Assasins Creed, dual core required

S

SAW

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,467
Title says it all.

Was just reading thru the info at Steam and it says a dual core is required. How can this be? Maybe they meant to say "Recommended"???

Although cheap to get right now, I just dont feel up to the crapola of changing out my CPU for a dual core just to play this one game.

I would have to think I "should" be able to run it since I was capable of playing thru Crysis without a hitch. Or is A.C. a more, umm, "robust" game than Crysis is/was?

I think I'll just go back and play some Morrowind or Oblivion if this statement of dual core requirement is true.

Due the consoles have a dual core?
 
Capfarland said:
The game is awful anyways.
Click to expand...

Too each his own on that one I guess.....Ive heard both sides of the wall on this game....Some say it sucks, some say its badass. But then again, isnt this what always happens with games, heh.

To me, its seems like a mixture of Prince of Persia and Thief jammed into one game. Am I wrong?
 
Let's just say, once you've played one mission, you've played them all. Lol ;)
 
Do you have the link? I closed the Steam notice, and I can never find the same information again on their website.
 
SAW said:
Title says it all.

Was just reading thru the info at Steam and it says a dual core is required. How can this be? Maybe they meant to say "Recommended"???

Although cheap to get right now, I just dont feel up to the crapola of changing out my CPU for a dual core just to play this one game.

I would have to think I "should" be able to run it since I was capable of playing thru Crysis without a hitch. Or is A.C. a more, umm, "robust" game than Crysis is/was?

I think I'll just go back and play some Morrowind or Oblivion if this statement of dual core requirement is true.

Due the consoles have a dual core?
Click to expand...


Yes, consoles are multi core. There will be a slider for amount of people in the cities. If you back this off you should prolly be able to play with a single core chip.
 
sweet this is exactly what I was waiting for, now who makes mass effect and will it be released on steam?
 
SAW said:
I think I'll just go back and play some Morrowind or Oblivion if this statement of dual core requirement is true.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me! Keep your word , okay?

Can't wait for this game, woohoo.
 
SAW said:
I would have to think I "should" be able to run it since I was capable of playing thru Crysis without a hitch.
Click to expand...

No offense, but you didn't play through Crysis without a hitch. Quad core Tri-SLI users cannot even play through Crysis without a hitch. ;)
 
jaguax said:
No offense, but you didn't play through Crysis without a hitch. Quad core Tri-SLI users cannot even play through Crysis without a hitch. ;)
Click to expand...

He has a 17" LCD.. I'm guessing he played "through crysis without a hitch" at 1024x768.
 
We can't keep on limiting the evolution of games because of old hardware standards, if you can't play because you don't have good enough or new enough hardware then you'll just have to upgrade like everyone else.
 
For real guys, how expensive is a dual core? If you don't have one by now it's time to upgrade.
 
l3ender said:
For real guys, how expensive is a dual core? If you don't have one by now it's time to upgrade.
Click to expand...

if only it was that simple...
if yr mobo accepts sure, £75 and yr laughing

but if it doesn't? then thats a new mobo, to find out you need compatable RAM

Worse-case? you also find that its all PCIe so replacing yr snd-card,network-card... not to mention SATA for thing from PATA

ie it could be cheap BUT it also could be very expensive
 
MrMike said:
MS does not make Mass Effect.
The PC release date is 5/27/2008, but I doubt we'll see it on Steam. I don't see any other Electronic Arts games on Steam?
Click to expand...

That's because EA has its own digital distribution system.
 
I believe I am going to have to disagree with a few statements made, I'm under the impression that PC games should push to be INclusive, rather than EXclusive.


Working to allow PC games to be scalable, and in some ways at least for moderate enjoyment played on older systems. Sure I have a decent enough dual-core processor and graphics card to enjoy this game, but I just can't find it in my heart to say "well you haven't upgraded in a few years so F you". If you were on a four year old AMD 64+ and Nvidia 6800 you won't be encouraged to upgrade your PC when it cost far less to purchase a new console.

In my humble opinion I believe the new "PC Gaming Alliance" should focus on issues new releases such as this impose. While in one hand optimizing all the good-looks of the new PC games, while still allowing those with existing hardware the chance to play.

