PDA

View Full Version : system requirements ...


Drevlin
30th Oct 2001, 04:03 PM
are kinda high for UW.. or so i've heard *whistle whistle* :)
Now if you look at Halo (one of the games that im REALLY looking foward to atm) the sysrequirements are a p3 450mhz with a Geforce 2 - and, from what i understand, it looks stunning.
On the same machine, U2 would look crappy and play even worse.
Both Halo and Unreal2 looks amazing and im not going to bagger about "Halo looks better" or "Unreal 2 looks better" but we all agree - both the games looks stunning BUT Halo runs on a less up-to-date machine...

Then I kind of have the feeling that Halo will kick Unreal 2's ass but thats anohter story :]

IntRed
30th Oct 2001, 04:14 PM
from bungie

What are Halo's system requirements? Halo is being designed to run on the Xbox, which is equipped with 64MB of RAM, a 733Mhz P3-equivalent CPU, a Geforce 3-class graphics card, and a custom sound system. Speculation about the PC requirements of Halo is not useful right now as the PC version has not even been started.

It is assumed that the PC version of Halo will be able to scale down to meet the limits of those with lesser systems, but we don't know anything about this feature(s) at this time.

Drevlin
30th Oct 2001, 04:51 PM
it says on Halo's site p3 450 128mb ram (i think) and a geforce 2 and I tend to belive it

Halo isnt "designed" specificly for the Xbox - sure it has lots of features on Xbox and Microsoft "bought" halo so itll be released on Xbox first but that really doesnt mean anything

The ingame cinimatics and gameplay movies look a hell of a lot better than U2 Imo - more feel to it

Tetris L
30th Oct 2001, 05:09 PM
The Xbox's graphics chip NV2A is more powerful than the Geforce3's NV20. The main difference is a second vertex shader pipeline and a slightly higher core frequency. Plus it uses a special DirectX version optimized for the NV2A.

I guess to built a PC equally powerful as an Xbox you would need at least a 1GHz CPU with a Geforce3. The PC system requirements stated for Halo are a joke. It's about the same as for U2. We all know that the game will run (if at all) like a slideshow on such a system. Trying to run the game on anything less than 1 GHz machine will be very frustrating, I expect.

System specs for UW?? See http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89297

@kuma
30th Oct 2001, 10:21 PM
halo pushes a lot, lot less polys and runs at 30fps :)

SUNRISE
31st Oct 2001, 12:02 PM
Halo is for defintley not a game to brush off, however I think that it might be fairly one sided. We all know we can excpect a lot from UW an U2. I think the mere fact that the game takes place on a ring world will really limit the locals. I could be wrong but I guess what I am trying to say is I can see more potential with UW. To me that makes it worth paying a couple hundred extra to upgrade my system.

Drevlin
1st Nov 2001, 02:19 PM
Halo? one sided? okay, scuse me but are you nuts?
First of all, UW is a Multiplayer game ONLY while Halo bring a strong storyline with room for intruiges, cool battle scenes and REALLY cool world! Halo (the world/ring) is awesome! It has everything fro desert like sahara ---deserts--- to what looks to be a wintery climated zones - Vivechles: Driveable air crafts, jeeps, tanks and a hell of a weaponry selection. 10+ Human weapons and 10+ alien weapons.

As far as we know ... Well we dont really konw ANYTHING about UW atm but if one were to compare to u2 from what i've seen from both the games (which is pretty much all - both from halo and u2.. except the new Intro movie to halo thats available on the net - dont wanna see it :) I think Halo looks much better...

Halo one sided? Allow me to make an arrogant smufss
*smuffs*

SUNRISE
2nd Nov 2001, 11:14 AM
Halo doesn't really brake the mold on anything tho. It's just another FPS that is going to be released. the engine is good, but by the time it is realsed it's won't be that spectacular (compared to its competition) I mean what does it really offer us as players that we can't experience in any other game (thats the question I ask myself before buying any FPS), hence my dislike in Q3. I mean the game I am working on now has driveable vehicles and aircraft that can hold up to 20 players. I think if halo wants to sell in the PC world they have to show why they are diffrent and what it is they offer that no one else does. Unreal did that with its graphics, it's twist on the as per-usual weapons and team features. Again just my opinion here, but halo isn't anything new.
(flame)
PS- It's got purdy reflections tho.
PSS-it says on Halo's site p3 450 128mb ram (i think) and a geforce 2 and I tend to belive it Bahaha
(/flame)

PSS- I'm sorry that last one was mean ^_^

Daedalus
2nd Nov 2001, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Drevlin
are kinda high for UW.. or so i've heard *whistle whistle* :)
Now if you look at Halo (one of the games that im REALLY looking foward to atm) the sysrequirements are a p3 450mhz with a Geforce 2 - and, from what i understand, it looks stunning.
On the same machine, U2 would look crappy and play even worse.
Both Halo and Unreal2 looks amazing and im not going to bagger about "Halo looks better" or "Unreal 2 looks better" but we all agree - both the games looks stunning BUT Halo runs on a less up-to-date machine...

Then I kind of have the feeling that Halo will kick Unreal 2's ass but thats anohter story :]

eh...I thought this was a UW not U2? But anyway, I'm not really excited for Halo anymore....it's so old and with the big FLOP that Oni was, and their focus anymore for the game is "graphics" I feel there is gonna be very little fun involved, one of those games that makes you go "ooooooo" but it also would make you say "Why am I wasting my time with this piece of garbage?"

that's what I feel about Halo anymore...:(

Drevlin
3rd Nov 2001, 10:36 AM
First thing for me in games are atmosphere, not how many people that can ride in a dropship ("flame") ....

If you've seen the latest movies of Halo i think you'll agree it looks kickass.

If you messure a games greatness by its technology its really a big setback!

SUNRISE
3rd Nov 2001, 11:56 AM
I'd have to disagree. Every really great game had some revolutionary aspect to it. This is my last respose (pointless bickering from here on in me thinks)

GringoLoco
3rd Nov 2001, 02:35 PM
how about DeusEX? it was a really great game, but the technology.. umm.. didnīt differ much from UTīs engine.. the only about new thing ION Storm guys implemented in the game was lip-synch...

SUNRISE
3rd Nov 2001, 02:54 PM
Yabut the features and the gamestyle was revolutionary

Drevlin
3rd Nov 2001, 04:06 PM
Deus ex was built on the Unreal 1 engine (patch219 or 220 methinks)

GringoLoco
3rd Nov 2001, 10:24 PM
Deus Ex was LICENSED with the build of the engine.. and it gradually went upgrading until the 420 build of UT.. if you dont believe me go check out the readme files of the game.. or deusex sites.

Drevlin
4th Nov 2001, 07:15 AM
out-of-the box its an early u1 build, no matter what the box says
either that or a REALLLY lame version of the Ut engine

@kuma
4th Nov 2001, 10:40 AM
I seriously doubt they were merging their codebase up until 4.20 but I dunno :)

fragswill
5th Nov 2001, 02:41 PM
Since UT's unofficial recommendations are 500mhz and voodoo2, UW's should be something like 1 ghz and geforce2.

Drevlin
5th Nov 2001, 03:25 PM
FRAG!
WHAT THE HELL IS DAVID HASSELHOFF DOING THERE!? :OO

GringoLoco
5th Nov 2001, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by @kuma
I seriously doubt they were merging their codebase up until 4.20 but I dunno :)

Well, i remember reading the DeusEx me Readme file, and in the FAQ, when they were asking about the D3D drivers.. the answers said that "the game currently supports the D3D drivers found in the 420 patch of UT"... so that was the base from witch i made my last post in this subject..

dont know actually.. the truth about this I mean.

later,
GriNGoLoCo

Exar Kun [Sith]
5th Nov 2001, 11:26 PM
I think Deus Ex is based on the UT engine. If you access things like the preferences menu it is exactly the same as the one in UT. Plus when you chose the renderer the same menu comes up like the one UT uses.

