 8800 GTX (512 MB VRAM)
  • DirectX: version 9.1c
  • Sound: DirectX compatible sound chip
  • Input: keyboard/mouse or gamepad required
  • Internet: connection for online activation required

Recommended:
Quote:

  • Operating system: Windows XP (with Servicepack 2), Vista (with Servicepack 1) or Windows 7
  • CPU: dual core with 3 GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB system RAM
  • Disk space: 5.5 GB
  • Graphics adapter: AMD Radeon 4890 or NVidia GeForce GTX260 (1 GB VRAM)
  • DirectX: version 9.1c
  • Sound: DirectX compatible sound chip
  • Input: keyboard/mouse or gamepad required
  • Internet: connection for online activation required

More information.

Saxon1974 February 6th, 2012 20:54

Do system specs matter much anymore for PC gamers? I mean all the AAA studios are releasing on the XBOX now which is what 6 years old? So I would imagine most PC's out there are fine running todays games.

Alrik Fassbauer February 6th, 2012 21:04

Since PB has - as far as I know - a huge fan base in Germany, and in Germany the PC sales still work, it does make sense, imho.

CountChocula February 6th, 2012 21:25

I think what Saxon is referring to is that you don't need the most expensive, top-of-the-line PC to run games at high resolution anymore.

The "recommended" specs are similar to the specs released for Skyrim and other recent games which seem to run very well on low to mid range PCs.

In my case, I'm happy with the current level of graphics tech. Developers conforming to the constraints of console hardware means that I can run about any game at 1080p on my three year old laptop.

txa1265 February 6th, 2012 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saxon1974 (Post 1061125666)
Do system specs matter much anymore for PC gamers? I mean all the AAA studios are releasing on the XBOX now which is what 6 years old? So I would imagine most PC's out there are fine running todays games.

Sadly it doesn't work that way … many games that run fine on the X360 run like crap on the PC …

Alrik Fassbauer February 6th, 2012 21:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountChocula (Post 1061125679)
I think what Saxon is referring to is that you don't need the most expensive, top-of-the-line PC to run games at high resolution anymore.

I understand.

KapitanUnterhosen February 6th, 2012 21:47

Kind of steep on the graphics card for a multi-platform title, and there's a typo: the 8800GTX has 768MB ram, not 512.

CountChocula February 6th, 2012 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 1061125680)
Sadly it doesn't work that way … many games that run fine on the X360 run like crap on the PC …

Is that so? I'm not familiar with these cases of games running with better frame rate on Xbox than PC. (Although I know that sometimes folks complain about the UI being too "consolized.")

Years ago, you needed the most expensive, top of the line gaming desktop graphics cards to run popular games at 1080p resolution. Fortunately, this is no longer the case at all.

And if one is comfortable gaming at console resolution of 1280x720, even many inexpensive budget laptops will run recent games at this resolution.

Gorath February 6th, 2012 22:04

Yes, it is so. Often publishers aren't willing to allocate a decent budget for good PC port. Instead they tell the intern to recompile this shit for PC, and if it runs it will be shipped. ;)

txa1265 February 6th, 2012 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorath (Post 1061125699)
Yes, it is so. Often publishers aren't willing to allocate a decent budget for good PC port. Instead they tell the intern to recompile this shit for PC, and if it runs it will be shipped. ;)

Sad but true … but fortunately for Risen 2 I *know* we'll be on the good side. Just wonder if the X360 port will fare better than last time?

Gorath February 6th, 2012 22:41

The ports will be better. Deep Silver spent a lot of marketing Euros and a whole show (GC) to send the message that the ports are trailing only a few weeks behind this time, that there's more budget for them and PB communicates directly with Wizarbox. It was pretty much the only story they sold in Köln.

bloodlover February 6th, 2012 22:46

I'm ok with min-med except in the graphics area. I suppose that if I played Deus Ex HR and Skyrim on mid, this one will work too.

Drithius February 6th, 2012 22:53

It's just a sad state of affairs for me when the only thing that I can push my computer with is MMOs. And this would be fine if the lack of graphical improvements was compensated for by evolving gameplay, but generally the opposite is true.

Oh well. Dead horse and all that. Hopefully PB comes through.

And, as an aside, noone should ever become compacent with the status quo. Whether it's economical or technological, you should always push for the future, not stagnate in the past.

CountChocula February 6th, 2012 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drithius (Post 1061125716)
And, as an aside, noone should ever become compacent with the status quo. Whether it's economical or technological, you should always push for the future, not stagnate in the past.

In my case, I'm more interested in bigger game worlds with better quest design and storytelling, and less interested in the most demanding graphics functionality.

Witcher 2 runs like crap on the lowest settings, but I'm pleased that I can run Skyrim and many other games on my laptop at 1920x1080. I would prefer not to have to buy a gaming desktop in order to play games at 1080p resolution.

If the prevalence of console hardware means that developers must devote resources to better optimization so that games run well on weaker hardware, I'm glad to benefit from this trend.

sakichop February 7th, 2012 00:03

Yes, I wish they would do away with pc' s and console and make every game for my phone so I wont have to spend any money. While there at it they can serve mcdonalds at 5 star restaurants and put 4 cylinders in ferrari's. So I can live the high life.

JDR13 February 7th, 2012 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by KapitanUnterhosen (Post 1061125690)
Kind of steep on the graphics card for a multi-platform title

It's about the same as Kingdoms of Amalur, but yeah it does seem kind of high. I expect the PC version to look and run better, or I'm going to be disappointed.

vurt February 7th, 2012 00:19

I always try to find reasons to upgrade or to buy new fun hardware, i love both hardware and gaming, i'm glad they go hand in hand ;) I'm looking forward to better consoles (which will mean better looking PC titles too)..

KapitanUnterhosen February 7th, 2012 01:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountChocula (Post 1061125692)
Is that so? I'm not familiar with these cases of games running with better frame rate on Xbox than PC. (Although I know that sometimes folks complain about the UI being too "consolized.")

GTA4 was one of the first high profile shitty ports. PCs that could run most multiplatform titles with faster and better graphics than the console iterations were struggling to match the console's version of GTA. The last couple of assassin's creed deliveries that came out over the past year also run slower on the pc than the first two titles from 2007/09 despite no significant graphical improvements. They can afford to underoptimize pc versions of new games when a current 50$ vidcard is enough to double the visual quality you get from a console.

I won't be surprised if the console version of TW2 or Risen2 ends up looking better than the pc version when ran on some high-end rigs from 2007/08 out of shitty optimization.

I've been happy with the way 3D graphics look since the gamecube and I appreciate that thanks to the current console's long life-cycles a high-end pc from 2006 can still run most new games in high details, I hated it when pcs became obsolete in a year.

I'm only getting a new pc when it is capable of running the same games as the xbox3 in full glory.

CountChocula February 7th, 2012 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by KapitanUnterhosen (Post 1061125746)
GTA4 was one of the first high profile shitty ports. PCs that could run most console ports with faster and better graphics than the console versions were struggling to match the console's version of GTA.

Wow, that is simply inexcusable. The game wasn't even running at console settings (1280x720 with no AA, AF, etc.)?

Did they ever fix it with a patch?

txa1265 February 7th, 2012 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountChocula (Post 1061125747)
Did they ever fix it with a patch?

Depends on your definition of 'fix' ;)


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:47.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch