KoA: Reckoning - Official System Reqs

The (modest) official system requirements for Reckoning have been released on their forums:
Official Reckoning System Requirements

Below are the minimum and recommended system requirements for Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning on the PC.


MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

OS:
Windows XP with Service Pack 3
Windows Vista with Service Pack 2
Windows 7 with Service Pack 1

CPU:
Intel Core2 Duo (or equivalent) running at 2.2GHz or greater
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (or equivalent) running at 2.6GHz or greater

RAM:
At least 1 GB for Windows XP
At least 2 GB for Windows Vista and Windows 7

Disc Drive:
CD/DVD ROM drive (required for installation only), 8x or faster CD/DVD drive

Hard Drive:
At least 10.5 GB of free space

Video Adapter:
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB or better
ATI Radeon HD3650 512MB or better
Supporting Pixel Shader 3.0
Minimum Resolution Supported is 1280x720

DirectX:
9.0c Compatible


RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

OS:
Windows XP with Service Pack 3
Windows Vista with Service Pack 2
Windows 7 with Service Pack 1

CPU:
Intel Core 2 Quad (or equivalent) running at 2.4GHz or greater
AMD Phenom X4 (or equivalent) running at 2.6GHz or greater

RAM:
At least 3 GB for Windows XP
At least 4 GB for Windows Vista and Windows 7

Disc Drive:
CD/DVD ROM drive (required for installation only), 8x or faster CD/DVD drive

Hard Drive:
At least 10.5 GB of free space

Video Adapter:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX260 1GB RAM or better
ATI Radeon HD4850 1GB RAM or better
Supporting Pixel Shader 3.0

DirectX:
9.0c Compatible

You will also need an internet connection for product activation/registration.

More information.

Aside from the 3-4 gb recommended RAM, this is pretty standard stuff.

Until the next generation of consoles, it will continue to be a rarity for my PC with 5x the horsepower of an XBox 360 to ever be utilized anywhere near its potential.

Yes, I love consoles dictating my pc needs.

Originally Posted by Drithius
Aside from the 3-4 gb recommended RAM, this is pretty standard stuff.

The recommended "1GB or better" of video RAM is pretty hefty imo.

Originally Posted by JDR13
The recommended "1GB or better" of video RAM is pretty hefty imo.

The GTX260 doesn't even have 1GB of RAM (896 I believe)

Pretty standard specs but nothing out of the expected after seeing the ingame videos and stuff. Will run fine on any computer not older than 3 years I reckon.

I'm pretty happy with this situation. I can play all new games in high graphics (still) in my 2,5 years old PC. And I think current generation of graphics are more than enough for the presentation. We are far away from the pixelized era and I don't think new improvements add much to the general as it was 5 or 10 years ago. IMHO as a RPG gamer, we need detailed gameplay, not detailed textures.

Originally Posted by Gokyabgu
I'm pretty happy with this situation. I can play all new games in high graphics (still) in my 2,5 years old PC. And I think current generation of graphics are more than enough for the presentation. We are far away from the pixelized era and I don't think new improvements add much to the general as it was 5 or 10 years ago. IMHO as a RPG gamer, we need detailed gameplay, not detailed textures.

Holy words

Originally Posted by sakichop
Yes, I love consoles dictating my pc needs.

Me too! I love not worrying about upgrading.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Me too! I love not worrying about upgrading.

Same here!

I play on a laptop and most multiplatform releases seem to run quite well at 1080p. However, Witcher 2, which was a PC exclusive, runs poorly, even on lowest settings.

The time of upgrading your computer every year to keep up is generally over. It hasn't been that way for awhile now. Not a bad thing in my opinion. Saves me money.

I never upgraded my computer every year and could still play every game that came out except for titles that required a Voodoo card since at the time I never had one. I upgrade probably once every 3 to 4 years and don't upgrade until I get to the point where I have to use medium graphics in games like with my last upgrade.

You know they could make higher quality pc games and you could still play your console games and not worry about upgrading.

It's time for games to catch up with technology and before you all get on your high horses and tell me graphics aren't that important, let me tell you, graphics aren't that important.

