Assasin's Creed *Minimum* Requirments

Chombo said:
The texture resolution had better be the best texturing job to date.
Click to expand...

From what I have gathered, the resolution on those textures will exceed the ressolution of your monitor, overlapping your screen . :eek:
 
It's not that I'm shocked with the requirements, but this is no doubt, a poorly optimized console port, as seems to be the "Ubisoft" norm. Rainbow Six Vegas anyone ?
They obviously already catered to the console folk and made their "million bucks". So the PC version gets extremely high minimum requirements, as an excuse for a poorly optimized game.
Bioshock was a clear example of a console port, but at least they optimized it enough to run decently on a modest PC. It's just another Ubisoft game I won't buy. The last one was Rainbow Six Vegas and I call it quits.
 
Mortuus said:
Ouch.. thoose are insane high.. geez i doubt this game has any super duper textures higher then crysis, or even levels bigger then huge islands ? come on.. the 360 has only 512mb memory and for pc its recommended 3gb ? Are they insane..:confused:

And they wonder why pc-games are going downhill.. it feels more like insane system requirements and lousy protections like starforce hurts more then "piracy" does.
Click to expand...

big islands? actually crysis was quite linear. you couldnt just travel anywhere you wanted to...
with assassins creed there is no linearity, you can climb any building, hide in any barrel, do whatever, plus a full scale city you travel through - yeah, that gonna eat some ram and cpu cycles:D
 
Roufuss said:
Really, really doubt it... Ubisoft does the worst, sloppiest ports to the PC and doesn't optimize their game for the PC at all. That's probably the reason for these high requirements, Ubisoft is just shitting out another stinker without taking the time to optimize it for anything.

Vegas was so bad on the PC... they couldn't even do widescreen right!!! Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, while not a port, was buggy as hell, GRAW was a shitty mess on the PC, Blazing Angels 2 was horrible and full of bugs, and those are just off the top of my head!

They make some decent console games, but they just blow when it comes to PC stuff. Assassin's Creed was already buggy on the consoles, it's just going to be crap on the PC... I just avoid Ubisoft like the plague now when it comes to PC games. I'm surprised at the amount of people looking forward to AC when Ubisoft's track record is so horrible.
Click to expand...

I am running Vegas, GRAW1 and GRAW2 without flaws on my PC. One thing that sucked about GRAW1 was the in game bugs with the retarded team AI. The patches sorted it all out for me and I dont install any game unless it has had a few patches out. I beat GRAW1 and beat the first few missions of GRAW2. I dont have any problems at all.

Right now I am playing Vegas. I have the settigns cranked up and am playing at my native 2560 x 1600 resolution with a little widescreen mod. Every setting maxed out just like the other Tom Clancy games I have played on my system. Perfomance is excellent I have 60 fps for the most part in the outdoors but it does drop to the 30s in the interiors.

IMHO UBI has done some of the better ports. I really want to play GoW for example but am simply afriad to purchase it because of the nightmarish posts in the GoW forum. It seems EPIC does even worse ports! And also there is no subtantial patch out yet for it. I always wait for a few months to allow the prices of the games to drop to the low 20s. Then I can get 2 games for the price of one just released game. And the added benefit is that by that time a lot of the bugs are just quashed. win-win situation for me.
 
Bunch of whiners. When Battlefield 2 came out it pushed the requirement for 2GB of ram. Now, two and a half years later 2GB is the norm and we're starting to see the need of 3GB...

What's the big deal? Worlds get bigger, textures get more detailed and AI gets sharper. Besides. DDR2 is so cheap right now. No one should be complaining.

As for unoptimized port. You havent even played it yet.
 
So who is whining about whiners? How ironic.

I do agree putting an extra 2GBs in is no problem whatsoever, PC6400 RAM is dirt cheap
 
spicey said:
So who is whining about whiners? How ironic.

I do agree putting an extra 2GBs in is no problem whatsoever, PC6400 RAM is dirt cheap
Click to expand...
which is almost useless for the 99% of people with a 32-bit OS.

also, maybe Im confused but I thought that 32-bit Vista couldnt actually give more than 2gb to any one application.
 
