Do or do not check the Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2 system specs
51
Is your PC gaming rig beefy enough to handle the Stormtrooper-bullying action of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2? You can compare your gear to the game's system requirements below. Keep in mind, your computer will need a fair amount of midichlorians as well. Do they sell those on Newegg?
Operating system: Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista® SP2, or Windows 7
Processor:
Required: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 5200+
Recommended: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 6000+
Memory: 2 GB RAM
Hard disk space: 10GB + 1GB Swapfile
Video:
Required: 256 MB Video Memory with Shader 3.0 support, ATI Radeon HD 2600 / NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Recommended: ATI Radeon HD 4800 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Sound: 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible Audio Device
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c (March 2009)
Operating system: Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista® SP2, or Windows 7
Processor:
Required: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 5200+
Recommended: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 6000+
Memory: 2 GB RAM
Hard disk space: 10GB + 1GB Swapfile
Video:
Required: 256 MB Video Memory with Shader 3.0 support, ATI Radeon HD 2600 / NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
Recommended: ATI Radeon HD 4800 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Sound: 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible Audio Device
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c (March 2009)
Reader Comments (51)
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:13AM Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi said
not to shabby.....tho I will be getting it on PS3
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:29AM Grayfox9430 said
thats beefy?
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:33AM WiredKnight said
@Grayfox9430
If your rig is from 2006, then yes.
Reply
If your rig is from 2006, then yes.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:36AM iHavePants said
@Grayfox9430
I didn't think so before reading the recommended GPU's but yeah, that's pretty high. Then again this would probably be at the highest resolution with every bell and whistle turned on so I'm not bothered by it, especially considering how low the minimum specs are.
It's also nice to see that they may have bothered to compress the data this time around, yay I guess.
Reply
I didn't think so before reading the recommended GPU's but yeah, that's pretty high. Then again this would probably be at the highest resolution with every bell and whistle turned on so I'm not bothered by it, especially considering how low the minimum specs are.
It's also nice to see that they may have bothered to compress the data this time around, yay I guess.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:43AM iHavePants said
@WiredKnight
Oh wait that's just a 260... carry on gentleman, whoops.
Having said that though, I still have an Nvidia 9600(it itself pretty much just being a rebranded -cheaper- 8800 from 2007) bought in early 2008, and I can still play pretty much everything on max or near settings.
Reply
Oh wait that's just a 260... carry on gentleman, whoops.
Having said that though, I still have an Nvidia 9600(it itself pretty much just being a rebranded -cheaper- 8800 from 2007) bought in early 2008, and I can still play pretty much everything on max or near settings.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 11:44AM AdamSpruijt said
@iHavePants
The 9600 is not at all an 8800GT the 9800 was the re-branded card with tiny tweaks, the 96 had 25% less shader cores running at a slightly higher frequency.
Reply
The 9600 is not at all an 8800GT the 9800 was the re-branded card with tiny tweaks, the 96 had 25% less shader cores running at a slightly higher frequency.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:29AM rothron said
This game is no match for my _fully operational_ gaming station!
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:32AM WiredKnight said
Whoa, really? These seem unusually low...
I was actually fairly impressed by the graphics on the 360, I guess the PC version isn't much more than a port.
I was actually fairly impressed by the graphics on the 360, I guess the PC version isn't much more than a port.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:58AM koehler83 said
@WiredKnight Well they made all the assets and post-processing for consoles. Super PC hardware isn't going to change any of that. It will just let you play at a higher resolution with some additional Anti-Aliasing.
These specs are probably only for 1280x720.
Reply
These specs are probably only for 1280x720.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 3:33PM WiredKnight said
@koehler83
Right, that's what I'm saying. Their target platform was Xbox/PS3, so it runs and looks great on them but won't look much better on a more powerful PC.
Reply
Right, that's what I'm saying. Their target platform was Xbox/PS3, so it runs and looks great on them but won't look much better on a more powerful PC.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:59AM theangryheretic said
If you are a PC gamer, those are not high specs. I built my gaming rig 1.5 years ago, and with my 2 NVidia 9600GT cards in SLI mode, I'm looking forward to playing this game.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 10:48AM iHavePants said
@theangryheretic
Just curious but do you really find much difference with SLI compared to just having the single GPU with that card? There was maybe one or two games I noticed a benefit but even more games had direct issues with SLI that caused them to run worse or have strange graphical anomolies, needed me to disable it just to make them run properly. In the end I just started using the other card as a dedicated PhysX processor :/
Reply
Just curious but do you really find much difference with SLI compared to just having the single GPU with that card? There was maybe one or two games I noticed a benefit but even more games had direct issues with SLI that caused them to run worse or have strange graphical anomolies, needed me to disable it just to make them run properly. In the end I just started using the other card as a dedicated PhysX processor :/
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 11:10AM theangryheretic said
@iHavePants
The biggest difference I noticed with my SLI set up was being able to run games at higher resolutions and have the settings turned up higher. I started out with a single 9600GT and added a 2nd one a few months later, so I was on a single card for a while, and could really see the visual upgrades once I added the 2nd 9600GT.
Reply
The biggest difference I noticed with my SLI set up was being able to run games at higher resolutions and have the settings turned up higher. I started out with a single 9600GT and added a 2nd one a few months later, so I was on a single card for a while, and could really see the visual upgrades once I added the 2nd 9600GT.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 8:08AM rahnyc4 said
nice. my pc can run this in its sleep. i have a ps3, though i always go for the pc versions, cause frankly they look and most of the time run better on the pc. sad is that cause of things like this, i hardly play my ps3.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 8:19AM Wraith242 said
Im a little scared of this one. My PC can handle it no prob, but the first on was garbage on pc. you coulcnt even change graphic settings, it was just stuck on crappy
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 8:36AM Anticrawl said
When did calling one's PC a "rig" start anyway? That is so damn annoying, we aren't truckers we're gamers.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 10:51PM Anticrawl said
@Mmmmz
New to PC gaming? Lawl, yes that is exactly the case. I most certainly never dialed into a server to play a board game or MU before. I also never was around for the birth of the FPS genre.
And I have never bought a game on a 3 1/2 inch floppy.
It must just be a forum dweller thing. Even at Unreal Tournament cons I've never heard the term used by anyone worthwhile. Why u mad tho?
Reply
New to PC gaming? Lawl, yes that is exactly the case. I most certainly never dialed into a server to play a board game or MU before. I also never was around for the birth of the FPS genre.
And I have never bought a game on a 3 1/2 inch floppy.
It must just be a forum dweller thing. Even at Unreal Tournament cons I've never heard the term used by anyone worthwhile. Why u mad tho?
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 8:59AM Vcize said
I will try and check them.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 9:20AM CaptainProtonX said
I'm a week away from a new Radeon 5770. I can almost taste it.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 3:35PM WiredKnight said
@CaptainProtonX
Wait a month for the new 6000 series to come out. You can get one of those, or at least you can probably get a price drop!
Reply
Wait a month for the new 6000 series to come out. You can get one of those, or at least you can probably get a price drop!
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 4:25PM jackal said
@WiredKnight
What do you mean a month? The HD 6850 and HD 6870 videocards are due for a hard launch Friday with some cards already available for sale depending on where you look. AMD's changed the HD 6 series's nomenclature slightly (much to my annoyance). The Barts family of cards (HD 68XX) is priced to replace Juniper (HD57XX) and will be mainstream cards; an HD 6850's apparently faster than an HD5830 and the HD6870 is close to an HD5850 in terms of performance. Cayman (HD6950 and HD6970) cards will be released next month and they're going to be Cypress's replacement (HD58XX). Some time after that, Antilles will be coming out and it'll be a dual gpu enthusiast card.
Reply
What do you mean a month? The HD 6850 and HD 6870 videocards are due for a hard launch Friday with some cards already available for sale depending on where you look. AMD's changed the HD 6 series's nomenclature slightly (much to my annoyance). The Barts family of cards (HD 68XX) is priced to replace Juniper (HD57XX) and will be mainstream cards; an HD 6850's apparently faster than an HD5830 and the HD6870 is close to an HD5850 in terms of performance. Cayman (HD6950 and HD6970) cards will be released next month and they're going to be Cypress's replacement (HD58XX). Some time after that, Antilles will be coming out and it'll be a dual gpu enthusiast card.
Posted: Oct 24th 2010 6:08PM jackal said
@WiredKnight
How's it useless, exactly? And HD6850 (priced at $200) is slower than an HD5850, an HD6870 (priced at $250) sits somewhere between an HD5850 and HD5870 in terms of performance. If the previous naming scheme had been kept, they'd be 67XX not 68XX. AMD's high end and super high end are coming out next month.
Reply
How's it useless, exactly? And HD6850 (priced at $200) is slower than an HD5850, an HD6870 (priced at $250) sits somewhere between an HD5850 and HD5870 in terms of performance. If the previous naming scheme had been kept, they'd be 67XX not 68XX. AMD's high end and super high end are coming out next month.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 9:28AM (Unverified) said
If they don't screw up the port like the first game I'll be getting it.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 9:39AM 2late2die said
It's a console game - if you bought a decent rig 3 or 4 years ago it'll handle the game just fine. That is unless the developers screw up the port.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 9:52AM vipor1979 said
i played the first one on ps3 and the 2nd one will be the same,i mean my pc can handle this fine but i would rather just play it on ps3,i enjoyed the demo it was pretty cool
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 10:32AM rullers said
It costs 400,000$ to play this game for twelve seconds.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 10:36AM KayinAngel said
Hard Drive space 11GB ... I suppose that's better than the 30GB required for the first game. Because, Jezus, that's larger then Grand Theft Auto 4, Fallout 3, and two Stalker games combined....