On the subject of FPS what makes a game totally revolutionary? I mean lately alot of FPS have come out but they've been the run of the mill FPS. Alot of games can have good graphics but it could end up the same shoot bad guy, find key, etc. So what is everyone excepting to make a game really stand out on top?

Ulukai
6th Nov 2001, 08:02 AM
Do I replace my aging GeForce 256 with a GeForce 3, or wait for the inevitable 4th chipset?

Decisions decisions.

fragswill
6th Nov 2001, 09:03 AM
There is no such thing as a 'revolutionary' or 'original' FPS, at least if you look at it from a non-fps-gamer perspective.


Ulukai, wait and see.. muahaha

@kuma
6th Nov 2001, 10:27 AM
You should have replaced the gf DDR with a gf2-u

you're not in 'the loop' old boy ;)

I'd hold off on the GF3 if I were you, better things are (as always) just around the corner

Ulukai
6th Nov 2001, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by @kuma
You should have replaced the gf DDR with a gf2-u

Yeah, well that's the thing. It's one of the original SDR cards, and hence is basically a TNT2 with T&L tacked on....

Upgraded the processor by 600 Mhz or so, and I still get the same 3D Mark. It's asbsolutely throttling my system ATM

Barcode#09123111
9th Nov 2001, 11:23 PM
I will hold off the GF3 and will either get the 2002 GF-4 or sumthing else... what that is i dont no i am not a syhic

WiLD2
9th Nov 2001, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Barcode#09123111
I am happy about the 3 day weekend... I will look around but i think i am goin to get GF-3 :p WOOT WOOT.. i am quite happy..

Master_Blaster[MASTER
11th Nov 2001, 03:33 PM
Me: Dad can you upgrade the computer it is only a PII 233Mhz 64MB RAM with a Riva TNT video card :(

My Dad: No it's fine

Me: F*CK!

Barcode#09123111
12th Nov 2001, 08:41 PM
As i just read and didnt see b4... the Gf-3 Ti 200 has a non-prgrammable T&L witch means i am not sure what to do... A little help here

Ulukai
14th Nov 2001, 08:46 AM
Read up on your hardware reviews :)

Squint aka Hellfire
3rd Dec 2001, 02:59 PM
Since UT's unofficial recommendations are 500mhz and voodoo2, UW's should be something like 1 ghz and geforce2.

I have a Celeron 300MHz, 4Mb on-board ATI Rage Por chip and 96Mb ram and a 160k connection, and I can just about play small UT maps like DM-Turbine at about 20FPS offline, let alone online! So there is no hope for me at being able to play U2 or UW. PC Gamer mag said it would require at least a 2nd generation Geforce card to run reasonably. I've seen a Geforce 2 MX400 64Mb PCI card on the internet. Thats right I said PCI!
I only have PCI so I am limited to either this card or the Voodoo5 5500, which has no Hardware T&L! But I cant find any UK retailers of it. It's a Visiontek Xtasy 5564 PCI, although its only $91, which works out at Ģ63, i'll probably have to pay for shipping costs as well. It's the only Geforce 64Mb PCI card i've seen.
I'll probably need one to play Return To Castle Wolfenstein when i get it.


If anyone knows of any UK retailers online or offline that sell the Visiontek Xtasy 5564 64Mb PCI, could you please E-mail me with any details at the below address
Thx
:rl:

__________________
Email me at HellfireMk12@hotmail.com for any UT gfx tweaks

J. Speed
3rd Dec 2001, 06:07 PM
Squint or a1 else if you want to upgrade try this site:

http://www.pricewatch.com/

Squint aka Hellfire
4th Dec 2001, 11:19 AM
Thx J. Speed but i was looking for any UK retailers

:eek2:

J. Speed
4th Dec 2001, 07:15 PM
You never know some of the companies may ship overseas.
Going off memory ,not for sure because I haven't checked, you may save more money w/ a dollar to pound conversion............

Squint aka Hellfire
5th Dec 2001, 01:05 PM
oh ok, thx

:stupid: