Risen 2 - System Requirements

What was the problem? my son had gta4 on pc and it played fine.

CountChocula said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, I would prefer bigger game worlds over graphics as well. I wonder however if AAA companies were still pushing the bar with each release if we wouldn't have already seen bigger game worlds...It's debatable though but I would think with bigger game worlds with bigger cities etc...you would never more powerfull hardware. Granted it takes time to build bigger game worlds as well but it kind of feels like we are stuck in 2005 now.

JDR13 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The conspiracy theorist in me wants to say that the high graphics card recomendation for the PC is done, shall we say, 'on purpose,' rather than 'for necessity.' I mean, if a game will run on 6 year old hardware, why is a recent year's graphics card for the PC recomended?

Nah. Marketing people are good stewards of the consumer. They'd never 'pressure' any developer to 'exaggerate' a requirement just so that the latest and greatest model might be printed somewhere relative to a new game release. Would they? Nah.

CountChocula said:

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?

Click to expand...

GTA IV is a very demanding game on consoles too (runs @ 25 -30 FPS) while on PC it has much larger view distance and usually runs at higher resolution while still having higher FPS than on consoles (yes, even before the patches). I dont think the port was particularly bad, usually people are just ignorant.. An open world game with advanced physics + lots of AI instances going on all the time is not going to have the same performance as a FPS.

The GTA IV I tried on PC was an awful mess - with very uneven performance. It's one of the really bad ports - considering the high-profile nature of the game. In fact, pretty much all GTA ports have been subpar.

It's just par for the course when we're talking console-focused games.

JUST 5.5 gb hard drive, too small, damn!

The GTA IV/LA Noire (same engine) port was horrendous for a lot of people. Certian rigs seem to run it "okay" though. My rig runs LA Noire (same engine) at about 5fps) and yet it can run every other game (Arkham City/Skyrim etc) at high/ultra. I have a HD6850 GPU.

I even tried turning LA Noire down to the lowest possible res, disabling shadows and everything else that was possible, no AA etc. The game looked like complete SHIT, with gigantic blocks everywhere, honestly some of the worst graphics I have ever seen on a modern title - far far worse than GTA3, and it still ran less than 10FPS. I dunno what causes it but it certainly affects me.

L.A Noire doesnt use the GTA IV engine (RAGE), the game was created by Team Bondi and it's their own engine, the two doesnt look even remotely the same.

Skyrim runs like crap on some people setups too, so imo it doesnt say much.. Too many people have PC's and have no clue how to maintain it.

Witcher 2 has lower min/recommended specs and I can barely run it properly at lower settins even though I'm above recommended...