Fine then, I won't use the editor, I jsut wanna play the freaking game.
Plus, I have heard numerous (and I mean A LOT) reports that people got decent framerates using an overclocked E5200. I don't want the game to look good, I just want to play the ***ing game. Why should I spend hundreds dollars for one part just to play the game when I can buy something for cheaper and enjoy the game with it? I'm following the back of the freaking game case itself. If you want to go out and buy $200 parts so your game would have ludicrous framerates on everything set to very high, then you could do that. I, however, would rather have the game look like crap than to not be able to play it at all.
Y'see, this is why I prefer consoles. You just go out, buy the damn console and the game, hook the console up, and you're off playing the game. No need to spend hundreds of dollars every year just to play the newest games. It's too bad that buying a PS3 and UT3 is almost exactly the same price as building a new computer with newly bought parts. And you PC nuts are going around tooting your horn about how the PC is the best when it's the only option costing you hundreds of dollars a year just to play some games when you could just spend the $200+ dollars once and then you're set until the next console release.
And then you have people trying to convince you to spend even more money just to play a game. Doesn't the word "budget" mean anything to you?
Minimum specs are utterly laughable, and will barely give an acceptable performance. You seem to not care that the performance will be only borderline playable, so then that's fine for you, I suppose. Me, 30 FPS would be borderline UNPLAYABLE. Especially if I play the game online. Framerate is your life, especially online, and between two evenly skilled guys, one who gets 90 FPS will in all likelihood do better than one who gets 30, for the simple fact that the 90 FPS guy is seeing his opponent move three times as smoothly.
And while I see your point, you're basically doing stopgap measures, as that CPU won't be able to run any of the newer games for much longer. Then you're going to need to pay again on something newer, and voila, there's the "extra" money you're "wasting" on a "newer" CPU. And I doubt it'll be for that platform - Intel's newer CPUs will be for the most part on the LGA 1366/Core i7 platform. Which, by the way, means not only a newer motherboard, but also likely newer RAM.
You can skimp on the RAM (both in terms of amount and even in type - a few Core i7 boards do support DDR2) and maybe even a videocard to a degree, but the one thing you never want to cheap out on once you know how to build PCs is your CPU. Period. You must not work or have any sort of real cash flow if you cannot afford something only $100 cheaper. It's not like I'm telling you "That 9600 GS sucks, go buy a $400 GTX 295." Granted, the people who buy the Extreme Edition versions are idiots in my book... there's usually a sweet spot of price/performance, and that's lately been around $200.
Also, before Zynthetic's post gives you the wrong ideas (since you're likely to see that her CPU has the higher clock rate and thus better) the E5200 you had picked out is better than her Pentium D 805 - yours is based on the Core technology, while her 805 is P6 (Netburst, AKA Pentium 4) based. Your CPU is more efficient and kicks less heat than hers does.
But hey, I'm the guy who's trying to get you to blow OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money on a CPU, so what do I know?
