View Full Version : Max specs?

29th Mar 2001, 04:05 PM
If you look at the trend for the best selling PC games they are nearly all things that could run on a cash register, ie WWTBAM and The Sims. What I wonder is if a game like Unreal 2 which requires a computer with more power than the one which beat Kasparov to run at 20fps will have a large enough market. I am lucky enough to have a half decent PC but many don't and wont be spending the thousand or so necessary to play the new Unreal game. This is not a another low spec whiner but someone who genuinely feels Epic are stepping over the mark; listening more to video card manufacturers than game playing fans.
I know the kind of people who visit this forum have high end PC's as a vital part of their life and will therefore be biased, but think of the many who dont, AND the many copies needed to sell in order to recoup the investment such a vast game will require.

2nd Apr 2001, 09:23 PM
All game companies do it. Game engines are just too powerful these days.

Up until less than three months ago, I was using a Pentium 200. It ran games better than you might think, but there were way too many games that gave it too much trouble.

Games that require extremely fast comps don't appear to do as well much of the time. Look at No One Lives Forever. The best game I've played since Half-Life, but also one of the most demanding ones. Even on the Thunderbird 900 I have now, I still get small amounts of lag with all the high details. It sold only about 40,000 copies.

Unreal 2 is using a modified version of the engine, so it's not completely new. let's assume that it will require a 700Mhz Pentium 3 to run perfectly on all details. That may seem like a lot, but a 700Mhz chip is not new, and will be even more outdated by the time U2 is released.

I don't think it will suffer.

2nd Apr 2001, 09:28 PM
I am just going on info I heard that a per pixel card like geforce 2 gts and at least pentium 800 is required to run the game, in fact a geforce 3 is apparently the only way full effects can be seen. I think 700 is a little optimistic. As for the supposeded online play the netcode better be a able to take a hell of alot more than UT which itself struggled.

4th Apr 2001, 10:02 AM
It says on the official Unreal 2 website that "you should be able to play the game just fine on a P2/450 with a first generation GeForce card."

(Addition: )
I think system specs are often set to high on the box anyway. I can play Black&White in medium detail on my K6/233, 96 megs, Voodoo3 2000 without any problems.

7th Apr 2001, 09:02 AM
I keep playing Hidden and dangerous on a 19" on 1600by 1200 and THAT game still slows my rig noticeably (and H&D is over 2 years old).

My assumption is- they gotta design U2 to take the full advantage of hardware 2 GENERATIONS ahead of what we got now (in the first half of 2001).

So, I'm aiming for a Geforce 3 with 128Meg, Athlon 1.5Ghz and some 256 RAM.

17th Apr 2001, 05:45 PM
If it's one thing you shouldn't trust, it's the game reqs..
look at unreal 1.. what the hell? 16 ram? p 166? :)
i ran it on a p mmx 200 mhz, 32 ram and a 2 gig hd.
horribly slow (full install).. agonizing.. never again.
UT same thing .. sys reqs are too low.
unreal II c'mon when will it be released? next year? Forget about a p2 450 .. :(

I'm running games on a pIII 800, 256 ram and geforce2 mx 32 mb sdram agp. (hercules 3D prophet II).
I know it'll suffise for u2, but i'll have to hold back a bit on setting a high lod and choosing a bigger resolution.
Keep it real this time :)

I'm sure a 1 gig + and 256 ram with a geforce gts will run unreal great. Geforce3? if you can afford it... ok i guess. Evolution..evilution.

ps january this year, my system:
amd k6-2 500 mhz, 128 ram and a voodoo banshee. Just wouldn't suffise anymore. :I (i'm also using programs such as photoshop, illustrator etc.. so i need the horsepower i guess).
And sometimes you can find a good barging for computer parts. Pc's aren't that expensive anymore compared to let's say 3 years ago...

18th Apr 2001, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by NeoNite
UT same thing .. sys reqs are too low.

Until a few months ago, I was running UT on a P200MMX with 64mb ram and a Voodoo Banshee. On 640x480 with medium details, it ran perfectly. As long as the map didn't have like 10 million polys, I never experienced a chug.

19th Apr 2001, 04:39 PM
hmm.. well, i had my res at 532x... you know i don't use this res that much :) and only a 2 gig hd, only 700 mb free diskspace left.
It was the retail ut mind you. And it was horribly slow.. :I
compared to what i see know on that pIII800, 256 ram and gf2 with the 226 patch installed.. :)

Surprisingly enough, i have ut installed on that old pc, minimum install, retail. I run it in 3dfx glide (voodoo banshee is still serving me) and ehm.. on 640x800 and .. yes afcourse i had swapping but... not that bad.
Afcourse things were going to get hectic if i had to play against 4-5 bots, but a one on one should go fine (offline that is, fear the horrible 56K).

ps ut ain't that bad in software mode.. it's quite good. But i only did it a couple of times, only to experiment how fast it would run on that oldy...

ANd that little hd is even more "stuffed" now.. only 520 mb left.. too many ut files .. heh.

19th Apr 2001, 04:41 PM
a small one, in the first paragraph, i meant unreal and not ut.. (my mind is set to ut, can't help it).

"it was the retail unreal mind you"...instead of ut..

Old Fart
2nd May 2001, 04:00 PM
I'm making a little bigger leap, IMHO: I've sold a 350 mhz iMac that had only a 16-meg ATI Rage 128 pro card (and could only run UT at 25 FPS with EVERYTHING turned off) in order to fund parts to build a PC with a 1 ghz athlon processor, 256 megs of RAM, a Geforce 2 GTS Pro w/ 32 megs (to tide me over until GeForce 3's are affordable, hopefully).

My question now is, will I have to go back to stripping perks down (i.e. 32-bit color) to play U2 on the new system? I have a funny feeling I will with UW, but I'm hopeful that a GeForce 3 might be enough of an upgrade by then...?

3rd May 2001, 06:53 PM
My main system is p450 128 tnt2, i've also got a funny machine i picked up on a boot sale P100Mhz, 64Mg.
I borrowed V3 for a couple of weeks and guess what the little thing showed some spirit. It run U1, UT, Q2, Q3A , all details to min , but 600*400 rez. I had loads of fun playng LAN at home with my mates. The lag on UT was no more that 60ms, Q3A 40ms. Best games i've ever played were on these two systems.
So , i recon i will play U2 on p450, just don't go mad on quality and rez.
2 cents

3rd May 2001, 10:06 PM
While I dislike ultra-engines, usually the sys reqs on the box are WAY higher than what it needs. For example, NOLF ran fine on 400 mHz, 96 megs of RAM, TNT2 with no chug on 1024x768x32. Its very computer dependant. So, I'll see with U2. If they a good job, it SHOULD run on what they said..

5th May 2001, 10:15 AM
Well, I just hope it runs onmy crappy celeron... or IŽll just wait until I have enough money to buy an excellent computer (cough....Alienware.......cough)


5th May 2001, 10:25 AM
I got masive problems with UT on 1600by1200 and a high frame rate. I don't even wanna think of what kinda system would run massive FPS on that resolution.

Unreal runs perfectly on D3D and 1600by1200, so does NaPali.

It would be nice if the developers did some kinda hiidden or downloadable add-on for high-spec gamers with U2, so that you could tweak the gamer to show you EVERYTHING... leafs on plants, bird droppings etc.