Rumor: Assassin's Creed PC requirements finalized

Any process under windows by default is limited to a max 2 gig process limit, even on 64bit OS versions, so that 3Gig requirement is completely and utterly false

I didnt mind the performance of Dirt so much, i could tweak it on my old 7800GTX to get decent performance, that card is similar in performance to what the 360 and PS3 consoles can do. I could have Dirt on high at xbox360 resolutions and get 30FPS, which is basically what the 360 could only do anyway, in that context i found Dirt to be quite optimized for the visuals its throwing around, its just that we in the PC world expect much higher resolutions be default, i.e. 1680x1050 and with decent FPS

Yeah,Vegas used a very early version of the UT3 engine, and it sucked bigtime, most of the visuals look really really crap, with horrible blurry blocky wall textures, but some of the vegas scenes did look stunning too. I had to tweak it loads and eventually got an avg 33FPS @ 1680x1050 with my 7800GTX, i havnt even bothered trying with my 8800GT

Bad enough as EA are( dont get me started on the horrid sports ports that are ported directly from crappy looking PS2 versions ), but i much prefer them to ubisoft, at least they release patches, it took months for vegas to get a patch and it had so many issues, the first patch only fixed the 360 controller, then it took several months more before they released the first proper patch( and last one ), It fixed absolutely none of the SP's main issues, at least they put pings in for the server browsers for online play though( lmao how bad is that releasing an online game with no pings, noone knew if the online performance of their PC was crap or if it was just the server that was 1000's of miles away )

Sorry to hear about your friend dude, dont really know what to say

 

OMG. i overlooked that! it's confirmed, it's just a PORT! :bang:


damn...

 

It is stuff like this that seriously makes me even question bothering with PC gaming anymore. The high requirements for a 6 hours game? Sorry. Some of us work like dogs at our thankless jobs and don't want to spend $1000 dollars on hardware just for one goddamned game (I'm looking at you, Crysis).

And to top it off, the games aren't even that great that require these ridiculous requirements. I mean Half Life 2 is fan-freaking tastic and it required very little while a somewhat decent game like Crysis requires a government supercomputer.

I can honestly say I am near through with PC gaming based on the ever growing requirements for every goddamned thing and that the games that come out are not even that good or interesting. Of all the games I played this year, the only two that really stick in my memory as replayable and incredible were COD4 and Portal.

Gears of War stutters like hell and the DX10 is crap. The Witcher looks meh but runs like crap at times. Two Worlds. HAHAHAHA. Stranglehold was 12GB for a 3 GB game. Timeshift was as generic as they came. HL2:E2 was an incredible experience....and then it was over. STALKER was an unopted steaming pile of crap. And that is just mentioning the games I CAN remember.

...I just ranted and I don't know why...

 

I knew u wont be realize my black humor, my friend never died it just an saying about someone that been my friend and became foe.
Anyhow, Ubisoft are terrible, EA terrible but at least sometimes shows support well those companies especially EA, buys everything it can to eliminate competition, and if they end like Microsoft, the gaming world IS DEAD.

 

The game's graphics aren't THAT intense.

It has a huge view distance and possibly advanced lighting/shadows, but the models aren't all that ultra-detailed. I can't understand why the requirements would be so high.....maybe they improved graphics with the extra time they've had since the delay?


Even if it isn't well optimized for PCs, I'll buy it anyway. I was looking forward to this game for a long time.

Next port I'm looking forward to: Mass Effect.

 

lol, ahhhh, was confused there , thought better saying summit safe than embarresing( or maybe i did lol ).

As for next ports worth getting, definately Mass Effect would by my first choice, it looks amazing, i really want to play it, hope they dont release it in 18 months time or somethign stupid like that

 

I think most of you forget Assassins Creed Has One of the largest areas ive seen that is populated by so much AI.!

Have 3 gigs ram willl realllllllly help the load times between citys!!!

The 360 version takes about 30 seconds each city.

 

Why does something that can run perfectly fine on a machine with 512 MB of ram (shared with graphics card) requrie 3GB (recommended) on a PC.

What the **** are they doing? Are they running a bloody XBOX360 emulator?

If this turns out to be true , they will sell about 10k copies on PC and won't even break even. I'm tempted to call bullshiat.

I won't be buying it as it's a port and I learned my lesson several times before , I don't belive this has been developed alongside the console versions (ala COD4)

 

ehh cod 4 is exactly the same as the 360 version dude...

 

oh shi....!

 

My hopes with you man, but as soon as it comes to computer requirements, i have no longer hopes, since for long time lot of games contained a lot of bugs that drew performance away, and\or the system requirements were a joke(aka Crysis and Assassains Creed).
Some will say that people complain for nothing, but look most of PC gamers, with or without the appropriate knowledge in PC hardware have low end PC due the cost of some parts, or due to low knowledge and they aren't able to play any game, besides it seems that know you need to upgrade ur PC for any game that comes out if you want to keep the graphic settings up.

 

I sort of agree with you, but i did my math on what i spent on my PS2 and all the games and accessories, it worked out over 5 years at just over 2200euro( i have around 22 full price games which alone cost ~1200euro, console ~500 euro, joypads, region free DVD,remote, memory cards etc etc ).

If you spent 2200 euro on your PC and PC games you could continue and have a top spec( high end of mid range, but well overclocked ) PC for 5 years and still have a good pc at the end of it( obviously selling the old parts ). PC games also cost 50-60% of the price of the console versions.

They both have their pros and cons but all in all gaming on consoles and the PC costs the same, however for PC it requires a lot of knowledge and you have to keep upto date with the latest gfx cards,sound cards,mobos, processors, so it needs enthusiasm

I think that with cards like the 8800GT which are great price/performers and its only gonna get better while consoles are static in their hardware that in this current gen of console gaming us PC guys shouldnt require anything more powerfull than an 8800GT for playing ports( unless theyre horribly unoptimized )

As you say, most of the problem with PC gaming comes from manufacturers like Dell, and HP and retail shops like PC World selling PC's with fantasticly expensive processors but crap everything else, even worse( and i saw an ad for this recently ), PC world selling their most expensive PC for ~1800 euro which was some 68x0 whatever quad core,2 gig ram,vista, 2 500gig harddrives, 22" screen and crappy onboard sound with unbelievably crap onboard Intel gfx chipset

 

Yeah there are thos manufacturers that advertise some false ads that meant to bring people in and increase the price while still adding pile of **** hardware.
I can sum it up from what we've been saying, that gaming no matter when and no matter how, it's gonna be expensive if you want a quality experience, and sometimes i rather no play any game if the requirements just ridiculous, I still remember that gates said that 512k of memory is gonna be enough for all eternity, is it me or just we need little more?

 

lol,Gates probably said that before he started selling Windows which just gets more bloated and bloated

 

yeah, no everything you saying is true especially when u connect to Microsoft.

 

Look what I wrote is fairly easy to comprehend. Yes the game is exactly the same but it is not a console to PC port , they were developed side by side.

Which is my point , multi platform games developed in this way are much better than ports.

dude...............(et al)

 

wtfs "et al"

And despite what you think, im pretty sure its a port despite what the developers say.

Wanna know why? Cause it uses the same files as the 360 version...

 

lol@et al...et all

id be sure its a port too

 

That's strange. I've seen Company of Heroes use more than 2GB or RAM. I'm also pretty sure I read somewhere that there's a patch/fix out for Vista that addresses this "issue"? The very same fix that fixed the Stalker crashing in Vista x64. Also, 3GB isn't a bad idea as Vista easily uses 1GB of RAM alone. 1+2=3GB anyway.

 

Nah, Stalker rocked! ...after the patches at least. My fave game of the year to be honest or maybe Portal, that was brilliant.

Because you love PC gaming really, admit it?