I guess if I wanted to play it I might need a new graphics card.
All hail disposable income.
All hail disposable income.
PC Systems Requirements
- Thread starter Kilus
- Start date
AnchorsAweigh
First time out of the vault
Hmm, I may have to downgrade my system just in case I get home drunk some night and start thinking "maybe, just maybe, it won't be so horribly bad". Or can someone 100% confirm that beer goggles don't work on computer games?
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
8 gb of ram and 550 ti for minimum specs?
Intel Core i7 4790 for recommended?
If we go by those numbers, witcher 3 is a lower speced game! Not that this is of any surprise from such a terrible developer as bethesda.
I have a AMD Radeon 7770 and only 4 GB RAM so I'll be playing it on the PS4.
The-Artist-64
"Set Phasers to Fun."
I wouldn't have been able to play it anyways. Windows Vista is and will always be the best system!
Eumesmopo
Learned to love the bomb
Meh... I'm betting you are still going to able to run it just fine with specs way lower than the minimum. They prob have just artificially risen up the official system specs requirements just to masquerade the fact that they are still using that shitty but lightweight gamebryo engine.
AgentBJ09
Vault Dweller
Yeah...Activision has done that too with COD, now that I think about it.
Generic Dude 2.0
First time out of the vault
In my experience, official requirements are almost always higher then the actual ones. I guess, people who come up with them simply don't test their games on lower-end pc's.
If you are already sure about F4 it really makes more sense to buy the game, test it on your machine and THAN do the upgrading rather than to upgrade your machine before you have the game. Of course unless your machine is so outdated that a toaster would have a better chance to run F4 compared to your computer. But in general, if you are not sure if the game will run well on your current hardware, and you wanted to buy the game either way, it is better to just test the hardware first, maybe the game will run fine enough for your taste and you havn't really spend more money than you planed. You can always upgrade your hardware later anyway.
I would never upgrade my PC just for one single game anyway, that is pretty silly in my opinion.
I would never upgrade my PC just for one single game anyway, that is pretty silly in my opinion.
Lanius
Monster of the East
I wouldn't care too much about these official requirements. I think the developers always go safe by putting up bloated requirements, so no one can come at them, if the game doesn't run smoothly.
I remember not even meeting the official minimum requirements for Skyrim (besides 4 GB of Ram, of course) when it first came out, and guess what, it still worked just fine. I even had some graphic options on high as far as I remember.
I remember not even meeting the official minimum requirements for Skyrim (besides 4 GB of Ram, of course) when it first came out, and guess what, it still worked just fine. I even had some graphic options on high as far as I remember.
Generic Dude 2.0
First time out of the vault
I played and finished Skyrim on my old Pentium 4 with 1,5 gigs of ram and 256 megs video. It worked ok on medium settings in 720p with no shadows and AA.
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
I think that developers overstating the minimum requirements is justified by the bizarrely large horde of PC game partisans who will scream bloody murder if your game doesn't run at 2560x1440 with incredibly detailed textures, and a smooth 60fps. There are people who will claim that they are not physically capable of playing a game that's only 30fps, and they for some reason dominate the conversation.
Personally, I usually run games at minimum settings because I don't really care about visuals and I want to save wear and tear on the parts.
I honestly cannot tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
Probably because I am the oldz.
Probably because I am the oldz.
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
edit: bad eyes
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
Same here. I guess if I played like lots of first person shooters, I might be able to tell the difference, but I really dislike that kind of game anyway.
I don't think 60fps versus 30 really makes a difference in a game that's not in first person or over-the-shoulder chase cam anyway.
That's because you can't, your eyes are only capable of really making a difference between images that are less than 30 frames per second really. It is a biological limitation. There are cases where the frame rate is important, but those have usually not much to do with the framerate of images really, the numbers you require to experience a fluid movement.
Eumesmopo
Learned to love the bomb
That's nonsense, there is no know upper bound to the amount of frames per second the human eye can differentiate between (you can probably make 'blind tests' between 1000fps and 2000fps and people will still tell the difference). The difference between 30fps and 60fps is an extra 0,016 second in-between every frame that's enough for the eye to even move 15º while still accurately focusing on images (max human eye movement speed = 900º per sec). If you are used to 60 fps and you go watch a movie all movement feels weird and sped up until your eyes adapt back to that specific frame rate (it's the same impression you get when you are used to modern movies and you go watch a very old movie that was projected at 12fps).
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
If you can't see the difference between 30 and 60 then you are blind and you shouldn't drive.
D
Deleted member 86723
Guest
I'm sure, since everyone must know at all times your immense disdain.
I just upgraded, so it should run fine for me.