System requirements accurate? Options

[dux]

Instead of:

- Minimum Specification:
CPU: 1.7 Ghz
RAM: 512 Mb
Video Card: NVidia GeForce FX 5700, ATI Radeon 8500 or ATI Radeon 9500

I'd say this is more realistic:

- Minimum Specification:
CPU: 2.0 Ghz
RAM: 1gb
Video Card: NVidia GeForce FX 6800, ATI Radeon x800

That's just my opinion, though.

[sheena_yanai]

speculations...

i´d say the requirements are somewhere in between this:



and this:

[SanguinesMoon]

What might be more useful is a set of minimum recommended specs, maybe something that can run the game at 30fps on low settings. But that would require testing on various systems and I wouldn't expect it to show up until the alpha/beta comes out (maybe shortly before the final version). And at that point the community could test it ourselves...

Only testing could do it, I would test, but i dotn just wanna buy a game for testing purpose (alpha, beta) as I am not keen on upgrading my whole computer as I dont have the money as wel.

A game, relative to the screenshots, as posted before, is not always on the big side. For instance, Quake 4 minimum specs are are just a bit lower then my computer, same goes for doom 3. But I can play both fine on medium.

And you will notice a slight difference between quake 4 graphics, and UT2004 graphics, where as UT2004 graphics are in my opinion alot better then quake 4, yet its build on another engine, with lower system requirements.

If there was going to be a demo like portal first slice for portal, a demo got released with limited features, gameplay. A demo would eventually be best for testing on all kinds of systems. add 1 map for each mode, and thats it, with a 3 day trial or so. That way is supossedly an effective way of testing on system requirements.

As it stands right now, I dont know how the sales go for NS2, but the peopel who most likely bought it have higher specs then the peopel who would test it on lower specs.

Or A video screen test would also be better, like Serious Sam had, where you would see on how it ran before coming to the main menu.

[Opprobrious]

I expect the minimum requirements to be massively upped when the game gets nearer to release(sometime next summer). I'd be surprised if anything less than a 7 series Nvidia and around a 2.4 processor.

How do you even play games with that rig now?

Jittery and low framerates make good play very difficult.

[monopolowa]

I've got 3 computers I might be willing to test it on when the alpha comes out, going across the whole range of what's out there...a netbook (lol), old/midrange pc and new pc

netbook:
1.6 GHz atom processor
1 gb ram
Intel GMA 950 graphics (think i remembered that right)

old PC
Athlon 3200+ x64 processor
2 GB DDR 400 ram
Radeon HD 3650 video card (500MB i think)

new PC
intel i7 920 processor
6 GB DDR3 1600 ram
Radeon HD 4890 overclocked (1 GB DDR5)


ok, totally used that post to boast about computer specs :P...I would definitely expect NS2 to be very playable on both the desktops, though there might be a CPU bottleneck on the midrange PC, as it's just single core (slow memory too). The netbook has very typical specs for its class of PC and I wouldn't expect anything playable out of it

[SanguinesMoon]

I expect the minimum requirements to be massively upped when the game gets nearer to release(sometime next summer). I'd be surprised if anything less than a 7 series Nvidia and around a 2.4 processor.

How do you even play games with that rig now?

Jittery and low framerates make good play very difficult.

Unlike you, I dont need to play the newest games out there... It plays anything released upon mid 2005 whcih is enough for me.

Oh, And I dont have low framerates, i have 30+ framerates, rare occasions lag *usually becouse of back ground process running* with battlefield 2 etc.

I really dont get why people atm are 'agressive' in a way of the use of speech...

This post has been edited by SanguinesMoon: Sep 22 2009, 07:02 PM

[Cereal_KillR]

Doesn't it also depend on what you accept as minimal? I usually never play games on minimal requirements so I don't know how they're measured, but having lowest settings on all fronts, lowest resolution, and on top of that, frame rate drops in action, does not make for an enjoyable experience, even if the game is deemed playable.


edit: 30 fps is low fps. Maybe you have gotten used to it, but I'm sure your eyes disagree.

This post has been edited by Cereal_KillR: Sep 22 2009, 07:06 PM

[Corporal_Fortier]

30fps isn't that bad considering his rig, but yeah, it's all relative to what you're used to. I remember playing UT on my old PC with a 8MB graphics card. I had to play in 480x320 windowed mode to be able to play alright. Then I upgraded to a Nvidia 7100 MX200 32MB or something (I believe there was the word "Magic" in there, for extra eliteness) and I could run fullscreen with high fps. Then comes the moment when you say "How could I have played like this before?". So yeah, if he is used to it, then just let him play at 30fps, maybe he's even good at it. As long as the game isn't FPS dependant (see jetpacks in NS1.0), he shouldn't have that many problems.

