System requirements
LPC
Join Date: 2002-04-07 Member: 384Members, Reinforced - Diamond
Join Date: 2002-04-07 Member: 384Members, Reinforced - Diamond
Posting this because Im a fan of NS1 (and 2), but the sys requirements are a pain in the *** for me.
Natural Selection 2 System Requirements:
1.2 GHz Processor,
256MB RAM,
a DirectX 9 level graphics card,
Windows Vista/2000/XP,
Official Half-Life 2 Box minimum specs:
Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor
OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card
Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
Memory: 256 MB RAM
ok..... so let's say I have a PC with the minimum specs which can run Half-life 2, at 20-30 FPS all settings on minimal detail.
(remember, all this with 256 MB RAM, (YEAH RIGHT))
Now I want to play NS2 on the same machine.
The only thing I need to do for this, is upgrade my PC to a DirectX 9 level graphics card.
Is upgrading to a DX9 level vid card from a DX7 level vid vard going to give me dynamic infestation _and_ dynamic lightning?
with 256 MB RAM? YEAH...... RIGHT???
is NS2 going to run on this:
Pentium III 1.2 GHz
Gigabyte Radeon 9550 128MB 8x AGP
Supports the latest Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 and OpenGL® 1.5 feature sets
Memory: 256 MB RAM
OS: Win XP or Win 7
answer: no, never.
so why advertise with it?
either be more specific or just crank up the requirements.
remember also that NS2 is multiplayer only, multiplayer usually demands even more from your PC.
Natural Selection 2 System Requirements:
1.2 GHz Processor,
256MB RAM,
a DirectX 9 level graphics card,
Windows Vista/2000/XP,
Official Half-Life 2 Box minimum specs:
Processor: 1.2 GHz Processor
OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
Graphic card: DirectX 7 level graphics card
Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
Memory: 256 MB RAM
ok..... so let's say I have a PC with the minimum specs which can run Half-life 2, at 20-30 FPS all settings on minimal detail.
(remember, all this with 256 MB RAM, (YEAH RIGHT))
Now I want to play NS2 on the same machine.
The only thing I need to do for this, is upgrade my PC to a DirectX 9 level graphics card.
Is upgrading to a DX9 level vid card from a DX7 level vid vard going to give me dynamic infestation _and_ dynamic lightning?
with 256 MB RAM? YEAH...... RIGHT???
is NS2 going to run on this:
Pentium III 1.2 GHz
Gigabyte Radeon 9550 128MB 8x AGP
Supports the latest Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 and OpenGL® 1.5 feature sets
Memory: 256 MB RAM
OS: Win XP or Win 7
answer: no, never.
so why advertise with it?
either be more specific or just crank up the requirements.
remember also that NS2 is multiplayer only, multiplayer usually demands even more from your PC.
Comments
you don't have a computer good enough? your specs = ?
if you're saying the sys. reqs. are a bit too liberal, i agree. but it has nothing with the bad alpha perfomance to do, fyi.
A 'Modern' PC should contain:
Dual-Core CPU above 2Ghz,
1-2GB RAM
4GB Free HDD Space
256MB DX9 Level GFX Card.
If you have less than that, don't expect <b>any</b> modern game to run.
same with most of the games in the industry.
NS2 however is more next-gen then HL2 Source, with effectivly the same specs as HL2.
-> seriously, if you have 256 MB RAM memory, not a videocard upgrade in the world is going to help you.
the specs are not only a bit liberal, they are simply wrong.
make it a 1.6 GHz single core, or a 1.2 Ghz dual core.
and trow in a minimum of 512 MB RAM.
edit: and indeed, it still would run at less then 10 FPS most of the time. so wtf.
it's just way off.
edit2: what exactly is considered is a playable framerate? I hope it's a minimum of 20FPS?
same with most of the games in the industry.
NS2 however is more next-gen then HL2 Source, with effectivly the same specs as HL2.
-> seriously, if you have 256 MB RAM memory, not a videocard upgrade in the world is going to help you.
the specs are not only a bit liberal, they are simply wrong.
make it a 1.6 GHz single core, or a 1.2 Ghz dual core.
and trow in a minimum of 512 MB RAM.
edit: and indeed, it still would run at less then 10 FPS most of the time. so wtf.
it's just way off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Half life 2 is an absolutely ANCIENT engine. Of course you'd be able to run it fine but NS2 is a bang up to date game running on a completely next gen engine. Spark absolutely blows Source out of the water. I never understand why people still compare modern games to Half life 2 an engine that was developed over 6 years ago and then complain that their 2005 PC can't run a modern game.
You fail at realizing that UWE advertises the game with extremely low minimum requirements, which is the whole point of this thread.
Personnally I don't understand people saying Spark is ugly and Source is nicer-looking, so much people with ###### overlaying their vision !
Edit : meh.
dude, I didn't compare HL2 with NS2.
basicly it's like this: Unknownworlds gave nearly the same specs as HL2, only with a better vid card
so for the record: I'm discussing the min sys reqs _they_ (read: Unknownworlds) gave us.
so far most of you agree with me, but you are somehow blaming me for believing the specs _they_ give me.
that's weird.
edit: a further point - UWE are opening themselves up to a lot of people who've bought the game demanding refunds if they decide they don't like the game and/or don't want to wait for it to be released. All they have to do is say they've got the minimum specs and can't run the game, UWE can't really prove they're fibbing (if they are) and so should be required to give a refund (under most consumer / sales acts that I could think of).
Add in the whole point of ignoring sales taxes (e.g. VAT) <i>(I speculate there but will continue to do so until I hear they've considered it and know it doesn't apply or hear of VAT being charged) </i> and there are a few less scrupulous bits going on. I imagine it's more a case of having heads in the sand, rather than malice / fraud on the mind, but it's daft none the less.
They list a mix of requirements & required free resources.
This means after your system has started up and all your on-load apps are running, does your system have the minimum amount of required resources left over to run the game sufficiently.
Its not asking you if your have 256MB RAM in your system, Its asking you have you got atleast 256MB left over to run the game?
In my case my system needs atleast 2Gig of Ram for me to meet that requirement cause i have loads of stuff running.
Though My "Reccomended" requirements if i wrote them would be, Single Core 2.4Ghz, 1Gig of Ram, 512MB DX9 Card.
Start saving your money now so you can really enjoy all aspects of this game. Figure you're going to need pci express HD card and new monitor and ton of ram to move your gaming to the next decade. I don't one new game that runs on well on the minimum requirements but who knows maybe ns2 will be at release.
The minimum requirements, regardless if they seem.. over optimistic, are for the final retail release of the game. Until it's done, there's really no-way in knowing if the minimum requirements are sufficient or not to play this game upon release.
Minimum requirements aren't applied to the alpha. Because of the obvious.
EDIT: I also imagine that since this is a new engine thats in alpha, the devs themselves wont known what the minimum requirements will be until its done and done. The previous requirements seem to be the Source ones, since NS2 at one point, was going to be on the Source Engine.
Minimum requirements aren't applied to the alpha. Because of the obvious.
EDIT: I also imagine that since this is a new engine thats in alpha, the devs themselves wont known what the minimum requirements will be until its done and done. The previous requirements seem to be the Source ones, since NS2 at one point, was going to be on the Source Engine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Malaka hit it spot on. As it stands, sure the minimum requirements are unrealistic. But, as the game gets closer to retail release, they will update as needed what the minimum requirements will be.
Also, I don't know about you guys, but I never ever pay attention to minimum specs. I've never seen a game run enjoyably on a minimum system. To me, minimum specs are more in line with released recommended specs for a game, and I usually make sure I'm beyond that as well.
Minimum requirements on most games are usually very unrealistic. It's very literal. Enough to "RUN" the game. Even if you get appalling performance.
I'm pretty sure those who got their hands on the alpha of Half-life 2 would of noticed that the now minimum requirements would of been totally unrealistic.
they range from "being able to start/run the game (at lowest settings and probably minimal/unplayable fps)" to "fully playable at lowest settings".
in ns2's case, i'd say it won't even run on a GPU below dx9.0c
maybe cos of no hardware support, but definitely cos no graphics card of those generations can produce a playable fps (in even hl2) nor do they exist for pci-e.
i'd say as min specs (today in general, to get a *bearable* gaming experience):
modern (2y) dualcore, midrange or up
modern (nV 9000 series, amd hd 3000 series and up), midrange or up GPU
at the very least 2GB ram (4GB preferable, above 6GB is a total waste as far as gaming goes)
any good HDD
vista/w7
They list a mix of requirements & required free resources.
This means after your system has started up and all your on-load apps are running, does your system have the minimum amount of required resources left over to run the game sufficiently.
Its not asking you if your have 256MB RAM in your system, Its asking you have you got atleast 256MB left over to run the game?
In my case my system needs atleast 2Gig of Ram for me to meet that requirement cause i have loads of stuff running.
Though My "Reccomended" requirements if i wrote them would be, Single Core 2.4Ghz, 1Gig of Ram, 512MB DX9 Card.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
seems fair.
make it:
256 MB (free physical memory)
and I'll believe the minimum specs
For those of you saying that it is silly to go by the minimum requirements for a game:
What if I install a washing machine, and the guide says it needs at least a 22mm copper pipe for the water supply;
<b>Should a 22mm copper pipe be suffecient, or should I use a 40mm copper pipe because the manual is probably wrong anyways? </b>
make it:
256 MB (free physical memory)
and I'll believe the minimum specs
For those of you saying that it is silly to go by the minimum requirements for a game:
What if I install a washing machine, and the guide says it needs at least a 22mm copper pipe for the water supply;
<b>Should a 22mm copper pipe be suffecient, or should I use a 40mm copper pipe because the manual is probably wrong anyways? </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that was bad and you should feel bad. a more apt comparison is, if the washing machine is rated for a current draw of 10A under load, should you plug it in to a circuit with a breaker that is rated to trip at 10A, or should you plug it into one that's rated to trip at 20A?
Overclock a 15mm pipe and try to squeeze by.
a dude working at McDonalds could afford a comp that could play NS2 .. stop whining
if your computer barely makes minimum req then don't expect the eyecandy, it's the same with any other game out there.
if your computer barely makes minimum req then don't expect the eyecandy, it's the same with any other game out there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
geez, the point is that it simply won't even load the game into to main menu with the minimum specs UWE gives us.
Is it so hard to believe that Im complaining about just _that_.
and no, not even the 1.0 official version would run with 256MB RAM. get it now?
if someone meets the minimum requirements they should be able to play the game, or get a refund if it doesn't.
bottom line is, UWE should up the specs in order to prevent mass complainers who were tricked into being able to run the game.
it's for their OWN sake.
4.5 GB HD space is obviously free space left over (however, to some even this is not obvious).
a DX 9.0 vid card is obvious too.
but then:
1.2 Ghz processor - is this 1.2 GHz above the hertz I need to run Windows? or is a 1.2 GHz processor seriously enough?
256MB RAM - ok, so I have 256 MB RAM, am I fine? no. obviously? no! not every gamer is a whizzkid, not every parent of a 12 year old child is a whizzdude.
How hard can it be to the write minimum requirements down so that they can only be interpreted in _one_ way.
That claim would mean it could run on my old:
AMD Thunderbird 1,4
1536Mb DDR1 <- why do you only have 256Mb of memory LPC, that seems soooo unlikely!
ATI 9800XTpro <- I guess it could work, it was a pretty good card... Still real time lighting and all?
Which I find hard to believe (CPU part) <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/confused.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
(this sentence is mine)
First, if the sys. req. say that you need at least Win XP then you know you need no less the 1Gb of RAM, and better if you have 2Gb.
Everything else you say is plain trolling. As everyone is tired of people complaining about the game in this stage you have found a new path to keep complaining.
Do you put your head inside a microwave and turn it on? The specifications don't say that you don't have to do that, so...
COMMON SENSE!!!
Multiple interpretations should always be avoided, everyday things should be clear as an icecube. minimum system requirements is one of those everyday things. (at least for idiots like myself).
I'm just now reading Blizzard's Starcraft 2 requirements, they should be an example to the rest of the industry (I haven't got time to read up on other developers, sorry):
Starcraft 2, minimum system requirements
OS: Windows XP/VISTA/7
PROC: 2.6 Pentium IV or equivelant AMD Athlon Processor. (obviously they have some sort of advertising deal with Intel?)
VID CARD: 128MB 6600GT or 9800 PRO (or better)
MEMORY: 1GB RAM (1.5GB required for VISTA/WIN7 users.)
See how they don't advertise with the ammount of RAM memory the game actually consumes, but with how much you actually _NEED_
-> that is a big difference with UWE, what UWE does would be fine, as long as they mention that it is 256MB RAM _above_ the RAM you use onder normal conditions.
(also notice the processor requirement, does starcraft 2 seriously use more then twice the CPU power, I would be very surprised)
That claim would mean it could run on my old:
AMD Thunderbird 1,4
1536Mb DDR1 <- why do you only have 256Mb of memory LPC, that seems soooo unlikely!
ATI 9800XTpro <- I guess it could work, it was a pretty good card... Still real time lighting and all?
Which I find hard to believe (CPU part) <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/confused.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
256 mb ram is more like 1997-98
Not quite, 97-98 would have been 32mb (64 in really expensive NT machines).