Activision releases System Requirements Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare

Looking at some of the replies to this one, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to blow the dust off the Rainbow 6 series, and give them a run for old times' sake.

 

Ugh! Blah!

Dubstep as a genre deserves better than being added to yet another bland COD game.

 

Why wound sound streaming even take 100mb?

 

I have never played a COD game because none of them interested me "not because its cool to hate on".. This one though I think I will give a go. I like the jet packs and I love futuristic games. The graphics aren't too shabby either. Also Kevin Spacey is badass!

 

As much as I agree COD has been milked to death. My last proper COD game I played to death was Black Ops 1. Which is still a good game.

MW3 was shockingly bad but ran VERY well on literally any machine

BO2 was pretty bad but still decent game VERY well optimized

GHOSTS on the other hand is a different story, worst COD game ever. Totally unoptimized piece of crap runs like a dog even today it has been patched and is better but still frame rates don't meet up with the bad graphics.

HOPEFULLY!

This one will be better and hopefully it will perform more like BO2 and MW3 as they were very well optimized on PC.

Also this game actually looks pretty good, from the trailers you have to admit that the game looks visually pretty stunning in parts.

 

I don't see a problem with the game requiring a system with 6 GB of RAM, nor do I see a problem with it being 64-bit only (which is a requirement with 6 GB of RAM). I'm surprised nobody has complained that it required a DirectX 11 card to run .

Of course, this is on the assumption that they make proper use of the 6 GB of RAM, and not just require it through really crap optimisation (okay, maybe you expect crap these days, not super crap). It would be nice if the 55 GB space requirement is due to high res textures, and not something like the pathetically poor excuse for the space requirement of Titanfall that many people even on this forum seemed to try and defend. I would almost go as far as to say it was a rushed thing to have uncompressed audio in that game, or a licensing issue, rather than it being an issue with slower performance using compressed audio. The sound quality was no better, especially because the audio was literally compressed to begin with, they just decompressed it onto the hard drive. If people's computers were that old that they couldn't handle the compressed audio, they probably wouldn't have had the space for the game anyway.

Back to this game, I just hope the game actually plays 'decent enough' on PC. Also, I hope they haven't used that crappy DOF that is all the rave now, which is almost always overused in mods etc. It's one great way for them to hide the performance difference. On consoles, they have low quality objects drawn in the distance which then has the blur applied. This process actually greatly improves performance because of the lower quality distant objects. On PC, the objects are still drawn as HQ in the distance, then the DOF blurring applied, which is a detriment to performance. Basically, it's an effect to cover LQ graphics, not an effect to make the game look good. One major problem with DOF is that it causes eyestrain, it should really not be allowed in games. In a few years time there will probably be more people requiring to wear glasses over what would otherwise be the case simply because the DOF used in games.

 

Maybe they will code COD so it wont try and use 6GB of Vram instead of the system ram. Most games I play i tend to be in the 5-6GB of system ram usage so that is not a big deal, typical gaming rigs should have 8GB now days.

 

What an absolutely stupid thing to say, have you played crysis 3, shadow warrior or wolfenstein the new order?

 

Titanfall for example used uncompressed sounds. Also, I mentioned total streaming requirements - if the gamer takes 55gb, it's either a super-lengthy high-res campaign or a lot of various big assets will be used at once/almost at once.

It's not that easy. There are quite a few people on DDR2, and these are difficult to upgrade. For example my brother's gaming rig is C2Q @ 3.6 GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon 280x. It can handle pretty much every game I throw at it.
I suspect that at low details, the new CoD may not require that much RAM for itself, but they added some extra as a buffer for the operating system and other background apps, similar to PSU requirements stated by GPU manufacturers.

 

Wow, that is a bit of a bottleneck for the R9-280X.

 

dead gabben

 

What?

 

No.. source was based on the Quake engine not Quake 3 engine.

 

I wonder why they stopped making it support dx10, while their games are very well optimized.

Yes except for Ghosts ofc.

 

Better looking flashlight with DX11 .

 

You don't keep up with the news much, can't help you with that so you can get the comment gabe pic person

 

Why develop for DirectX 10, it takes extra effort! They're not targeting very old low end systems here, I see it as a good thing. If people say performance sucks and only have a DirectX 10 card, a Core 2 processor and 3 GB of RAM, it's the game developers fault, right?

Supporting only DirectX 11 means development and support should be a bit better over supporting both DirectX 10 and 11.

People have complained developers have not moved forward for a long time, and when they finally do, they complain that they have done so!

 

Since I've bought just about every COD game (including the original COD and United Offensive), it's a given I'm gonna grab this one as well. Even if it has sucktastic gameplay, I don't care because Kevin Spacey's in in.

 

That's not what i meant mate, DX11 used to be compatible with DX10.

Would it be that much of an effort, if they just let the game disable dx11 features when it detects a dx10 card.

Even BF4 runs on DX10 cards, yeah dx10 is old now i understand, but them high-end cards can run pretty much any modern game still on decent settings.

But oh well, whats done is done right?