Should I remove a new PC from inventory for ArcAnIA?

[darkling]

I wouldn't remove a new PC from inventory specifically for Arcania. But if you wanna play the next batch of games with quality above that the turdy 360 delivers, you probably should.

 

[Mortmal]

Wich next batch of games ? witcher 2 dont requires that , two worlds 2 neither, new vegas neither and the pc version probably looks better than xbox one.Other upcoming rpgs are age of decadence, dead state, grimoire. Even other type of games like civ 5 dont requires it. Find me a good game wich such ridiculous specs.

 

[krist2]

DreamCatcher here!
September 3rd, 2010, 23:45
We have to thank Desslock for bringing the issue of that particular Core 2 Duo CPU model to our attention. Do note that the requirements are in flux until we are happy with our final product, and only then would reliable requirements be available from us.

The issue Desslock encountered was touched upon during our compatibility tests and was not so much an issue of CPU performance but more an issue with that line of CPU’s and a jittering caused in game regardless of other game settings. To clarify, the game does in fact run well on lower end systems than the requirements described to Desslock via e-mail, cpu included. However, to provide the best max settings experience with absolutely no issues we had provided those specs as a recommendation in hopes of improving his experience.

In the mean time we’ve been looking at the cause of the processor issue and any other fairly unreasonable hardware requirements while we near our final version of ArcaniA.

 

[thesheeep]

I need a new PC anyway.

So, if I had the money, I'd do it. Then again, who wouldn't.

 

[deuxhero]

witcher 2 dont requires that , two worlds 2 neither, new vegas neither and the pc version probably looks better than xbox one..

Can I borrow your time machine? Or at least your list of srequirements for TWitcher 2 and New Vegas?

 

[Twinkle]

http://www.arcania-game.com/?lang=en&ID=1840

LOL OMG.

 

[Ruprekt]

PC Recommended Requirements

* Processor: Intel Core I7 @ 3 GHz

Core i7-880 3067 MHz ... ... Release Price $583

 

[Overweight Manatee]

http://www.arcania-game.com/?lang=en&ID=1840

LOL OMG.

I do like how it mentions the required DX 8.1 compatible sound card alongside a $1k system

Before everybody splatters his gore all over the screen here, please find yourself a bucket.

I am still wondering what marketing n00b posted it on the site too, but I can tell you they're wrong. And not only because someone told me so.
The specifications of the latest update are nothing but a freak response to some hotshot's reporter being a techno-n00b. That story of late turned out to be processor specific and Spellbound is on it. There are systems below the 'current' minimum specs that run it fine on high details from what I've been told.
Also, if you were a little more clever, you'd read back and see that even the systems on the Gamescom were below the 'current' recommended specs and worked fine on ultra high settings.

So what's wrong? Nothing. Only that some marketing guys show their inabilities to comprehend. And that's nothing new with JoWooD, init?

Dunno if true. I can't believe those requirements are realistic, though.

 

[Ancient]

Oh FFS it's not real requirements....

It was played on ultra settings on pc that was lil above min sys req at gamescom

 

[Lesifoere]

witcher 2 dont requires that , two worlds 2 neither, new vegas neither and the pc version probably looks better than xbox one..

Can I borrow your time machine? Or at least your list of srequirements for TWitcher 2 and New Vegas?

New Vegas shouldn't require anything more than FO3, which was hardly cutting-edge. Word from dudes who did some hands-on with TW2 at a con led me to believe that the system reqs won't be astronomical--a current GPU, a half-decent dual-core or quad-core, 4GB RAM. Standard stuff.

 

[Shannow]

There is an update:

C Minimum Requirements

* OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP / Vista / Windows 7
* Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8 GHz / AMD Athlon II x2 @ 2.8 GHz
* Memory: 2 GB RAM
* Graphics:GeForce 8800 GTX
* DirectX®: DirectX 9.0c or higher
* Hard Drive: 9 GB HDD Space
* Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card


PC Recommended Requirements

* OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP / Vista / Windows 7
* Processor: Intel Core I7 @ 3 GHz / AMD Phenom II x4 @ 3 GHz
* Memory: 4 GB RAM
* Graphics: GeForce GTX 295
* DirectX®: DirectX 9.0c or higher
* Hard Drive: 9 GB HDD Space
* Sound: DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11365

Wow, I actually didn't think those requirements would stay that high. I'll actually not be able to play it with my c2d e6600, 8800 GTS. And no matter what the kiddies who get a new system from heir parents every year think, I still consider my system at least lower mid-range. Especially considering that I had no problems playing any recent game on maxed.
Thankfully I'm not particularly interested in Arcania.

But I'd like to repeat my prediction: "Our game only sold 50k copies. PC gaming is dead, must have been the pirates."

 

[commie]

PC Recommended Requirements

* Processor: Intel Core I7 @ 3 GHz

Core i7-880 3067 MHz ... ... Release Price $583

They're having a fucking laugh! Game doesn't look any better than Risen and Risen flies on my 4 year old Core 2 2.13ghz, 2gb RAM, and a cheap ATI 4770 from a year ago!

Fuck me.

