| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (87)

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:42PM Zertoss said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damn, a Geforce 7900 GTX is the recommended required card? My PC is outfitted with an overclocked 7800 GT, which I don't think is gonna cut it. Good thing I already own this game on the 360. Still, I hope this requirement doesn't become a growing trend, I may have to upgrade sooner than I wanted to.

Also, that struck out recommended replaced with real made me laugh. I do that all the time when discussing system requirements and it is always met with stunned amazement and/or a few laughs. It's something every PC gamer knows is true.

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
you do know that you can get 2 gigs of ram for 50 dollars and an 8800 gts for 114 dollars, right?

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okay B!

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:45PM Mr Slayer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most modern computers should have no problems running the game as long as they meet the minimum requirements. I won't have any problems running this game maxed out with my current setup.

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Optimize Man...

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:50PM pabloshong said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
seems that I need to upgrade my TI-82

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:56PM jake11 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
6 gigglebytes per lesbian

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 9:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well it was nice knowing pc gaming...



j/k my pc kicks ass :P

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:09PM CarlitosColon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One Geth LOL! Damn Ludwig, you, good sir, are a clever one!

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A lot of this stuff comes standard now adays but my machine doesn't meet any of those requirements ;(

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 11:11PM secura said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You don't have XP or Vista?
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ludwig, that pun literally made me poke both my eyes out.

Posted: Apr 23rd 2008 6:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It just says 2.6+ GHz Intel is recommended, but what about 2.4 GHz Intel Quad core? Does that make a difference at all?

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Probably a P4 @ 2.6ghz. a Quad Core @ 2.4GHz is more than enough.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:29PM Mr Slayer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you have a quad core processor, you don't have anything to worry about.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:45PM BigD145 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Slayer: Does it natively support a quad core?
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One Geth, har har har har har

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 1:17AM Cabal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well its good to know that even my last computer that I built in 04 (upgraded video in 06) could run this game, means my new rig can play it with max settings no problem.

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lot of you on 'stiq always complain about PC games' hardware requirements, are you all still running 386 or something? You don't have to spend all that much to build a decent box, and if you plan it right it'll last you long time with only having to upgrade bits and pieces every now and then.

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 3:32PM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I run Assassin's Creed on a Commodore 64, I don't know what these people are complaining about.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 10:48PM BigD145 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
$600 or less will give you more than enough to run this game. You can even splurge on a 640GB two platter HD. My AMD's are laughing at the Intel req.

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 8:11AM Eric H said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thats the old processors, the new Core 2 stuff stomps AMD's meager offering ins the ground.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 11:09PM secura said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why is everyone complaining about the requirements? They're lower than what I expected.

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 11:20PM captcarl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They're about what I expected. Unreal Tech 3 games seem to require minimum C2D 2.2GHz.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 11:44PM mcarage said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man these comments are so surprising on a site like joystiq. I mean it has such a even distribution between PC and console gaming who would of thought this flamebait post would cause this response.

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 11:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
After i got a new card for Christmas (8800 GTS 512 (92)) i have been looking forward to games that really actually USE the thing i spent money on. I love how crysis and COD4 look, ...and i dont mind 12 gigs of HDD space...

IMO... the more the games require the better...

Posted: Apr 16th 2008 11:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

After i got a new card for Christmas (8800 GTS 512 (92)) i have been
looking forward to games that really actually USE the thing i spent
money on. I love how crysis and COD4 look, ...and i dont mind 12 gigs
of HDD space...

IMO... the more the games require the better...

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 3:33PM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The more the games require the better"

No offence, but I think I hate you now.
Reply

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 2:17AM Jonny said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6 series(6800GT or better); ATI 1300XT or better (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)

That doesn't even make f***ing sense. As the X1550, X1600 are both faster than the X1300XT.

Not to mention the HD2400 is practically the same thing with DX10.

WTF?

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 3:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I laughed so hard at that throwaway joke in the image.

PS - eh...Not real torn up about not being able to handle this on my PC because I didn't even really like it on my 360.

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 5:09AM BurntMeatloaf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I take it this "Mass Effect" they are talking about is a deluge of people logging into NewEgg?

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 8:37AM XGM said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Holy sh*t (said in a UT announcer voice)

Those specs are nuts, I can't even game on my MacBook Pro thats a year old (x1600 mobile...)

Posted: Apr 18th 2008 11:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If you're willing to overclock, you can. Just 15MHz more on the core clock and it'll meet the minimum.

I'm going to do the same if the game plays well.
Reply

Posted: Apr 18th 2008 11:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whoops, that should be 30MHz.
Reply

Posted: Apr 17th 2008 10:42AM Pojomofo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
cummfeee coouches 4 da winarrrrrrrrrrrr!!!1!

My lowly PC has no hopes of running it. I have no 360 thanks to Microsofts ultra-relible gaming system. So no ME for me. *tear*

Posted: Apr 26th 2008 7:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
dose my system:
# Operating System: Windows XP
# Processor: 2.8 GHZ Intel
# Memory: 1 Gigabytes Ram
# Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 Gs
# Hard Drive Space: more than enough
# Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
can run it ( not on Max obviously)?

Posted: Apr 26th 2008 8:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"dose??? my system:
# Operating System: Windows XP
# Processor: 2.8 GHZ Intel
# Memory: 1 Gigabytes Ram
# Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 Gs
# Hard Drive Space: more than enough
# Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
can!!! run it ( not on Max obviously)?"
sorry about the mistakes. that's what I get for posting while reading something else.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW