System requirements Call of Duty: World at War revealed

Developer Treyarch has just revealed the minimum system requirements to play Call of Duty: World at War. The game is sheduled Q4 2008.

* CPU: AMD 64 3200+ / Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz +
* Memory: 512MB (XP) or 1GB (Vista)
* HD Space: 8GB
* Graphical Card: Nvidia 6600GT/ATI Radeon 1600XT or higher (Shader 3.0 or better) with 256MB memory

[Carbide7]

not too bad,but it doesnt matter to me as i'll be playing it on my ps3

[Fowack]

if i was planning on buying it that is. but this game dosn't interest me so maybe 6 will be better/ more appealing to me.

[Bazookajoe_83]

It sucks, well thats according to me so take it for what it is..

[qwertyuiopasdfghjkl]

Vista did take a few steps forward in OS technology. Once Aero and UAC is disabled, Vista SP1 runs beautifully.

[-SIXAXIS-]

True, but you have that eye candy and security plus more on Linux and OS X. And they've been doing it for years before Vista came out.

[Aclay]

This is the reason why I love console gaming. You put in the disc and it's guaranteed to run at it's optimal settings with no need to worry if it's going to run properly or not.

[ChickeyCantor]

" You put in the disc and it's guaranteed to run at it's optimal settings"
I' bet future games(multiplat on pc too) wont do that much when it comes to consoles

but yeah, it works and thats good.

[El_Colombiano]

"You put in the disc and it's guaranteed to run at it's optimal settings"

Uh, no. Most console games run at medium to high settings compared to their PC counter part. Just look at GeOW. I just downloaded it the other day and it puts the Xbox 360 version to shame. PC gaming will always be better, but it's not for the mainstream customer.

[BattleAxe]

System Requirements: Buy a PS3 :)

[f789790]

I'll say it once more. If you build a computer with parts from newegg.com you can play anything for just $500. That will play crysis on medium and everything else on high and that figure can easily be slimmed down by recycling parts from your old computer.

[power of Competence]

Indeed, PC gaming will, for the most part, offer a better visceral experience. The main issue regarding PC gaming is the fact that it's very hard to keep up with the amount of GPU lines that keep getting flown to the shelves by nVidia and ATi.

With a console, you never have to worry about meeting specific hardware requirements, so essentially you can just pop it in and play. That was the AClayPS3's point to begin with.

@f789790
The problem with that philosophy is that computer will be unable to run games in a year from now, which keeps putting you in this cycle of having to update hardware continuously.

[Qbanboi]

^^^ Then u will love Uncharted, u pop it in, and wont see a loading screen in the would game after the first one.

[ChickeyCantor]

lol the disagree's XD
I was trying to say what El_colombiano is saying.
Just got it out wrong >_<

[Microsoft_Spokesman]

Can someone please tell me why Vista always needs more RAM? I'm thinking of buying Vista, but do all games need more RAM on vista? Thanks.

[Fowack]

you do, vista is a resource hog to say the least.

[kittoo]

And generally uses much more system resources than XP. Although if you have good system, you would find that its more responsive in general applications (they open faster) but when it comes to gaming, XP is still better

[OOG]

Vista takes more ram in order to run it......so..... you need more ram to run a game on a vista OS

[nieto]

the comment of kittoo was the only one worth reading...

Vista need more ram because it has more services running at the same time than xp and that's all.

example? the aero. it use a lot of ram and the glass skin too.

if you know what you're doing you could make Vista a lot better then Xp even for gaming with some tweaks. but with Windows 7 around the corner and people constantly hating on Vista because it more open than any MAc OS then you should best wait for that. Vista it's going to die soon.

BTW when i say open i mean that you can customize parts do some tweaks with registry, etc.

People hate on Windows because they are the giants on OS and on Sony because they are the giants of the video games industry. it's like people always like the underdogs.

[Bazookajoe_83]

Vista always need 512mb more in ram than xp to run games, but you get nicer icons if you have vista instead of xp ;-) But for gaming xp is better..

[Microsoft_Spokesman]

So, it's like that because there are more things running in the background?

