Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
System Requirements
Mephster
Member Posts: 1,188
in Guild Wars 2
On the bottom of the page they list the minimum system requirements. If you don't have better than an I3 then best to upgrade!
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
Comments
Or maybe u should invest in new glasses
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo 2.0 GHz, Core i3
I emphasized the coma just a little bit
Its 5 year tech in case u are wondering, so are the gfx drivers, 7800GT and x1800 are both quite old, was still in highschool when I had a x1650
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
I would go for the best thing you can afford, Minimum specs will guarrantee a lot of lag even at the lowest settings during Mass PvE or Mass PvP
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
This ^^
Running any game on it's minimum listed requirements is asking for a slideshow. I think devs should change listed "minimum requirements" to something that allows you to run smoothly (30fps) on low settings, Instead most list requirements that are barely enough for the game to appear on your screen at all. Once in a while though a dev gets it close to what you need for a playable experience, And maybe these requirements are actually legit. But I doubt it. To be on the safe side, Anyone looking to get this game should make sure that they have a system that is at least a bit better than the listed minimum system requirements.
Exactly but I undestand that not everyone can afford a good pc these days.
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
For those who are knowledgable in these things..........
from the minimum system requirements can someone speculate on what the recommended specs are? or maybe what hardware is needed to run at highest settings?
The recommended req will probably be the same as mass effect 3. The min req on mass effect 3 are the about the same as GW2, so if you can run ME3 fine you can run GW2 fine. Still mass pve and pvp will lag most computers.
Boooooooo.........
As a gamer and mmorpg reader, I am really not interested in facts or educated responses (even if i ask for them). I just want someone to tell me that my Asus ROG g74 laptop will run at top settings and maintain 60 fps even when there are 500 people on screen. Please dont shit on my parade creslin (aka tyrion), bad spock, distopia, fiontar or anyone else.
Thx
If you have Skyrim that is something you can easily test with the console commands. Turn your graphic setting to ultra and spawn 500 bandit, dragonpriest or dragons. Skyrims graphics are the highest of any game out now. Still you will not see that many people outside of town.
Maxing the game at 1920x1080/60fps will require a hd6870/gtx560 Ti and a decent quad (i.e. above a phenom II X4 @ 2.8GHz or so).
The official 'recommended' will likely be around a hd4870/low end quad. The scalability of the game appears almost identical to bad company 2.
Erm... skyrim? best graphics?
You're pretty far off the mark there
Games with more advanced graphics:
Batman: arkham city, Saints row 3, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, crysis 1, metro 2033, dirt 2, dirt 3, civilization V, shogun 2 total war, just cause 2, The witcher 2, Bad company 2.
And they're just games that i own that are more advanced.
Skyrim can look amazing due to the scale, but graphically it's sitting around in 2008 somewhere.
Not to mention your test is extraordinarily flawed in a vast number of ways. From AI to LoD, there's tons of things which make that test completely void.
Should have rearranged that sentence, so it was not a bold statement. Meant that it is has high system requirements. Npc's in skyrim do cast various spells which are similiar to how people would act in game. It is an open world environment like a mmo, so a test of that scale is not as flawed as you make it out to be. Generalize about a ton extraordinary flaws is not a convincing arguement :P.
Well, anyone who ran any game at min reqs can tell you that it is not a great idea.
The prcessor isn't that important anyways but I recommend you to have a better GFX card than the minimum requirement, preferable a lot better. This is generally speaking for all games, always be a bit above minimum reqs.
I can see problems in the mists with low end computers.
The Skyrim engine is so unoptimised for that kind of scale it's impossible to draw a parallel. 100 people on skyrim on my PC, for example, would not run nearly as well as it will in GW2 due to different engines and optimisations made around catering towards different gameplay*. I mentioned two major factors since they do play a massive role. Skyrim's LoD options, it's reliance on two threads and the fact that it does not scale down AI behaviour means it's performance drops massively when large numbers of NPC's are on screen. The CPU is the bottleneck normally as it simply can't keep up with draw calls ect.
GW2 won't have such issues, it's programmed to run on 4 cores (apparently), it's AI is likely far less complex for situations where one would expect large numbers of monsters, and finally the LoD settings are different
It'll still take a performance hit in massive battles, but not to the scale skyrim does.
Overall performance of GW2 can be roughly linked to how bad company 2 runs though. It has the exact same minimum specifications, and runs very similarly when maxed
WvW is always going to be an oddball though. Until further optimisations are made and we get to see the battles for ourself, we can't say how much of a hit it'll take. However, we can definitely say it doesn't scale like skyrim does(n't)!
*for example, shogun 2: total war can have 4000+ enemies on screen and not have much of an issue despite, pathetically, being a single thread game. It's purely down to what the engine is designed for and optimised around.
Well skyrim recommended requirements is a quadcore so I do not see why that would be an issue. Some LoD can only be changed in the text files of the game that is how I tweak skyrim the most fps out of it. As far as 500 different AI's vs 500 player's character in the game, I have not clue as to the performance differencee between the two. Your computer may take a bigger fps hit from if you have 500 npc on screen when compared to 500 characters. In the press beta people stated that the High Rez textures were not in game, so you can not go based on that info. Still it is a easy way to see how your computer runs in large scale combat.
Skyrim's recommended requirements are bollocks
The game only uses 2 threads ergo 2 cores. You're also correct, having 500 NPC's on screen is indeed more demanding for the CPU. The thing is, skyrim absolutely breaks with around 100 players on screen (by break i mean sub 30fps on an i5-2500K @ 5GHz), whereas we've seen videos where comparable numbers of players are running fine with FRAPs. AI makes a difference, and it *could* be down to that, but it's unlikely.
As i've stated, different engines are designed around different situations. Total war's engine is based aound having 4-5k characters on screen and that only uses one thread!
You cannot draw any comparison between a game having x number of characters on screen compared to another game having x number of characters on screen. It does not work. My bad company 2 comparison, for example, is nothign to do with player count, but instead it is referring to overall performance in average gameplay at 'equivalent' settings.
Meeting andplaying the game in the min specs means you will suffer,especially with a game like GW2 where DE can have 100s of people and WvWvW the same.
Anyone playing the game in min specs and finds they can't move in WvWvW has no right to complain to ArenaNet.In this day and age you can actually build a machine very cheaply that will run GW2 on med to high settings.
If you love mmo then you should make sure you have a system that can run them.I could never play a mmo on low or mid settings,i want to see the game in all it's glory.