 

[Micmu]

Dungeon Lords II detected

Avoid.

 

[made]

read: unoptimized xbox port

 

[Pablosdog]

I did a little investigating and a super moderator(whatever the fuck that is) basically said that it was a marketing flub, and that the actual system specs are nowhere near that.


from the official website:

For what it's worth, when I was at the Gamescom, I managed to sneak behind and see the system specifications of the the computers used to run Gothic 4. Now Megalomaniac assured me there were Nvidia cards in the systems, but I have my doubts on that (there of course had to be, *The way it is meant to be played*).
The sticker on the boxes though told me there was:

- core i7 720 (which is a relatively weak i7)
- 6GB RAM (don't be shocked, this is standard for i7 systems)
- HD5850

With this system it was possible to run the game ALL maxed out. With full AA and AF (I was like what the hack, why not give it a try and moved the sliders all the way). I can't say but that it ran fluent all the time and nowhere turned into a slide show, so say that was 30+ FPS minimum. No stutters. It could as well be 120 FPS, but that is impossible to determine with the naked eye.

With the above known, I could only make a guestimate on the recommended and minimum specs, but the minimum would still not be far off from the officials. I'd say any Core 2 or Athlon II or Phenom would fit for the recommended specs, together with a HD 48xx or 9800+ card and 2 GB RAM (depending on OS, 4GB for a 64bit).

Also, I don't know if you've seen it, but it runs on an Xbox fine as well....

 

[Sceptic]

Also, I don't know if you've seen it, but it runs on an Xbox fine as well....

Yes we've seen it. We've only seen PC/Xbox comparison shots

 

[denizsi]

But I'd like to repeat my prediction: "Our game only sold 50k copies. PC gaming is dead, must have been the pirates."

When they actually make that statement a year into the release, we can make a thread in their forum and link to this one for teh lulz and butthurt. Those recommended specs are a fucking joke. Crysis probably has 5 to 10 times more "under-the-hood" stuff going on at any time than most other games, including this POS and you can max out the game on a "less capable" system.

I did a little investigating and a super moderator(whatever the fuck that is) basically said:

I can't say but that it ran fluent all the time and nowhere turned into a slide show, so say that was 30+ FPS minimum. No stutters. It could as well be 120 FPS, but that is impossible to determine with the naked eye.

Well then that moderator is either a fucking moron or a lying scumbag and when it's the case with moderators, it could really be either if not both. "Impossible to determine with the naked eye"? An average person can easily perceive even a difference 10 FPS, especially below 60, much less gaps that huge. Saying it could be anything between 30-120 is either damage control with fanboys or a sign of mental retardation.

It most likely means that those specs are true because the PC version will be a shitty port.

 

[Phelot]

So are these not really the correct specs or what? It's on their fucking website. Are they new or something? Hey Jewood, stop fucking up!

 

[Ruprekt]

Maybe there's an error in translation and they think "recommended" means the most expensive processor and graphic card currently available.

 

[Phelot]

Maybe they actually use "recommended" in the sense of "runs at max", as Pablobian's link suggested. Traditionally "recommended" means "can run at medium settings relatively smoothly".

The problem is that their min specs is retardedly high too.

 

[Thalkirst]

Here is an update. I am done with 90% of the game, and here is my take on the performance:

it has the same problems as NWN2 with shadows. It all shadow-related options are maxed out, the game produces 10-15 fps outdoors. Indoors is fine. (1600x1200, Core 2 Duo 3 Ghz, ATI 4870 512M, 4 GB RAM, Windows 7 64 bit). By setting the shadow option to medium and low, 20-25 fps can be achieved. Note that this is a beta build (though close to the final one).

Teh graffix is definitely a saving grace for this game. It looks pretty nice sometimes (especially how sunlight and far shadows were implemented). For some reason, close shadows look ugly frequently.

I guess Codex regulars will hate this game with passion. It is a weird mix of Oblivion, NWN 2 and Witcher. Oblivion's writing added to NWN 2's engine and shadow handling with a combat system that seems to be a dumbed down version of The Witcher's system. C&C is pretty shallow, on Oblivion's level (no real impact, just minor differences between choices). And the game is very easy, I mean accessible.

Dragon Age is a masterpiece compared to this...

 

[King Crispy]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[dr. one]

Oblivion's writing added to NWN 2's engine and shadow handling with a combat system that seems to be a dumbed down version of The Witcher's system.

now we´re talking!

 

[Achilles]

Oblivion's writing added to NWN 2's engine and shadow handling with a combat system that seems to be a dumbed down version of The Witcher's system.

Ouch. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Well then that moderator is either a fucking moron or a lying scumbag and when it's the case with moderators, it could really be either if not both. "Impossible to determine with the naked eye"? An average person can easily perceive even a difference 10 FPS, especially below 60, much less gaps that huge. Saying it could be anything between 30-120 is either damage control with fanboys or a sign of mental retardation.

If your FPS is changing between 40 FPS and 60 FPS often you can tell the difference. But if its a constant 45 FPS or so it will look just fine assuming it follows the industry standard and blurs the entire fucking screen to hell and back. Or maybe my eyes are just getting worse with age.