Call of Duty 4 is a good example of a new game that while not only looks very decent on any platform, but still runs fairly well on a plethora of machines. What's the worst that can happen? Someone buys it on their old PC and says "screw this I'm selling it and getting it for my xbox"...or they buy it and say "hey this is pretty good, I might upgrade my ram because these dedicated servers, and aiming with the mouse is pretty cool". I think the latter benefits us all in the long run.
 
New PGA, is an organization that consists of members who all led PC gaming to its current state, don't expect any viable results or hold your breath... being cynical but check out each companies track records lol....Back to Topic, you could probably get away with single core, but it won't run nice, I doubt crysis did either.
 
MrMike said:
MS does not make Mass Effect.
The PC release date is 5/27/2008, but I doubt we'll see it on Steam. I don't see any other Electronic Arts games on Steam?
Click to expand...


Bioware developed Mass Effect and EA now owns them. However, MS published Mass Effect prior to the Merger/Buy-out. I'm not sure if MS is still the publisher for the PC version and I doubt they will be the publisher for the sequels. Nonetheless, Mass Effect 2 and 3 will probably be on the PC, but probably not going to be available on Steam.

I still prefer getting games the old-fashioned way any how.
 
independantvariable said:
I believe I am going to have to disagree with a few statements made, I'm under the impression that PC games should push to be INclusive, rather than EXclusive.


Working to allow PC games to be scalable, and in some ways at least for moderate enjoyment played on older systems. Sure I have a decent enough dual-core processor and graphics card to enjoy this game, but I just can't find it in my heart to say "well you haven't upgraded in a few years so F you". If you were on a four year old AMD 64+ and Nvidia 6800 you won't be encouraged to upgrade your PC when it cost far less to purchase a new console.

In my humble opinion I believe the new "PC Gaming Alliance" should focus on issues new releases such as this impose. While in one hand optimizing all the good-looks of the new PC games, while still allowing those with existing hardware the chance to play.

Call of Duty 4 is a good example of a new game that while not only looks very decent on any platform, but still runs fairly well on a plethora of machines. What's the worst that can happen? Someone buys it on their old PC and says "screw this I'm selling it and getting it for my xbox"...or they buy it and say "hey this is pretty good, I might upgrade my ram because these dedicated servers, and aiming with the mouse is pretty cool". I think the latter benefits us all in the long run.
Click to expand...


No it wouldn't. Because then 99% of the population, remember 99% of the population are idiots, will try to play it on a Pentium III with 128MB of ram and be like well damn XBOX360 looks 10000 times coolzer, leeter, and zomger!. 4 years ago the Xbox and PS2 were mid life cycle. 4 years ago we all played Diablo II. Thank god we don't play that crap anymore. What would help gaming is if we stop dressing up shitty systems as gaming systems.


/starts ranting cause he's having a bad day...
Hell look at what nvidia has done in recent times. The 9600GT will run practically anything on a 19" monitor and it's cheaper than hell. We need to get the video card manufactorers to cut the crap with the 200 diffrent models so the average user can look and go I have 200$ to spend, I will get this card. Not be forced to choose between a 7800 that for some reason frys still wants to label as a 200$ card and the 9600GT. I know it's "not that simple", but anything resembling a "universal benchmark" would be a god send at this point for the computer gaming industry. Imagine if you could pick up a box and it said this card rates at 92 graphics power. And you picked up a box from a 2 year old card for the same price and it says this card rates at 42 graphics power. Even if it isn't applicable for every situation, or varies with AA, or even is off +/-20% it would be so helpful to the average user. Go try to look at laptops and thier video cards. Hell I'm an enthusitast and can't figure out how powerful those things are.

/end rant...
 
Frosteh said:
We can't keep on limiting the evolution of games because of old hardware standards, if you can't play because you don't have good enough or new enough hardware then you'll just have to upgrade like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sorry for the guys that can't afford new hardware but don't you own consoles anyways? I mean I want the games to take advantage of my hardware. We can't move forward if they have to keep scaling for crappy PCs. I can see why devs love consoles, everyone has the same hardware inside of it. Prices are so cheap there is no reason any GAMER should not have a dual core CPU and at least 2 GB of ram.
 