But once you get the taste of high FPS rate, it's hard to go back... Oh and yeah, I also think the minimum requirements will raise as the alpha and beta goes on.

[Opprobrious]

Unlike you, I dont need to play the newest games out there... It plays anything released upon mid 2005 whcih is enough for me.Oh, And I dont have low framerates, i have 30+ framerates, rare occasions lag *usually becouse of back ground process running* with battlefield 2 etc. I really dont get why people atm are 'agressive' in a way of the use of speech...

30 is a terrible framerate for FPS gaming.

Especially for NS.

But you DO need to "play the newest games out there". This is a game slated for a fall 2009 release. Your computer is too old.

[SanguinesMoon]

If you did some research about framerates 25 framerates is the minimal smoothness...

ALso, I dont see any frame drops in action in BF2 unless i got a background process running.

[steppin'razor]

30fps is terrible

[Delphic]

If you did some research about framerates 25 framerates is the minimal smoothness...

ALso, I dont see any frame drops in action in BF2 unless i got a background process running.

Like you said 25 fps is the minimum for something to seem smooth. Now if it's a movie or something and you can guarantee constant fps, that's fine, but fps in games fluctuates wildly as physics / AI calculations are made not to mention small areas compared to big areas and background processes. Any time it drops down you'll notice even if you accept that figure, hence why gamers regard it as a bad frame rate.

(Plus personally I believe you can tell the difference between higher rates than that when your focus on something - hence them being preferable, I mean there's some research somewhere I read that says if you're relaxed and not really doing anything you brain only looks for new sensory information every half a second or so... but you can be sure when you're driving fast that you're brains picking up more information than that! - I know you didn't state that it wasn't worth having more, just some people do say that and I was addressing them, lol)

This post has been edited by Delphic: Sep 24 2009, 02:20 PM

[steppin'razor]

Basically anything under 60 is noticeable in my books.

[Batabusa2]

Basically anything under 60 is noticeable in my books.

Depends on the game. Played any RTSes with 60FPS? Think not. Same with MMOs.

[monopolowa]

Basically anything under 60 is noticeable in my books.

noticeable, yeah, but they're not going to post MINIMUM specs that can handle constant 60fps. If you want to be competitive, 60 fps is important, but more casual players can definitely get by with 30 fps

If I had to choose between 30fps + eye candy vs 60 fps + less/no eye candy, I would tend to go for 30fps for single player games, but 60fps for multiplayer modes.

[steppin'razor]

I was referring FPS not RTS. And I realise 60fps isn't minimum specs.

[SanguinesMoon]

noticeable, yeah, but they're not going to post MINIMUM specs that can handle constant 60fps. If you want to be competitive, 60 fps is important, but more casual players can definitely get by with 30 fps

If I had to choose between 30fps + eye candy vs 60 fps + less/no eye candy, I would tend to go for 30fps for single player games, but 60fps for multiplayer modes.

Etxactly, I play games for fun. I dont need to be that awesome to enjoy a game.

My mouse and gameplay run perfectly fine at games.

I know about that 'law' what they call 60 fps minimal for fps games, but meh, thats just a myth(which i find redicilously overrated and believed might I add) as I profesisonal gamed with 30 fps on old rigs with nice games such as Unreal Tournament from 1999-2003.

Correct me if i didnt understand you by eye candy, i take you mean multiplayer.

I settle for 30 fps any time, any where.


This post has been edited by SanguinesMoon: Sep 26 2009, 04:48 PM

[monopolowa]

by eye candy I mean using settings that look better (high resolution, AA, shadows/reflections, texture/model quality, etc) even if it means taking a performance hit

[enigma]

SanguinesMoon:

You're asking for advice, but seem to be set in your opinion. There's no need to boast about how your POS computer can run decade old games at a good framerate. Upgrade or don't bother playing NS2.

[Opprobrious]

In the EXACT same post SanguinesMoon claims to be a pro gamer AND a casual gamer at the same time.

You can't even keep your argument consistent in one post.

There is a significant difference between constant fps spikes and shuttering and a smooth clear 60+ constant fps.

I understand if you may be self-conscious about not having the money to upgrade your rig. But please stop spreading misinformation.