Thats retarded.

Vista and 2 gigs of ram with cost like $120 at least...

Are they trying to be "cool" like crysis to make people buy hardware just to play there game...
 
Vista Ultimate 32 bit came with the 64bit version too. It's just a hassle to reformat and put 64bit on. I went with 32Bit as it seemed more stable and better supported early on.
 
I'm amazed that 2 months before the release of a game people have already decided that it must be a shitty port just because it has high specs. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe thier minimum specs aren't assuming your running at 320x200 0xAA 0xAF ultra low graphic settings? While I don't have anymore knowledge than anyone who doesn't work at Ubisoft but my take is maybe they're putting out specs that actually mean something instead of specs that say "well as long as you don't turn your resolution above 320x200 or turn on any of the graphic features you can play it with maybe 5 fps!"
 
For all of you crying about RAM, get over it. You can get PC-800 DDR2 for 13 bucks per gig. You can't keep crying about games not being at a "console" level, and simultaneously whine about 30 dollars of RAM to help you get there.

If you own Vista 32 bit, you already own Vista 64 bit, whether you have the media or not. Go torrent the x64 dvd and use your cdkey; it will work just fine, and is actually more stable than 32 bit.

If you use XP, you're using a 7 year old O/S, and you need to get over yourselves. You can't have it all.
 
While Johnny's somewhat right...should users have to get a new OS (including a complete reinstall for anyone on a 32-bit OS), more RAM, and in many cases get a new video card for a single game? It just seems like a lot of trouble for a game that runs flawlessly on the current consoles.
I realize that PC gaming involves regular upgrades, but this is Assassin's Creed...not Crysis. Someone's doing something wrong or taking a shortcut somewhere.

For anyone really fretting about this...I suggest renting a 360 and the game and trying i out before going through with any upgrades. It's a good game but it's not THAT good.
 
Running a dual core system with 4 gigs of RAM will improve your entire computing experience, games aside. Standards are always increasing, and it's no reason to stick with an aged O/S that can't handle more than 3gb of RAM.
 
JohnnyNapalm said:
Running a dual core system with 4 gigs of RAM will improve your entire computing experience, games aside. Standards are always increasing, and it's no reason to stick with an aged O/S that can't handle more than 3gb of RAM.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about Vista 32...which is far more common than its 64-bit brother due to them not selling it in normal retail outlets or packing it in with most new PC's. That's the main issue. Even people that upgraded to Vista recently are stuck and you can't upgrade to Vista 64 without either a format or reinstalling the OS/programs. There's no way to "upgrade" to Vista64 without wiping everything, which most consumers don't want to do. One top of it, the only way to get Vista 64 is to order a 2nd DVD from MS or "find" the media on a torrent site. Not exactly a walk in the park.
 
ATI RADEON X1300-1950 / HD 2000 / 3000 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6600-6800 / 7 / 8 / 9 series
Click to expand...
Honestly if your V.card isn't at least a X1300 and your complaining you can't run a game as well as a console you need help. X1300 is weaker than an X800. Geforce6600 that what a 4 year old card now? Or is it 5? This is like complaining I can't run a PS3 game on my PS2.


RAM: 2 GB
Click to expand...

This costs less than the game. If your running 1Gig and you can't afford 13$ to get a second, you can't afford the game so shut up.


And the upper limit of ram on a 32 bit OS is closer to 3.5 Gigs than 3 gigs, unless you've got a 768meg or 1 gig V.card. But if you have one of these why are you complaining about system specs.
 
Frosteh said:
Not really sure what some of you were expecting? This game looks awesome, it's going to need some high specs.

Its about time dual core CPU's started becoming min spec, it shows developers are starting to take advantage of the technology.
Click to expand...



True,I cant wait to buy and play it.As for Dark Messiah,I never had any issues with it,from start to finish on my sig rig maxxed @ 19x12.

No crashes no nothing,and this was unpatched. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top