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:02PM KayinAngel said
@Chazzr
yeah. i grabbed the first unleashed game off steam the other week when it was super cheap... however i'm currently in the Caribbean with a fairly lame internet connection, so i have still yet to finish downloading the sucker. from the looks of the file manifest, the size comes from a dozen or so very large bik format videos (assuming HD cut scenes. they better be freaking awesome cutscenes ^_^).
Reply
yeah. i grabbed the first unleashed game off steam the other week when it was super cheap... however i'm currently in the Caribbean with a fairly lame internet connection, so i have still yet to finish downloading the sucker. from the looks of the file manifest, the size comes from a dozen or so very large bik format videos (assuming HD cut scenes. they better be freaking awesome cutscenes ^_^).
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 11:03AM NoirR said
YAY! my PS3 will run it! XD
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 11:10AM Operator said
Please ...
It's a console port. The days of ridiculous system requirements are over, Joystiq. I had a computer that could run this game four years ago.
It's a console port. The days of ridiculous system requirements are over, Joystiq. I had a computer that could run this game four years ago.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 11:55AM maver1ck89 said
My computer will eat this thing alive...but...are there cheevos?
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 12:09PM Faceless Troll said
I'm amazed they've announced it for the PC this early considering the trouble they had getting the first one to PC.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 2:12PM RELLIKTRA said
Its a good thing I own a M17X
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 2:22PM noyesa said
The fact that so many commenters don't think these specs aren't that high is a sign of the problem with PC gaming: if you don't keep up with it, it will pass you by. I used to be a very dedicated PC gamer, I dropped $1,000 on a gaming PC back in 2004, and upgraded it with a $400 GeForce 6800 GT in 2005.
2 years later the industry had passed me by and playing games on my PC isn't even an option anymore. I didn't give up on it, I simply can't install anything that I don't already own, all of which are games dated no later than 2005.
This is in contrast to the games that were coming out back then, which would run on 4-5 year old hardware. You could run Half-Life 2 on as little as a 1GHz Pentium 3 with a GeForce 4 and 256MB of RAM, but running on older hardware is almost impossible anymore.
2 years later the industry had passed me by and playing games on my PC isn't even an option anymore. I didn't give up on it, I simply can't install anything that I don't already own, all of which are games dated no later than 2005.
This is in contrast to the games that were coming out back then, which would run on 4-5 year old hardware. You could run Half-Life 2 on as little as a 1GHz Pentium 3 with a GeForce 4 and 256MB of RAM, but running on older hardware is almost impossible anymore.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 4:31PM jackal said
@noyesa
That's largely because most developers simply half-ass their console ports. The Forced Unleashed PC was/is nigh unplayable because Aspyr did such a remarkably crappy job porting it over; even at a low resolution (1280x720) the game would lag severely on even enthusiast class hardware despite the fact heavy hitters like Crysis or Metro 2033 were extremely playable. If console devs put as much effort into properly optimizing their games like Valve or Epic, multiplatform games wouldn't be unnecessarily demanding.
Reply
That's largely because most developers simply half-ass their console ports. The Forced Unleashed PC was/is nigh unplayable because Aspyr did such a remarkably crappy job porting it over; even at a low resolution (1280x720) the game would lag severely on even enthusiast class hardware despite the fact heavy hitters like Crysis or Metro 2033 were extremely playable. If console devs put as much effort into properly optimizing their games like Valve or Epic, multiplatform games wouldn't be unnecessarily demanding.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 4:37PM noyesa said
@jackal Yeah, I suppose that has always been true. Halo PC didn't look that great and ran like absolute garbage when it came out, despite being a port of a three year old console game, and that was around the point where PCs were already capable of Half-Life 2/Doom 3 level graphics.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 3:47PM vankaizer said
my 1 year old laptop can play this smoothly. this is nothing.
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 3:57PM CJLopez said
bouth lap and desk can play this, though i'll be grabbing wii version
Smash Jedi Brothers FTW!!!
Smash Jedi Brothers FTW!!!
Posted: Oct 21st 2010 7:23PM ChuckBartowskiX said
Im happy to see i can play this game with ease then...
| 1 | 2 |
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM







