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.
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
-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 :)
Am I the only one completely disappointed that yet again, my Crysis rig will only be *needed* to play Crysis, and maybe STALKER? Score another one for the console that caused this game to run-like-it visually with specs from 2005. Yea, the textures will be crisper, and we get a higher resolution. Wow. And none of any sort of advanced fx to put said super computers to work. Anyone remember how Farcry1 crippled machines? Remember when you USED to have to make a slight upgrade for the next "BIG THING" game which FARCRY2 definitely should have been tech wise? Guess what you guys wont have to do until someone starts working with the Crysis engine, and making PC only games?? Upgrade, thats what! As long as Multiplatform games include PC, all you are ever going to be excited about is the Res and AA. Its like everyone is forgetting how games were before this gen.
It's because consoles are finally starting to catch up to PC specs, or maybe PC is getting held back by consoles, so developers think they can take advantage of this situation to make multiplatform games to make more profit. But yeah, consoles have really slowed progression down from PCs this whole generation.
maybe because you where one of the few that bought into the "upgrade for crysis" hype. im more then satisfied that farcry DOESNT force you to buy a new rig just because a game is relaesed. it looks amazing. btw crysis is a awesome but horribly unoptimised beast, wich could use 30 less horsepower when optimized. i really dont understand why farcry2 wich looks awesome and seems to run on most people setup is a bad thing. and btw as a pc user you should know taht recommended is NOWHERE near the max settings. and i could bet my ass that farcry2 on pc on max will look a lot better then on the consoles, not because of res but because of view distance detail textures effects fidelity shaders etc.
They use the argument its too expensive yet I can build a cheap computer easily from newegg.com. And for most people that have bought new computers recently all they need is a new graphics card for $50 off of ebay. My X1950Pro only sold on ebay for $35. That card can play Crysis on medium!
I think alot of people just don't enjoy screwing around with PCs. Its not just the cost, its just a pain in the ass. I like putting a disc in and playing. PS3 FTW.
Im proberly get slashed for this, or no one will read this comment because its the same as saying god dont exist.. Can we all agree that the big companies behind the small game studios or game studios in general is making games for the money ? The big ones is shareholding companies so they have to please the shareholders. The opportunities of pirating on consoles are quite limited compared to PC - so the chances of making profit on the consoles are alot better than PC, and they know it.. More and more games is console exclusive because its where the money is, and the money is big! so they arent so depended on PC gaming anymore as in the past.. PC gaming is dieing because of piracy, its a fact, so I think we all have to get used to the fact that PC gaming wound evolve as much in the past.
Tell that to the various people I know who have Gears, Halo 3, etc etc for free. Any tech savvy person, ala a person who could pirate a PC game, can pirate an Xbox or PS3 game. Hell, you guys can even just buy one copy for 5 people easier than it is able to be done on a computer.
ive got a Intel Celeron running @ 2.4GHz (single core), with a Geforce 6200 GT, and a 19" LCD screen max res: 1280 x 1024 and ive got a PS3, DS3, and a crappy SD tv... i think the choice is obvious dont you think?
...is the answer to buy a decent TV?
I'm not about to argue PC vs console here, but resolution only takes you so far. You want to consider contrast ratio for that movie like quality.
Sure, high res is great, but if you have high res and low contrast ratio (like you get with a standard LCD computer monitor) it's like watching the news on a TV broadcast camera.
Res isn't everything. You want nice deep blacks, bright whites for a movie like quality - the sort of things you don't get with LCDs. For that you want a Plasma. Unless you've bought one of the newer Sony Bravia's, Series 6 Samsungs etc.
Or you could wait for the Panasonic OLEDs to come out.
19" screen? I'm sure you appreciate your high resolution on that pokey little screen sat by yourself at a computer desk?
But you should get yourself a decent TV for the sitting room, invite the boys over, few beers, have a laugh.
PC or PS3 I'm not taking either side, but you should get yourself a decent display to play on.
OLEDs? Are you crazy? Those things are going to be crazy expensive! If you are buying a TV. Invest more money for a bette product. It will last longer. Get one of the newer Sony/Samsung/Sharp LCD TVs. Don't get a plasma, it will eventually burn out.
You're thinking of the old plasmas.
Modern plasmas don't burn out for a long loooooooong time. You only had to worry about that in the early days.
@jtucker yeah that is one of the answers lol.. but i has no money lol
My specs are: PS3 320gb 7.1 HD Surround 50" Pioneer Plasma.
I've got a similar set-up. Got all seven speakers, but my Pioneer home cinema amp doesn't handle Dolby HD or DTS HD.
Oh Well, time to upgrade!
@VMAN - Is your TV one of the Kuros?
Wow them specs are pretty low, I can run Crysis with everything at high and still get a smooth framerate. My specs are:
Intel Q6600 overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.31GHz
Nvidia Geforce 280GTX 1GB PCI-E
650watt power supply
500GB hard drive
plus I got 5.1. Surround Speakers to go and I will be laughing, still I also got my 360, PS3 and Wii to help me with my gaming needs. =)
A psycotic rig is all anyone ever hears about that they know costs way too much. For $360 of parts on newegg.com I can build a gaming computer that could play Far Cry 2 and Crysis on medium.
For 1400$ I got -E8400(3ghz) oced to 3.5(plan to take it to 4ghz. -2GB DDR2 1066 (4gb would be a waste with 32-vista -1TB HDD - SuperSuperClocked (SSC) GTX 280 1GB -24 inch 1920x1200 monitor I run crysis at 1920x1200 at 28~30 fps on very high.
The Xbox 360 succeeds in being the Lowest Common Denominator once again
Just buy the game for a PS3 or X360 and you won't have to worry about running the game.
Exactly, all you need to worry about is game crushing slow downs and lower res.
Ignoring my cynicism, as long as you have fun, and aren't looking for the smoothest experience possible, then yes, you can go for the console versions. I would prefer to play it on M+K and have my resolution higher, but I am a PC gamer.
A lot of the "system requirements" drivel being thrown out there about PCs is utter trash. I am building a system for my girlfriend that is only going to maybe cost 500 dollars, and she will be able to run Crysis at the median between medium and high.
The problems is not the PC as a capable gaming tool for the price, the problem is twofold in another direction.
First, and lesser, is the overpriced nature of big box sellers (Dell, etc etc). The price different between my gaming behemoth and the much less powerful rig I tried to equate it to on Dell was staggering (+1000 dollars).
The second problem with sys reqs, and the biggest one by far, is the sys reqs themselves. There is no unified structure, no simple way of presenting what is required. Its confusing as hell, since they act almost as an extension of the marketing art for PC games. Some are outright lies, some are overestimated (Assasin's Creed), and some are so off its almost humorous. No company uses the same methods, and I for one, though not too concerned with sys reqs, would love to see it truly standardized. Too bad that initiative was headed by the Games for Windows brand, which is failing miserably in its stated intentions across the boards.
BLU-RAY?HD TV 50in? My buttax! All you need is a VHS System!!..KIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKI KIKIKIKIKIKIIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKI KIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIK IKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIIKIKIKIKIK IKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKI KIKIKIKIKIKIKIKIKI
-I wish I had a PS2,Wii,Ds,PSP,Xbox360,and a PS3
System requirements? The only requirement needed to play this is owning a PS3!!! System requirements belong in the Jurassic age of PC gaming, why would anyone pay so much money just to upgrade their PC to play this when a PS3 is much cheaper? Stupid PC noobs!!!
HAHAhahAHAHahhaA A ps3 n00b calling a PC gamer a n00b? LOL. that's just rich.
its just sensible cus its saves money and PC gaming is dying as fast as the 360!
Hows about a 4850 powered PC feeding DVI to HDMI into the back of a 50 inch LCD, and a wireless keyboard and mouse so i can sit on the couch 8 feet away from the screen. Monitors are nice, but man i love me my big screen
^^^ NOOB he obviously dont know anything bout PC gaming
Actually in a sense, he is right. The more graphically advanced games that hit the pc the more demanding they get. Im talking about on the cpu and gpu. Most companies recommend you have a dual core, and a good graphics card will need a decent power supply to run it. Crysis is a prime example. Majority of people cant even play that game on very high settings without having to sacrifice resolution. With a ps3 all I need is it and a hdtv and Im str8.
haha pc pimps bragging about their hoes. Play the game, instead of tweaking the settings for 1 more FPSec
hi guys if may i take an advice ,, i have core2duo 2.4 w/ EN8600gts 512 & 2gb of ddr2 RAM and 500GB hdd on 0cu409 dell main board ... what parts do i need to upgrade for playing this game at its high end settings ?
If you want to max it out, get a better graphics card - a Radeon 4870 or a 4870x2 (when it comes out) if you have the money for it. I'd also consider putting in some more RAM if your comp/operating system can make use of it, and/or perhaps overclocking your CPU a little bit. Really a graphics card upgrade will help you the most though.
I'll be getting this game for the PC. Usually when a multiplatform FPS game comes out, I go for the PC version. Nothing beats full 1920x1080p resolution running at 120 frames per second. People also seem to forget... XFire > XBL > PSN. Manufacturer: Jake Sanford Processor: Intel Dual Core E6850 Memory: GSkill 2 GB (Excellent timings, I recommend GSkill alot) Hard Drive: 320 GB (meh, upgrading to more, too lazy though) Video Card: BFG 8800 GTS 640MB (640mb makes a big difference in HD gaming) Monitor: Samsung 40'', 1080p, 120hz, LCD 50,000:1 Contrast. Sound Card: Dolby Digital Master Studio Speakers/Headphones: Sony Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround / EverGlide Headphones Keyboard: Everglide DKTBoard Mouse: Logitech MX518 Mouse Surface: Black Square Operating System: Windows Vista™ Premium 64bit (I work with PCs now, Vista SP1 is better than XP SP1 and SP2, XP SP3 is better than Vista) Motherboard: Intel D975XBX2 Extreme Series Computer Case: Antec P182SE
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.