Epic reveals the PC requirements for BulletStorm.
1920x1080, All Maximum!!!! HELL YEAHH!!!
It'll be a good day to be a PC gamer.
Low system requirements for a DX9 port. One day and one day soon I hope Developers stop using DX9. It'll be a good day to be a PC gamer....when DX9 DiES!
Battlefield 3 doesn't support XP so I'm guessing it's one of the first to drop DX9 and hopefully more will follow the same path. http://www.gamersmint.com/d...
if you dont use DX9 then why state such thing? plus what is wrong with DX9? i still use it, and i am happy with it.
because it's holding game development back and it's time to move on ? Like it has happened every era for pc
@Baka-akaB To be fair we don't really know that, no one here is a games developer as far as I know. And all where basically doing is saying well this guy said that, problem is the guy that told him could of been Tonny the 12 year old. DX10 was a massive failure and ended up being a fatally flawed product. DX11 does seem an improvement and it does have some massive texture advantages but are developers ready to move on am not so sure.
Holding game development back? How? Yeah u can see small improvement in games but not a lot tho, name me 1 developer that has taken full advantage of DX11? DX11 is just there to sell operating systems, Microsoft wants your money. Tessellation is the next big thing not DX11.
x800 thats the whole point developers have to focus on dx9 and dx11 if they moved forward they would only have focus on one meaning they can use dx11 to its full potential.
GSC Gameworld along with many devs have added DX11 features. It's not exactly small improvements, but it is little things that make a big difference; such as shadows that get blurry the further they get from the source... That, and doesn't tessellation = dx11? Also, DX10 was a fail because it required Vista, and people didn't make the jump. DX11 however works with both vista and win7... ...and of course MS wants your money. So does Sony when they release games. That doesn't imply that the product itself is crap.
@x800 thats because you can count the amount of games that support dx11 on one hand..many devs arent even trying to move on with the times.
@x800 and Ryudo Actually if you follow in details the tech involved in dx11 you'll see how it's quite a big improvement . many tiny layers of changes and novelty wich could boost graphics and engine , when actually used . But that's the thing , it aint used because most people and devs and still dragging their feet with dx9 ... and because of course most of the blame lie on MS making it only available on their newer windows
I think DX9 will still be the standard until the next console comes out. So for now we have to stick with exclusives and hopefully developers will take advantage of the tech. Even idTech5 is using DX9 as the standard. So we have no choice but to wait. At least id does make the idTech5 game (Rage) stunning at the same time maintaining 60fps. Actually i dont mind about the DX10 or DX11 as long as it looks good and plays well. And when i mean plays well i mean 60fps!!! YEAAHH!!
id isn't anything to go by anymore. Yes, Rage runs at 60fps. And this framerate target takes its toll because the game looks sub-par. http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
@ ct03 Hope that is consoles, the character models are OK but the textures are worse than FarCry back in 2004
The resolution of this screenshot is 2560x1600 which is a PC resolution for 30 inch monitors. This is not a console screenshot.
Furthermore id does make a statement that they didn't support modding on this game(Rage game). The reason of this is because of the megatexture incorporated in their engine. Damn i really hope somebody does make something with it and improve the texture resolution. Anyway we haven't seen the final product yet. But still, fingers crossed.
Heck yeah!!! My PC will rape this game, in a good way.
Not that demanding. Glad to see that my PC can run it at max 1080p
It's running on UE3..
Yeah, CryEngine 2/3 is more demanding than UE3.
Good thing about UE3 is that its very optimized for PC...I mean,you can have middle to high range GPU and moderate CPU and you will max any UE3 game at 1920x1080 without a problem...
More like a low end GPU like a 4850 ATI or 8800GTX from Nvidia plus any dual core cpu will be needed to run this resolutons beyond any console can handle.
I get 60FPS at 1920x1200 with a 9800GTX and Athlon 64 X2 in UT3 :3 It doesn't take much to max out UE3.
Your conversation is the reason I turned to consoles.
- http://www.gamerlive.tv/art... But I wasn't shown in video. It was at ces 2011.. The cryengine3 is very flexable..
Cpu is probably holding me back its alrdy bottlenecking my HD6870.
What CPU do you have, if its anything like a quad core from intel running around 2.4 - 2.6ghz and you are gaming around 1080p with 2x-4x most likely it will be balanced. Now if you crossfire those GPUs then you may need a faster CPU.
E8400 duo core im gonna upgrade to a 2500k soon maybe even 2600 or 2600k.
wow,even dragon age 2 supports dx11. whats this game excuse?
No problem to max this awesomegame out.
No problem as usual :).
I rarely look at system requirements these days, no joke most systems can play games these days with ease, I know my rig is bad ass :) Here is an example I have given to someone before With PC on most games CPU scaling is not present at all. For example on Crysis you can run the game with a Celeron E3300 or Core i7 980X with frame rate difference of little to non. RAM is the same as the CPU example, in gaming from 667MHz DDR2 to 2250MHz DDR3 it at best is about 1FPS difference. Once memory has been cached the speed is pointless, only reason why loading screen are as long as they are is storage. Example Crysis at maximum with 1920 by 1080 8xAA Intel Celeron E3300 2.5GHz 2C/2T (£38) 4GB 800MHz DDR2 (£45) Nvidia GeForce GTX 580 1536MB 4000MHz (£420) Vs Intel Core i7 980X 3.3GHz 6C/12T (£820) 6GB 1600MHz DDR3 (£142) Nvidia GeForce GTX 580 1536MB 4000MHz (£420) The final FPS will most likely be almost the same give or take 5-10% This can be said for most PC games (In real world terms someone just lost out on £780/$1200). Where as if the first system had a 9800 GTX Vs the first still having the GTX 580 the performance difference could be as much as 140% but with a cost of £420 Upgrading CPU and RAM: Performance benefit 5-10%, Cost £962 plus Motherboard costs Upgrading GPU alone: Performance benefit upto 140%, Cost £420 Just an example :), these Sandy Bridges may change this a little, but the only games I've seen that scale to Quad and above are GTA IV and Supreme Commando.
BadCompany2 and games like stalker benefit a lot from CPU and RAM. Though, yea, generally, games hump the GPU harder than the CPU.
The fact that it REQUIRES an internet connection means it has some form of DRM. What a load of sh!t.
Like many have stated already, DX9 needs to Die as it is the thing holding back PC gaming. DX10 was a massive failure along with Vista, thanks Microsoft way go...NOT! DX11 fixes all the problems with DX10 plus adds new features (just like Windows 7 fixed Vista) so the migration to DX11 has begun along with the killing off of DX9.
First day buy for me. My GTX 580 is ready for this.
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.