D
deimos
Guest
If a 3GHz C2D can't run it, forget it. This was the only chance JokeWood had to redeem itself and make me buy their games again and they pissed it in the wind.
Thanks for the news.
Thanks for the news.
Arcania - Updated System Requirements?
- Thread starter Dhruin
- Start date
- Joined
- September 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,474
The quad part of it is the only thing that sounds really weird to me. A lot of gamers are still in the habit of buying high-clock-speed duals and won't have enough total CPU power if that's true.
The 8800GTX is 4 years old at this point and PC games have been pushing the 2GB limit for years now so neither one of those seems all that shocking. However, on Windows XP (or 32-bit Vista/7), each individual process is limited to a maximum of 2GB RAM unless you modify your kernel configuration, so I can't see 3GB really being required on XP. On 64-bit Vista/7, 3GB wouldn't be too surprising. Several recent games have already needed 3GB to run at full speed on those OSes in 64-bit configuration, because of the extra bloat from the newer DirectX architecture (even when running in DX9 compat mode) + bloat from 64-bit addressing.
The 8800GTX is 4 years old at this point and PC games have been pushing the 2GB limit for years now so neither one of those seems all that shocking. However, on Windows XP (or 32-bit Vista/7), each individual process is limited to a maximum of 2GB RAM unless you modify your kernel configuration, so I can't see 3GB really being required on XP. On 64-bit Vista/7, 3GB wouldn't be too surprising. Several recent games have already needed 3GB to run at full speed on those OSes in 64-bit configuration, because of the extra bloat from the newer DirectX architecture (even when running in DX9 compat mode) + bloat from 64-bit addressing.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,474
Sorry, but even Desslock can err. I looked at the OFFICIAL HOMEPAGE:
PC Minimum Requirements
* OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP / Vista / Windows 7
* Processor: Intel Dual Core, AMD Athlon Dual Core 3500+
* Memory: 1 GB (Windows® XP), 1.5 GB (Windows® Vista)
* Graphics: GeForce 8600 GTS, Radeon X1900 XTX/2DHT, 256 MB
* DirectX®: DirectX 9.0c or higher
* Hard Drive: 10 GB + 600 MB virtual memory
* Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
PC Recommended Requirements
* OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP / Vista / Windows 7
* Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo
* Memory: 3 GB (Windows® XP / Vista)
* Graphics: GeForce 9800, Radeon HD 4800, 512 MB
* DirectX®: DirectX 9.0c or higher
* Hard Drive: 10 GB + 600 MB virtual memory
* Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
THESE are the REAL min. Req.
Source: http://www.arcania-game.com/?lang=de&ID=1840
PC Minimum Requirements
* OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP / Vista / Windows 7
* Processor: Intel Dual Core, AMD Athlon Dual Core 3500+
* Memory: 1 GB (Windows® XP), 1.5 GB (Windows® Vista)
* Graphics: GeForce 8600 GTS, Radeon X1900 XTX/2DHT, 256 MB
* DirectX®: DirectX 9.0c or higher
* Hard Drive: 10 GB + 600 MB virtual memory
* Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
PC Recommended Requirements
* OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP / Vista / Windows 7
* Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo
* Memory: 3 GB (Windows® XP / Vista)
* Graphics: GeForce 9800, Radeon HD 4800, 512 MB
* DirectX®: DirectX 9.0c or higher
* Hard Drive: 10 GB + 600 MB virtual memory
* Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card
THESE are the REAL min. Req.
Source: http://www.arcania-game.com/?lang=de&ID=1840
WorstUsernameEver
Sentinel
- Joined
- April 15, 2010
- Messages
- 250
Good work at optimization!
..no seriously. I was mildly interested before but this pretty much rules the game out. I mean, I could run it, but why should I? It's a slap in the face, and it's especially jarring considering the game is coming out on consoles too.
..no seriously. I was mildly interested before but this pretty much rules the game out. I mean, I could run it, but why should I? It's a slap in the face, and it's especially jarring considering the game is coming out on consoles too.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2010
- Messages
- 250
- Joined
- September 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,474
Try reading the actual news post? The whole point is that those specs you posted are inaccurate and the publisher is providing new ones, not to mention Desslock's personal testing.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,474
Well, sorry but I asked about specs, 5 minutes ago in the official forum, and that was the answer from a moderator, that those ARE the specs. So what is more reliable, some post in some forum from some guy, or a moderator from the official forum?
Maybe it changes. But so far I stick to what the company itself says, hokay?
- Joined
- September 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,474
From what I can tell, in the thread that was linked in the news post, Desslock is claiming he has tested the actual game with a processor that meets the "recommended" (not to mention minimum) on the list you have, and that the game was "unplayable".
I think that says a lot more than some posting from a forum moderator.
I think that says a lot more than some posting from a forum moderator.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,474
I meet the requirements and then some, but I honestly don't think it will be needed; CPUs generally aren't the bottle necks for games - if you can run it on a GF8800GTX (quite a few years old by now), any modern duo core should be able to handle it.
It'll probably be something similar to G3 back in the days.
It'll probably be something similar to G3 back in the days.
Gothic engines always had (and maybe have) a way of running ackward on up to date systems of their times. So that wouldn't be a surprise, I'll check the demo first to see if my core2duo can handle this game or not before I will consider a purchase.
Tragos
Otinanist
My PC is within the "Recommended Requirements" and it is 11/2008 built , 10gb of game stuff makes me really curious of what the hell they will put in lol .
bemushroomed
outlander
- Joined
- July 15, 2009
- Messages
- 673
The only thing that tells us is that they didnt care much at all for optimizing (compression techniques) the size, they probably cared for that just as much as for optimization in general
but the game also has 2 sets of textures, which also requires a lot of extra space.a C2D at 3-4 GHz _should_ beat the crap out of a 2.4 quad though (i have my c2D as 4.1GHz) so i think im safe, but im certainly getting the demo…
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 673
Does it?
Well, I don't claim to know better, but maybe it's a not optimized built. Who can say. But since Arcania will have a demo at release day, I guess we can try out for ourselves. I just think in our days of over sensitive gamers, we should be more careful before we ruin games with spread of hearsay news.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I have no idea about the specs, but I do know that Desslock is not what he used to be. Far from it.
Tragos
Otinanist
The only thing that tells us is that they didnt care much at all for optimizing (compression techniques) the size, they probably cared for that just as much as for optimization in general
Probably , Sacred 2 is like 18gb with patches ...patches sizes were around 600mb lol , i expect that patches for Arcania will be close to that .
As Elikal has commented, this new/post is absolutely false and absurd. Obviously if the game is going to be realeased in consoles, a PC with simililar hardware should be able to run the game without any problem so don't worry about that.
Of course, for maximun settings the requirements can be whatever they want.
By the way, Why all of you are so harsh with Gothic III ? I played it without any patch until the end, with a single core Athlon64 paired with a 7800GT and 1GB RAM.( I had to tweak a bit the ini file). I enjoyed it a lot, IMO it is one of the best open /non linear RPGs I've played, much better than Oblivion (that I play it just before GIII), and also with great graphics. Of course there were some bugs and the performance was not very good but anyway it was a great game.
Of course, for maximun settings the requirements can be whatever they want.
By the way, Why all of you are so harsh with Gothic III ? I played it without any patch until the end, with a single core Athlon64 paired with a 7800GT and 1GB RAM.( I had to tweak a bit the ini file). I enjoyed it a lot, IMO it is one of the best open /non linear RPGs I've played, much better than Oblivion (that I play it just before GIII), and also with great graphics. Of course there were some bugs and the performance was not very good but anyway it was a great game.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 15
WorstUsernameEver
Sentinel
- Joined
- April 15, 2010
- Messages
- 250
True, but we're not talking about whether he likes the game or not here but how the game runs. I doubt he'd purposefully spread false info about that.
Granted, there's still time for optimization, but this isn't promising at all.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2010
- Messages
- 250
I agree about G3. After the balancing patches I found it a very fun game. Guess some people are never happy.
Ergonpandilus
The Preacher
WTF?! Are you guys still running that old rigs, that you cannot handle those sys. reqs. for real? 
And 10 gigs for HDD space is an issue? You can buy 1TB HDDs with 100$ or so.
I wonder how you ever manage to play Oblivion either...
And 10 gigs for HDD space is an issue? You can buy 1TB HDDs with 100$ or so.
I wonder how you ever manage to play Oblivion either...