[sak500]

double post

[sak500]

On my 2gb system:

Clean boot XP SP3 = 750+mb utilizied
Clean boot Vista ULtimate = 1.4+GB utilized

[qwertyuiopasdfghjkl]

Your Vista is dirty then... I got 800mb utilized for 64bit Vista Premium...

[-SIXAXIS-]

800 MB? That's horrible! My 3-year-old laptop has 1.125 GB of RAM and Vista uses about 600 MB on average (unless it is updating or I am running a VM or gaming).

EDIT: I'm also running 64-bit Home Premium.

[Fowack]

But i ain't buying this game anyway so i don't really care.

[PeptoBismol]

thx 4 the spam

[power of Competence]

thx 4 the relief of Nausea, Heartburn, Indigestion, Upset Stomach, and Diarrhea.

[MetalFreakMike]

My rig can handle it but I rather pick it up for the console so I can play my friends in multiplayer. Computer parts always drop in price and you can buy a processor with that kind of speed for real cheap but in truth a lot of people do not know how to build a computer so it might just be better to get it for the console.

[f789790]

Seriously. Just google it. You screw and plug parts in the case and thats it.

[-SIXAXIS-]

It's really easy to build a computer (I always build my computers, it's a ton cheaper), but if you have friends on a console, then get the console version. That's what I'm doing because all my friends have PS3.

[CViper]

*sigh*

Don't you just LOVE multiplatform dev?

[MetalFreakMike]

It might be another game you do not have to upgrade your computer for but if it is a great game then there should be no problem about it. I rather have a real fun and great game then a good looking game but with crap gameplay. I rather they start optimizing and trying to get great looking games with lower settings then a game that looks good but you need 30 cores and 10 videos cards to run.

[jspc1989]

it takes a much more talented developer to make more run on less, rather than just shove it all together and tel u that u need to be running an fbi super computer to play it.

to CViper - do you atually enjoy upgrading ur pc just for the sake of one game here or there?

I mean for example crysis is widely known as the most graphical video game to date, but as great as the graphics are, i honestly thought the game was just so-so at best.

Thats just one example of why i take great play over great graphics anyday (altho it would be great to have both lol). I mean i stil love playing pac-man and pong, not becus I am sad lol, but becus for me they are some of the most addictive games ever made.

[CViper]

I'm sorry but i'm not buying into the budget gaming this generation. Its always clear, AMAZINGLY CLEAR, that GOOD GAMEPLAY matters more than graphics. Anyone that thinks otherwise, is a moron. You can't play a photoreal Picture... you know? Any person talking about gaming, or that is a fan of gaming knows this. Its inherent to the hobby.

My problem with it is that its stagnating game development and progress. This generation of gaming is the most pathetic one I have seen. People are actually convincing themselves that upgrading to new technology is a bad thing?!!? Its ridiculous. No one is saying that you have to upgrade your PC every 1 minute, so get that out of your head.

This generations "gamers" are going to end up ruining gaming, and catering in the era of the 1 console 1 spec device. PacMan was such a great game, why did we need to upgrade in the first place? Same doom and wolfenstien right? Hl1 was great, Why did they bother upgrading the engine for Hl2? They should have optimized the engine for Hl1 to run on the low specification machine back then, and used it for HL2 instead of engineering new technology?

You welcomed the technological upgrades from the first pac-man to now, but for some reason in 2008.. its a PROBLEM to upgrade? Its a natural progression which has always happened with technology, but SPECIFICALLY computer technology. Because the demand to be bigger and better drives it. When you stop demanding that your games be bigger and better, you get this. We have had nothing but brainfarts for PC games, and I'm sick of it. I'm not looking forward to keeping to the same game specifications to that games can be made to run optimized on consoles without HDD's.

Crysis delivered an experience in gaming that I've never had before. Its worth every penny to upgrade a machine to get a second to none experience with a hobby you love. If this was the Hl2 generation of gaming, we would move FORWARD from CRYSIS to the next good games with great technology behind them. Black & White, Kingpin, Farcry, STALKER, all of those good OL` days of gaming. There was about a 3 year gap to when you had to upgrade but it wasn't a problem, because the games delivered so well. And upgrading your PC for gaming was also updating your PC for the next generations of applications/web as well. You only optimize when you hit a wall or a peak of development. I seriously doubt COD4\Gears\Bioshock and most PC titles now at days are at that peak.

This is the first time i have ever seen game progression move backwards, and what shocks me the most, is that people are cheering for it to happen.

Enjoy your games, because you are going to be playing these same games, with the same specs, and the same graphics over and over again. Long Live EA & the Unreal Engine. Oh well, gaming was fun while it lasted.

[MetalFreakMike]

All you are doing is taking my words out of context. I did'nt mean to say we should not upgrade our computers for new tech but i was speaking about not having to buy a new video card every 3 months. Some people do not have the money to spend on new computer parts but yet you act like everyone wants to keep the same computer for years. Computers cost money and a lot of people nowadays do not have the money to upgrade their computer every time a new game comes out. You might but i have rent and bills to pay and i'm even lucky to have enough for new games after it is all said and done. Tech will move forward and people for will upgrade but do not act like everyone wants the same game to come out ever year.

[jspc1989]

It sounds to me like what has happened is that you have played crisis and now want every game to be at that level.

In regards to your technological progression statement, what me and mike are trying to say is that we are all for evolution, but at a slower more realistic rate. We don't want to have to go from dual core to octa-core over night. There is nothing wrong with going with technology at a rate the is suitable for urself as an individual. Maybe for you that means having to re-revolutionise your PC ever 6 months but for me and alot of other people we like to see our moneys worth out of the equipment we buy.

Don't get me wrong in one sense i can see where you are coming from in saying that the boundaries of PC are becoming more like the boundaries of consoles, but to me thats actually a good thing. Many people don't have pc's that are capable of running crysis at a decent rate, let alone on maxed out yet, and i would like to see my rig comfortably run my favourite games for a good few years yet.

By next gen I would be expecting all games to be at crysis level as a norm (assuming in the next gen the tradition with higher tier graphics continues).

Unfortunately there is one section of ur statement where u very nearly contradict yourself. You say gameplay is key (which is a given) and u have my respect for that, but then you complain that the games arent making any giant leaps technologically. Until the next gen of consoles don't expect any major leap now, personally i thought the leap from last gen to this one was one enough to last for a good while. Games cost to much to make now to create revolutionary titles and risk them failing because they were exclusive to one system and didnt sell enough to make profit. Hence why 3rd party exclusives are slowly getting alot harder to come by.

Gaming for me was fun while it lasted, and will continue to be fun until 1) i become incapable of playing games or 2) i cant afford it lol.

[-SIXAXIS-]

I think the people at Crytek should've optimized more because look at the Half Life 2 Source games; they're over 3 years old and they still look great and run on old hardware. My 3-year-old laptop can run CS:S and HL:LC, but it can't even run Halo PC on the lowest settings.

[TheIneffableBob]

These are nearly identical to Call of Duty 4's minimum specs.

[El_Colombiano]

It's Infinity Ward's engine. Just with added fire.

[Tuca13]

I will put all my coins on this title. Is there a date anounced to launch the game?

[DaddyDC650]

My PC won't have a problem running it @ high resolutions/max settings. I'd buy it for a console but I love owning it up using a mouse/keyboard.

[W831Sickid]

there not so high

[Sargerus]

Almost the same requirements as of CoD 4 right?

[Mr402]

I dont see the hype for this one. Rental.

[Lord Shuhei Yoshida]

My rig will run it just fine.I got Nvidia 8800 so its all good.

[Dogswithguns]

.... most gaming pcs shouldnt have a problem.

[Bolts]

My comp can run CoD 4 way over 85 FPS at 1080p max everything. It should handle this game with ease.

[user9422077]

wow, I'll be playing it on the ps3 anyways.

[AIi_The_Brit]

same here

[-SIXAXIS-]

You hear that? That's the sound of my laptop laughing at these specs.

[darkstar]

Pretty slim requirements if you ask me.