I'm talking about better Ai, Improved combat and combat animations, destructible environments,better npc's and npc routines,more detailed worlds (more wildlife with more realistic behaviors and just more happening in the world), the ability to use your environment in combat, etc., etc., etc. Everybody seems to think the only thing better hardware does is improve graphics and that's not true.

I'm surprised so many people are fine with settling for mediocre status quo games just to save some money on upgrading. I would prefer to play the best possible games I can than settle for games made with 5 years old hardware just to save some cash.

It's funny though I come to the watch daily and see thread after thread of people bitching about games because they don't have this or you can't do that. So I guess we want them to make awesome games with huge worlds and every options under the sun , but do it on five year old hardware because you don't want to have to shell out any extra money.

It's really time for games to start pushing technology again and gaming to move forward. I know I'm ready for it.

Taking away consoles won't magically make all that stuff happen without any consequences. The reason things are made to console standards is that consoles have a large chunk of the gaming audience, right? So you think working to a smaller audience but with much more expensive production is going to work?

Paying for that additional production means publishers will look for even bigger audiences than they do now, so your games will be "mainstreamed" further. You say I'm settling for the mediocre status quo? Developers can't find the resources to explore the options that exist currently - I don't see the need to demand ultra-realistic wildlife and leave no money left to develop dialogue and quest scripting that is already lacking and doesn't require additional power.

Saving my wallet is a side-effect and isn't my core reason for not needing additional technology at this point.

Consoles are getting closer and closer to pcs. Just add a wireless keyboard to a xbox360/720 and you basically have a pc.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Taking away consoles won't magically make all that stuff happen without any consequences. The reason things are made to console standards is that consoles have a large chunk of the gaming audience, right? So you think working to a smaller audience but with much more expensive production is going to work?

First off I never said to take away consoles.

2nd, Consoles are 3 different platforms so it's not really fair to compare sales straight up to pc's. If the pc has 25% of a games sales ( which I'm aware that it doesn't a lot, but I believe it did better than that with skyrim) then it should be considered to be on equal footing with the other 3 platforms, but everyone will just say look consoles sold 75% and pc's 25%.

Lastly, As long as pc games are carbon copies of the console version then pc will be at a serious disadvantage because of cost, but would the pc audience be much smaller if the pc version took advantage of its hardware and offered a superior experience? . How many people on the fence would decide to buy it on the pc? Could the pc then jump from 10-15% to 25%? Which is why I think skyrim sold so well on pc'c because of mods.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Paying for that additional production means publishers will look for even bigger audiences than they do now, so your games will be "mainstreamed" further. You say I'm settling for the mediocre status quo? Developers can't find the resources to explore the options that exist currently - I don't see the need to demand ultra-realistic wildlife and leave no money left to develop dialogue and quest scripting that is already lacking and doesn't require additional power.

Saving my wallet is a side-effect and isn't my core reason for not needing additional technology at this point.

I have a hard time believing dev's can't find resources to explore the options that exist currently. I remember reading interviews were dev's talk about the limitations of console hardware. Bioware even used it as an excuse for having so few npc's in DA2. How about the problems ps3 users are having with bethesda games due to limited shared memory? Long loading times and stuttering.

Obviously I don't want ultra-realistic wildlife ( which is an exaggeration of what I said) in place of dialogue and quest scripting I would think they could do both.
Also , thanks for using the least important improvement that I listed as a comparison to try and strengthen your argument.

Originally Posted by bjon045
Consoles are getting closer and closer to pcs. Just add a wireless keyboard to a xbox360/720 and you basically have a pc.

That's a great idea except you can't use a keyboard and mouse with a console (not sure why they don't release one though as using a controller is one of my biggest complaints of console gaming) and a 720 doesn't exits in the market.

Originally Posted by bjon045
Consoles are getting closer and closer to pcs. Just add a wireless keyboard to a xbox360/720 and you basically have a pc.

What? Consoles are getting farther and farther from PC's every day and that's all there is to it. The 360 came out in 2005 and my PC in 2005 was better than the Xbox then. Now, it's at best a 7 year old PC.

To be clear, all the things you want would be great things for gaming as such - I just think they'll come at a price. I'm a PC gamer at heart but I also live in the real world.

Originally Posted by sakichop
First off I never said to take away consoles.

Now you're arguing semantics. We're talking about games that would theoretically take advantage of high-powered PCs, right? Doesn't that mean such a game would only exist on the PC, therefore excluding any sales to the console market?

2nd, Consoles are 3 different platforms so it's not really fair to compare sales straight up to pc's. If the pc has 25% of a games sales ( which I'm aware that it doesn't a lot, but I believe it did better than that with skyrim) then it should be considered to be on equal footing with the other 3 platforms, but everyone will just say look consoles sold 75% and pc's 25%.

Sure, it's unfair to the PC in terms of measuring individual platform sales. And? You grouped them together when you said "I love consoles dictating my pc needs" - why do you want to split them up now? If your point is that consoles are holding back gaming and the PC alone could theoretically have better games, then you are grouping the consoles as one inferior set. You can't have your inferior cake but eat your sales separately.

Lastly, As long as pc games are carbon copies of the console version then pc will be at a serious disadvantage because of cost, but would the pc audience be much smaller if the pc version took advantage of its hardware and offered a superior experience? . How many people on the fence would decide to buy it on the pc? Could the pc then jump from 10-15% to 25%? Which is why I think skyrim sold so well on pc'c because of mods.

It's possible - maybe even probable! Let's say the PC gains a 50% market share…you're still asking for a more expensive production (you're not suggesting the super-duper AI etc comes at no cost, are you?) that you are going to sell to half the potential market. That's a hard sell for investors.

I have a hard time believing dev's can't find resources to explore the options that exist currently.

Really? For all its faults, Skyrim is a massive production - but I could easily imagine 5,6, 10x the scripting and dialogue options to deal with multiple approaches and solutions. I guess it might be physically possible for Bethsoft to pay for that (I don't know how deep their pockets really are) but the development assuredly cost 10s of millions already and noone else is building games this big - let alone with the extra dialogue I would want in a perfect world. Then, you are going to add more expenses on top.

I remember reading interviews were dev's talk about the limitations of console hardware. Bioware even used it as an excuse for having so few npc's in DA2. How about the problems ps3 users are having with bethesda games due to limited shared memory? Long loading times and stuttering.

I remember BioWare saying they would never work with licensed IPs. On the other hand, the most number of NPCs I can recall in a modern game would probably be Assassin's Creed/2 - designed for console and there are dozens of actors on-screen. I think there's more to the story than BioWare is publicly saying.

Obviously I don't want ultra-realistic wildlife ( which is an exaggeration of what I said) in place of dialogue and quest scripting I would think they could do both.
Also , thanks for using the least important improvement that I listed as a comparison to try and strengthen your argument.

OK, I used a trite example but it was one of yours. Look, I think the things you want are great but the next step will come when the next consoles arrive because developers/publishers will want to spread the cost and risk across as big a market as possible. Railing against consoles as often as you do is pointless.

Consider the other possibility. I'm not a PC doomsayer but without console ports, the PC might be home to indies-only - which wouldn't bother me too much because I spend a lot of time playing them - but it would be the opposite of the AAA+++ games you are asking for. Consoles are a double-edged sword but we get both sides - bad ports - but also some good games we might not otherwise get.

I'll be a bit cynical : Games with these "mediocre" system requirements are just bad for those people who had given/spent several hundreds of dollars or euros for a brand new, high-end graphics card.

They just don't get their "deserved" "bang for the buck".

It's like buying a Ferrari - and then finding out that the streets have a speed limit.

Originally Posted by sakichop
2nd, Consoles are 3 different platforms so it's not really fair to compare sales straight up to pc's. If the pc has 25% of a games sales ( which I'm aware that it doesn't a lot, but I believe it did better than that with skyrim) then it should be considered to be on equal footing with the other 3 platforms, but everyone will just say look consoles sold 75% and pc's 25%.

Skyrim was an anomaly in terms of PC sales %. Most mainstream titles sell significantly more copies on a console, even if you're just looking at 1 platform.