Today Ubisoft published a press release. The document contained the official system requirements of Far Cry 2. The game is scheduled for release in fall 2008.
Not bad. Much more manageable than Crysis. Although Recommended spec usually relate a relatively low resolution. Still, my rig laughs at those specs :)
likewise @ below nice try, but your plasma cant compete with a 1920x1200 lcd running this game in super smooth glory.
Really? I could have bought a 47" LG Full HD lcd, the same day, for $100 more money....but the new Plasma technology simply has a better picture. Besides...gaming with a keyboard/mouse is really tedious and annoying. I prefer sitting back on the leather couch, 6 ft. from the TV, with lights off, and controller in hand. :)
so the 360 runs farcry 2 in 1920x1200 now ? gimme a break, we all get it you are totally cool and got the super screen. i salute you.
You can get the same experience out of a PC. Just about all the 360/PC ports have support for the controller and newer graphics cards have HDMI ports. My graphics card has a DVI to HDMI adapter which somehow also outputs audio to the TV.
LOL at the sad jealousy. What are you watching that "glorious" 1920 x 1200 rez on....a 26" monitor? Trust me...I know visual quality; I just prefer realistic scale over max pixel density on a tiny-ass screen. By the way, how do your friends like playing splitscreen games with you on that fancy PC? :D @ PikkonX : Yeah...my PC does just that, and I'm typing this, with it displayed on my Plasma. But, when it comes to gaming, nothing beats the convenience of the console. Crysis sucked with the 360 controller, and The Witcher didn't even have support...though it was a Games for Windows title. Those have been the only PC titles I've been interested in, for the past decade...and I spent less than an hour with both. But, they both LOOKED awesome anyway. ;)
Couch and controllers with friends are for casual gamers. Be hardcore and play up close and personal. You can play on 720p with 30FPS while we play on 1920x1200 at 60FPS+.
thwip are you really that ignorant ? jealous lol you exactly prrofed my point with that comment, you really post your tv size to gain some jealousy ? fyi i got a ps3 a 360 a 42" hdtv lcd 2x24" pc lcd's with all the fancy extras sound setups blabla crap etc. and i got a kickass rig chewing that specs for breakfast. i just find it funny how you come in here "pc discussion" brag about your superleet tv setup probably to gain some "awesome dude your tv rocks" comments. again nice try but failed...
Right, because an experience like MGS4 is best enjoyed/relished on a 20" monitor on an office chair instead of a 50+ inch screen on a couch. Not mention, it's "hardcore, maaaan." *rolls eyes* I guess that's why everyone watches their Blu-rays and DVDs on their computer.
Wow a PC version home console argument, Surprising. /sarcasm Graphically, running a game at true 1920x1200 resolution with 8-16xAA @60fps is "FTW." Good thing my PC can run anything (for now). That 8800GTX is more than sufficient. But I do prefer to play most games from the consoles on my 46" samsung. Gears of War, MGS4, etc. etc. looks beautiful.
I'm talking about First Person Shooters and PC games in general. Why play a FPS on a controller when you can play on a mouse and keyboard. Controllers use analogs, which are limited by the circumference of the analog space. You can turn with the analog but once you hit that wall, the motion is only going to what you set the sensitivity to. The mouse can move as fast as your wrist/arm goes, depending on the sensitivity.
Are console gamers this stupid? If a PC have enough muscle to push the latest shooters at 1080p then there's always a DVI out connector or in case of the latest 280 GTX and ATI 4870 a HDMI cable to connect to your TV. I play the PC version of Gears of War on my 52 inch Sony XBR 4 in full 1080p 4x AA at over 120 FPS! To show my friend the difference between the 360's version I pressed the TV/video button on the remote to show him all the details the Xbox version is missing and he was blown away. But what really knocked his socks off is when I switched between CoD 4's 40 players domination online vs the PS3's 16 players ground war. The amount of chaos on screen is hilariously extreme when you consider that this 40 player match is humming along at 87 FPS without a hint of lag. The only time the console actually won out is with Bluray. For some reason Nvidia's Bluray encoder takes forever to spin up the movie while the PS 3 plays instantly. Plus the PC's Bluray remote totally blows, there is too much lag while the PS3 response with crisp precision to every command.
I'm sure my 2 x 4870s and my QX9650 will LOL at those specs
im afraid i fall short with my [email protected]
lol. I think I may buy a Macbook Pro. It has specs past the recommended. Hopefully I can play it.
dude i totally agree
plasma is the suck. and thats just a fact. Games look infinitely better on a PC, thats not really a question. If you think a plasma looks better than a PC monitor, either: a) your eyes are terrible and are attracted to blurry, ghosting, low res images b) have never seen a game on a decent monitor. AND, LCD tv's look sooooooo much better than Plasmas. Plasmas leave that wierd digital trail when things move too fast, even the new ones. I really dont think plasma tv's are gamer friendly. But whatever, your'e not too bright, you wouldnt know any better.
Jeff...... Hahahahahaha. Sorry. You just called someone else ignorant and yet you've just made an utter fool of yourself. It's THE OTHER WAY AROUND. LCDs have slow pixel response time, plasmas are <1ms. LCDs generally hover around 8ms or 5ms, especially HDTV ones. I'm sorry, but what profoundly moronic statement you've made. I hope you've learned from this. Nevermind 120hz refresh rate, it's PIXEL RESPONSE TIME you should be wary of. Why refresh your screen so much if it's stuck on the same image? This results in more ghosting. LCDs are notorious for ghosting issues. Plasmas have overcome the issue in recent years. In fact, only SED and OLED beat plasma, both in black levels and pixel response. Next gen plasmas have over 100,000 grey levels between black and white. That's 100000:1 contrast ratio. I dare say plasma wins in my book. Yeah, CRT is still the best, but do you honestly believe people can fit a 40" CRT HDTV with it's enlarged electron gun (FACT: HDTV electron guns are nearly twice as large as standard and twice as heavy) in a room in their house? Let alone carry it and find a sturdy enough prop to hold it? I doubt that. That's the whole point of flat screen tech. Aesthetics and space saving.
just like to add i got the 360 with a 52" LCD BIG screen with HD hooked up so nice and clear for gaming and big speakers sitting right next to me for some power Audio :)
Time for all of those PC gamers to run out and spend some cach upgrading their computers once again. lmao
-XBOX 360 -wireless controller -52" LG Plasma I'm good to go.
Yup. Plasma looks so nice. I have a LCD right now, but Ill be upgrading soon. Ill have the PS3 version, but still dont need to worry bout upgrading PC :D
Good to go with DVD9?
Yeah. Perhaps you didn't get the memo....or couldn't read it: PC uses DVD9 also. :o
seems you didnt get the memo pc uses no media at all since the pc doesnt stream game data from disc, its irrelevant what media the pc games come on, you install them (decompress the data) and dont need to worry about any size restrictions, conan has a 15gb install (im still wondering how they will get the game on the 360 with that amount of data).
Most PC games fully install to the HDD nowadays, and when they unpack the files are usually really huge. No streaming from disk required, because all the data is able to be read off the HDD.
so a X1900 is enough to play this game on "very high"? How the hell did they manage that?
recommended /= highest setting recommended settings mean you can get a fair amount of graphics at a fair amount or performance. aka midrange
What the recommended specs mean is a mystery sometimes. Like, for example, the recommended for Clear Sky means pretty much close to the highest settings, while the recommended for Crysis is medium to high. I'm guessing the recommended for Far Cry 2 will equal high settings.
My rig will eat this up, chew it, spit it out and then chew it again. 1920x1200 all day baby!
Wonder how good i'll be able to run this game at?
Depends on your resolution. You'll probably be able to get a good 30FPS at 1680x1050 or 25FPS at 1920x1200.
I have an older CRT that I still use because I like the absolute refresh time and color reproduction. Unfortunately, it only goes up to 1280 x 1024, so I guess if I play at that res, I should get pretty good framerates.
Those are some pretty manageable requirements :)