I just picked it up for my PS3.... I thought overall it was a really good game. People who think otherwise, basically are not creative. If you are creative and still have some sort of imagination, this game is tons of fun. I strongly suggest turning off the radar on the HUD as well as the life bar (if you get close to dieing the screen will go all trippy on you, run or abuse parry), by doing so will make AC far more interesting of a game.

If you need to see where you need to go, pressing start opens up a map, which you can view objectives. Using the map to get a general idea of where you have to go, makes for a much more detailed adventure, rather than just eyeballing the radar and running in the direction of the flashing icon.

Walking the streets, trying to blend in and play the part of an assassin can be done in this game and is very enjoyable doing so... If you’re the type of person that likes to run and gun, this game will get repetitive for you after about an hour or so. The combat is pretty simple, and if you don't abuse parry, duels can make brutal cinematics. I personally liked the story, I like things like the Matrix and such. It can seem pretty far fetched, but what game isn’t these days :]

I come from a very artistic background. I generally tend to be very creative and not one of my assassinations felt like the one before it. I was glued to this game to the very end.

To those that didn’t enjoy it, instead of approaching the game as though you have to beat it right then and there, play it to enjoy it. Try turning off some of the HUD, and use view points the way they were meant to be used, to climb up the damn thing and scout out with your eyes and ears, not your radar.
 
Prices for hardware are coming down, gaming engines are becoming more advanced and there are a glut of new games coming out.

Software developers are relying on these advances to compete for top market share.

We'd all like to see games focusing on quality game play experiences, but at the end of the day, people see graphics as a top qualifier to purchase a game and developers have responded.

Not alot of games out there have brought any new innovation to the gaming community and can only rehash on pre-existing gaming framework (counterstrike, command and conquer, oblivion...)

Same old games, new graphics.
 
Baker said:
I just picked it up for my PS3.... I thought overall it was a really good game. People who think otherwise, basically are not creative. If you are creative and still have some sort of imagination, this game is tons of fun. I strongly suggest turning off the radar on the HUD as well as the life bar (if you get close to dieing the screen will go all trippy on you, run or abuse parry), by doing so will make AC far more interesting of a game.

If you need to see where you need to go, pressing start opens up a map, which you can view objectives. Using the map to get a general idea of where you have to go, makes for a much more detailed adventure, rather than just eyeballing the radar and running in the direction of the flashing icon.

Walking the streets, trying to blend in and play the part of an assassin can be done in this game and is very enjoyable doing so... If you’re the type of person that likes to run and gun, this game will get repetitive for you after about an hour or so.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I had voiced the same sentiments when the game first came out.

I played the game purely for enjoyment, and I loved it. I wasn't playing for achievement points, for review, or any sort of speed run. If you take your time and allow yourself to get into the character and environments, Assassins Creed is very fun.
 
eeyrjmr said:
if only it was that simple...
if yr mobo accepts sure, £75 and yr laughing

but if it doesn't? then thats a new mobo, to find out you need compatable RAM

Worse-case? you also find that its all PCIe so replacing yr snd-card,network-card... not to mention SATA for thing from PATA

ie it could be cheap BUT it also could be very expensive
Click to expand...

Here is a very basic flow of dual core readyness.

AMD

Socket 939 or newer? Yes -> AGP? -> Yes -> Most likely via BIOS update
Socket 939 or newer? Yes -> PCIe? -> Yes -> DC Ready.
Older than S939 = NO DC! UPGRADE!

Intel

PCIe + up to date BIOS? -> Yes. -> Supports SOME form of dual core processor.
 
Frosteh said:
We can't keep on limiting the evolution of games because of old hardware standards, if you can't play because you don't have good enough or new enough hardware then you'll just have to upgrade like everyone else.
Click to expand...


Ding Ding Ding!! We have a winner!

Dual Core CPUs have been out for 4 years now.. main stream for 3 with Quads being popular for a year..

Time has finally caught up with you my friend. Time to upgrade.
 
friedchicken said:
Prices for hardware are coming down, gaming engines are becoming more advanced and there are a glut of new games coming out.

Software developers are relying on these advances to compete for top market share.

We'd all like to see games focusing on quality game play experiences, but at the end of the day, people see graphics as a top qualifier to purchase a game and developers have responded.

Not alot of games out there have brought any new innovation to the gaming community and can only rehash on pre-existing gaming framework (counterstrike, command and conquer, oblivion...)

