HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Looking at the recommended specs for Dying Light, you'd better have a pretty stout rig if you plan on picking this one up.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Dying Light Specs Are Steep
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 54,660
Same guys who did Dead Island, so I would be expecting a microstuttering mess with very narrow FoV. And head bobbing that could make you sick.
Ripperjack
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 299
Well... so much for playing that game! 
While my current rig, even thought it is just over 4 years old, blasts through all but one of the recommended specs as I only have 12Gb of RAM, such high memory requirements screams...
UNOPTIMIZED CODE!!!
Since this game is for the PC, is in essence a port from the PS4, why on earth does it recommend 16GB and need 8GB??!!
I understand the concept of scaling, so maybe the graphics could be better on the PC requiring more memory. However if after the game releases and I see reviews with PC/PS4 side by side comparisons showing the graphics more of less the same... I'd be mightily pissed!
While my current rig, even thought it is just over 4 years old, blasts through all but one of the recommended specs as I only have 12Gb of RAM, such high memory requirements screams...
UNOPTIMIZED CODE!!!
Since this game is for the PC, is in essence a port from the PS4, why on earth does it recommend 16GB and need 8GB??!!
I understand the concept of scaling, so maybe the graphics could be better on the PC requiring more memory. However if after the game releases and I see reviews with PC/PS4 side by side comparisons showing the graphics more of less the same... I'd be mightily pissed!
Multiplayer.
It'll probably handle 2-3x the number of players that the Xbone or PS4 would support and needs the extra ram.
That or there's a memory leak that's going to cause it to crash after 4 hours of play....
I'm a bit turned off, my rig is quad core i5 @ 3.1ghz but I've got 12 gigs of ram and a 750ti, which by March will be a 970.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
My thought is they are running an xbone emulator on top of your OS. So they need the larger ram space to do it without OS interfearance.
And DX 10.
ALL of that other crap but DX 10?
THAT RIGHT THERE is why they need so much memory.
They have a lot of object repitition and DX 11 if I remember correctly was touted for allowing this without crazy memory requirements.
Who the hell codes a modern game for DX 10?!
And DX 10.
ALL of that other crap but DX 10?
THAT RIGHT THERE is why they need so much memory.
They have a lot of object repitition and DX 11 if I remember correctly was touted for allowing this without crazy memory requirements.
Who the hell codes a modern game for DX 10?!
Sorry, I'm quite sick of people yelling about games being unoptimized just because they require more powerful hardware. With the new consoles out for over a year, we're in a transition state where games are starting to target them instead of 2005 hardware. And PCs naturally need more powerful hardware to keep up.
And games are not apples to apples. Just because you can run Game A @ 60 fps means nothing when it comes to Game B. Is Game A doing everything Game B is? Remember, there's aesthetics to making games look good and there's technical feats of the graphics quality. Some games look amazing but are technically inferior. That's not optimization, that's psychology.
And games are not apples to apples. Just because you can run Game A @ 60 fps means nothing when it comes to Game B. Is Game A doing everything Game B is? Remember, there's aesthetics to making games look good and there's technical feats of the graphics quality. Some games look amazing but are technically inferior. That's not optimization, that's psychology.
Betaboy1983
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,264
Ouch! On the plus side, I'm not into the whole zombie genre.
So if you think this is just people whining about a new baseline standard and not poor optimization, could you please explain why the minimum requirements require a GPU 55% more powerful than the PS4 and 250% more powerful than the Xbox One, despite all three being for an x86 platform?
Exactly! Here is what Steam has posted!
System Requirements
MINIMUM:
OS: Windows® 7 64-bit / Windows® 8 64-bit / Windows® 8.1 64-bit
Processor: Intel® Core i5-2500 @3.3 GHz / AMD FX-8320 @3.5 GHz
Memory: 4 GB RAM DDR3
Hard Drive: 40 GB free space
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 560 / AMD Radeon HD 6870 (1GB VRAM)
DirectX®: Version 11
Sound: DirectX® compatible
Additional Notes: Laptop versions of graphics cards may work but are NOT officially supported.
Windows-compatible keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)
RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows® 7 64-bit / Windows® 8 64-bit / Windows® 8.1 64-bit
Processor: Intel® Core i5-4670K @3.4 GHz / AMD FX-8350 @4.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB RAM DDR3
Hard Drive: 40 GB free space
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 290 (2GB VRAM)
DirectX®: Version 11
Sound: DirectX® compatible
Additional Notes: Laptop versions of graphics cards may work but are NOT officially supported.
Windows-compatible keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,131
Except typically the games don't look any better than non-console ports and run about half as good.
You're kidding...right?
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 26,471
Zombie smasher like Dead Island no thanks Thanks for milking the franchise....
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,604
Either their specs are over-inflated or they have successfully optimized their engine to effectively use more than four cores if available. The FX 8350 simply doesn't bring that level of performance to the table otherwise. Therefore, I would imagine that this game will be playable on lesser hardware, though it may still require a quad-core CPU at minimum if the engine really is able to utilize 4+ cores.
Shmee
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,148
Meh, I would just wait for reviews like always. I am sure the only reason the graphics card requirements are so high is because that way they can insure the cards have at least 2GB of RAM.
I do love that for a long time people were complaining about games having requirements that were too low, but now that they have finally started to go up people are complaining even more.
These requirements shouldn't be out of the reach of pretty much anyone on this forum, especially the ones from the Steam page.
I do love that for a long time people were complaining about games having requirements that were too low, but now that they have finally started to go up people are complaining even more.
These requirements shouldn't be out of the reach of pretty much anyone on this forum, especially the ones from the Steam page.
Ruoh
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,857
Looks fine to me. Of course, I'll still probably be playing Dragon Age when this releases.
Ocean
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,927
Damn, must be completely unplayable on the xb1 and ps4
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Yup, pretty much this stuff. The last generation of consoles were really old hardware and computers had to be several generations newer to even keep up despite having like "newer" or "much more powerful" hardware. PCs are at a huge disadvantage because of the diversity of stuff that goes into them versus the really consistent platform of a console so it tends to take several years of technological development for them to catch up. I mean really, Skyrim looks and runs better on an Xbox 360 than it does on an Intel HD 4000 and the difference in age of hardware is huge.
People are freaking out about how their computers run current games without remembering that it really will take PCs a couple years to get like caught up and stuff. Unity or whatever is slow on even a GTX 980 which okay is probably a little bit optimizations and a lot bit being in a PC instead of a closed system console. So yeah, calm down and play a few older games until its like affordable to buy PC hardware that can keep up with and run modern games or stop trying to use a word processor and spreadsheet box to play games -- go buy a console.
viscountalpha
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,618
People who made dead island? pass.
Nah, they'll just do what they've done in the past, and basically run it at 720p with really low graphical settings, with objects popping up as you're walking along and so forth.
The difference with the PC is that you can absolutely do the same thing on a computer with specs similar to a XB1, but you have the option of ramping it up to match your hardware specs, either now or a couple years from now where the graphics will still appear fresh and modern.
Personally, I'm good, as I just got a R9 295x2 delivered, literally just came this morning and I'm going to install it this afternoon. Can't wait, and glad that there are games that will take advantage of its capabilities at 1440p today, and that I have options. I never understood the idea that a lack of options is a good thing. Like having a restaurant that serves $1 menu food as well as $10 awesome plates is bad, and a restaurant that only serves the $1 crap tacos is good because that way you don't feel let down knowing you could have better, lol!
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
I'm suspecting another shoddy port ala AC unity, we'll find out within a couple more weeks after it's released I guess.
chimera991
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,170
Damn, I just bought a GTX 970 and it is already mediocre. I know I know its not a GTX 980 in SLI. But I game on a measily 24" 1080p monitor. Probably 60hz too.
LMAO, no, just no. Nice troll attempt though, but my laptop I bought at the same time as a 360 could play Elder Scrolls with FAR HIGHER graphical fidelity from day one. And Windows 7 is so lean and efficient, that it runs like a champ on my ancient Dell Mini 9 using an Atom 270 processor and 2GB of ram, so the idea that there is major overhead difference between the XB1 console (which runs Windows virtualized BTW) and a Windows computer is nonsense.
Consoles merely turn down the resolution, the framerate, the lighting, physics effects, and graphical quality to compensate for lackluster hardware.
Titanfall PC: http://www.cinemablend.com/images/sections/62076/_1391545061.jpg
Titanfall XB1: http://www.cinemablend.com/images/sections/62076/_1391545079.jpg
Its not even the same game. One is PC tier, the other is shit-console tier. And its fine, if you're a peasant and you don't understand how to turn on a computer, then you may be happy with the crappiness that is the XB1. Personally, I'm not poor and retarded, so I chose a different path. Its all personal preference.
HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Yup, the Steam page has been changed. They were the same as Blue's when I posted this.
You're making a false deduction though. People aren't complaining because requirements going up, that's not the issue. MINIMUM system requirements for a multi-platform game increasing WAY past what the consoles are even capable of is when you know bullshit is in the air. The only conclusion then is that the game is either unoptimized or intentionally crippled. Likewise, when people complain about MINIMUM specs that are LESS than what the consoles use, yeah, that's just whining.
That said, the Steam specs seem much more sane.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
It's not really rocket science:
Minimum and recommended requirements high: Quite possibly optimization issue, lazy port.
Minimum's reasonable but recommended requirements high: Quite possibly well optimized with nice eye candy options to mess with.
We're talking about consoles using cheap x86 netbook class chips, it's the same x86 platform as PC, there's no excuse for lazy porting at all.
Instead of funding this behavior just buy native titles like Star Citizen, not a big deal.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
I know you really want that to not be true, but the reality is that a console needs a lot less computer power to perform a lot better than a PC at much lower cost. You can pick one early release game for the new consoles and claim it demonstrates the same experience across all games, but that's not true. Titanfall is like a transition game and stuff that actually starts to use modern consoles to their full capabilities are what you're seeing get released now which are making PCs look slow. That's not like a penis-waving thing, it's just factual.
Also the Skyrim example cites specific kinds of hardware which you might have kinda missed, but is supported by benchmarkings and whatnot. (Seriously, go look at my post and then look it up online.)
Anywho, Unity averages over 30 fps like at the highest settings with A 980 GTX at 1080p and lower, but even that GPU can't go to a higher resolution and you're prolly gonna spend a lot less if you buy a console than if you buy a 980 GTX (without even factoring in the other stuff you need to get in order to use the video card like the rest of the PC plus software).
http://anandtech.com/show/8738/benchmarked-assassins-creed-unity
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
PS4/Xbone have a 8 core AMD Jaguar running at 1.6Ghz with graphic card that spec far lower than a Radeon 7870. But lol guys you need a 8320 that runs at 3.5Ghz with the superior Piledriver cores and a 7870. This is going to use Mantle right?
It's either unoptimized code or Microsoft/Sony payed them to make sure the game was badly optimized.
If Steam's 4/8MB ram is correct that is liveable but if the other one with 8/16MB of ram is true then that's just plain fucking stupid. All you have to do is look at the Steam hardware survey to know how ridiculous that is. The other specs might be debatable. Anyone who is defending this is either trolling or doesn't have a fucking clue.
AMD T-type
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2002
- Messages
- 4,590
MB? o_0
djoye
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 3,179
Dead Island was built on Chrome Engine 5, Dying Light is apparently going to be on Chrome Engine 6, so yeah, unless they made some significant improvements, I'm not too optimistic about the stuttering issue being resolved.
Oddly enough, Dead Island 2 is supposedly going to be on Unreal Engine 4, which will likely be smooth unless they really mess up something.
This gap between consoles and PCs was so over rated. People mentioned low end PCs not being able to play certain games, when the expectation on the PC was 1080p. Where as the console was allowed to run 720p (if even that, sometimes it was 480-640p upscale), with significantly smaller textures, less viewing distance, etc, at a horrible 20-30 frames.
People on PCs simply don't turn their settings down to the trashy console equivalents, because it defeats the purpose of using a PC.
Which reality? Do I have to be involved in a Star Trek transporter accident to access it?
PC: http://www.worldsfactory.net/wp-con...Crytek_Ryse_Son_of_Rome_Oswald_Screenshot.jpg
The above can run at 2160p and 60FPS average depending on the hardware.
XBone: http://www.worldsfactory.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/xbox_ryse_forest.jpg
The above runs at 900p, 26-27FPS average with significant blur introduced to distract the player from the low resolution, framerate, and object pop while moving throughout the world.
Of course people will if their systems aren't up to snuff. But they shouldn't have to turn their settings down to low if their specs are ABOVE the console's.