Same old games, new graphics.
Click to expand...


From the sounds of it, some people would want game engine development to stop completely at the Doom 3 Engine Level..

Hmm..

Food for though.. What if Crysis Level Graphics were it, the end of the road for high end graphics development... What would game makers do then?
 
Wow. People bitch about games not taking advantage of dual-core processors and games taking advantage of dual-core processors. :rolleyes:

It's not the end of the world if you can't play a game when you want to. Come back to it when you have a newer computer. There's plenty of good games that don't require dual-core processors...

Look how cheap dual-core COMPUTERS are! Add a 9600 GT for $150 and you're still a long ways under $1000... will you be able to play with everything turned up? OF COURSE NOT! That's besides the point!

Get with the times, folks. It's not the end of the world if you can't play a freaking computer game.
 
General Crespin said:
Wow. People bitch about games not taking advantage of dual-core processors and games taking advantage of dual-core processors. :rolleyes:

It's not the end of the world if you can't play a game when you want to. Come back to it when you have a newer computer. There's plenty of good games that don't require dual-core processors...

Look how cheap dual-core COMPUTERS are! Add a 9600 GT for $150 and you're still a long ways under $1000... will you be able to play with everything turned up? OF COURSE NOT! That's besides the point!

Get with the times, folks. It's not the end of the world if you can't play a freaking computer game.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have a Dual Core Deal in the Hot Deals Section, Dual Core Conroe Based Celeron, Motherboard and 2gigs of Ram for $128, Add a $120 8800GS and you have a nice game rig for $250 (not counting case and the like).
 
What is so surprising about dual core requirement? 360 has 3 core with SMT for a total of 6 hardware threads, and PS3 has a PPU and 7 spus. The engine was designed with this in mind, it would be unreasonable for Ubisoft to rewrite it completely for PC single core when the sales won't be that great anyway.
 
independantvariable said:
I believe I am going to have to disagree with a few statements made, I'm under the impression that PC games should push to be INclusive, rather than EXclusive.


Working to allow PC games to be scalable, and in some ways at least for moderate enjoyment played on older systems. Sure I have a decent enough dual-core processor and graphics card to enjoy this game, but I just can't find it in my heart to say "well you haven't upgraded in a few years so F you". If you were on a four year old AMD 64+ and Nvidia 6800 you won't be encouraged to upgrade your PC when it cost far less to purchase a new console.
Click to expand...

As much as I think it would be a smart move to allow four year old PCs to play current games. Then again it would be smart for companies to allow gaming on IGPs as well. The more inclusive you get the worse the experience gets. Moving from single core to dual or quad core is like moving from your xbox to the 360. You wouldn't expect to play 360 games on the original xbox would you? Of course people throw in the cost to upgrade the PC. At this point hardware is dirt cheap. A gig of RAM for 20 bucks, low end dual cores for $50, mid high GPUs for $150, its insane. If you can stomach $300 for a new console, what is so outrageous about spending $500 (cost of a decked out PS3) for a new PC?
 
jaguax said:
No offense, but you didn't play through Crysis without a hitch. Quad core Tri-SLI users cannot even play through Crysis without a hitch. ;)
Click to expand...

I didnt think I needed to be detailed about it. When I say "without a hitch", I am referring to "it was playable". I was indeed able to play thru the game, thats all I meant.

RangerSVT said:
He has a 17" LCD.. I'm guessing he played "through crysis without a hitch" at 1024x768.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was 1280x1024. Whats wrong with that?

Why ya'll pickin on me :(

I dont have a dual core simple cause the process of going thru that particular upgrade would, in my terms, be a hassle. I just havent had the "want" to do it yet.
 
SAW said:
I dont have a dual core simple cause the process of going thru that particular upgrade would, in my terms, be a hassle. I just havent had the "want" to do it yet.
Click to expand...

But you can rag on developers for moving along with technology? You can delete your thread now.
 
General Crespin said:
Wow. People bitch about games not taking advantage of dual-core processors and games taking advantage of dual-core processors. :rolleyes:

It's not the end of the world if you can't play a game when you want to. Come back to it when you have a newer computer. There's plenty of good games that don't require dual-core processors...

Look how cheap dual-core COMPUTERS are! Add a 9600 GT for $150 and you're still a long ways under $1000... will you be able to play with everything turned up? OF COURSE NOT! That's besides the point!

Get with the times, folks. It's not the end of the world if you can't play a freaking computer game.
Click to expand...

QFT this is a good thing people. We have been whining about lack of multi-core support since the x2 came out.
 
PoweredBySoy said:
But you can rag on developers for moving along with technology? You can delete your thread now.
Click to expand...

Who's "ragging"? Didnt say one word of negativity in my post towards anyone, but if I were to "rag" on the devs, it would be about putting out a NEW game instead of something thats been done before and just revamped.

Anyways, this post wasnt a rant, YOU guys turned it into one. I simply wanted to know if the dual core thing was true or not, or could I play it on my system. I dont see how thats a rant????

And since you guys have brought up the fact of "evolving" and "upgrading". I built this computer (minus the 8800gts, used to be a 7900gt) slightly under 2 years ago. Back then, I "could" have bought a dual core, but from what I was reading (back then), there were many issues with them and since im no computer genius at figuring out how to fix something on the computer, I went with a tried and true 3700+ San Diego CPU.

When I built this computer, it was my first time doing so and was not accustomed to the aspect of "upgrade every 6 mths" scenario. At the time, I spent $1200 on my whole set up and it took me a LOT of time to save up and buy the parts I needed. I was expecting to NOT have to upgrade for at least 3-4 years. Im not the type of gamer who NEEDS everything set to its max settings and feel perfectly fine playing my games at the 1280x1024 rez. I dont overclock at all and usually use default graphics settings in my games. Whats wrong with that?

Also, "time", for me, seems to be going by at lightning speed. Seems just like last week, my daughter was 2yrs old, but shes 4 now.....Where'd the time go???? Seems like it was just a flash. Same thing for my computer and its components. I remember when I was reading thru these forums and asking questions on what I should get and back then, if you didnt have a 3700+, you were on the lowest totem pole.

Let me also add (if your still reading), I got ripped off by my own brother-in-law. About 3 years ago, I knew NOTHING of building a computer, what was good, what was bad, yadda yadda. But, he supposedly did. I asked him for a simple favor, I give him the money to order my parts for me and to build my system. I give him $500 one day and $500 the next day to order my parts.

2 weeks go by and all I have recieved from him was a $35 plain jane case, a simple Audigy 2 sound card and a Gigabyte mobo.....zero receipts. He tells me the rest of the stuff is on order. 2 weeks go by, still nothing. another 2 weeks go by, still nothing and then he stops answering his phone. I talk to my wife, she talks to her parents and I find out the little shit head took his family to Disney World........yet he didnt have a job. Hmmmmm.....how else did he go then I wonder???

Later, I start checking out prices and learning this stuff myself (about the time I joined the [H]) and find out he got me cheap ass Wal-Mart crap and I have no idea where he got this mobo from, which, the box wasnt wrapped in plastic as a new one would have been. So, basically, a grand out the window and nothing I can do about it but threaten to kick his ass, which my wife practically begged me not to do (I was severely pissed off).

So, I have a mobo, a case and a sound card. Woopty fukin doo. Well, since money obviously doesnt grow on trees, I had to start the savings all over again and so, I ordered the parts I needed, one part at a time. Id save up $300 bucks, Id buy my video card. Save up another $250, Id buy my CPU....etc. 3 to 6 mths later, I finally have all the stuff I was supposed to have the year before. But, of course, by now, the stuff I ordered was already on its way out the door of being obsolete (didnt know that at that time though).

So, I have 2 kids and a bitchy wife when it comes to spending money on fruitless items when the house is in need of repair and my job has slowed wayyyyyyyyyyyy down (my income dropped to less than half of what I was making).

So, I see a game I wanted to play, but was for consoles only (no I do not own ANY consoles), finding out a DUAL CORE is required was a bit upsetting, to say the least. I cant just bring up NewEgg on the browser and click that 4200+ dual core and buy it on a whim.

Make more sense now why I havent upgraded?

Besides, TF2, Company of Heros, Morrowind, Oblivion and KOTOR run perfectly fine on this current system, so Im good for now. Just couldnt believe my eyes when I read DUAL CORE required.

Okie Dokie guys???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top