Bioshock PC specs ..WTF?

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
PCGH: Can you already say what rig players must have to play the game with all details in resolution of 1280x1024?

Irrational Games: Our recommended spec is as follows:
- CPU: 3GHz dual core processor
- Memory: 2 GB RAM
- Video card: Pixel Shader 3.0 compliant video card with 512 Ram (Geforce 7900 GT or better)

But to run the game at 1280x1024 with all graphics options enabled you really need an NVIDIA 8800 or ATI 2900XT or better.
Click to expand...

or better? does that even exist?

that's extremely high specs for a pc game ...especially since the art direction outshines the engine capabilities ..it's not exactly ut3

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=604659

These aren't minimum requirements, you blind idiots! They're for running Bioshock with everything at maximum! Minimum requirements haven't been released yet! GAWD.
 
So...my preferred 1680x1050 will need to be lowest settings just to get sh17 framerates?
 
does seem high. it's probably due to all the water effects they have going on even for dx 9 stuff.
 
Goddammit, companies should really look at valve and Blizzard.
(except for the episodic content and the story concerning valve)
 
I'm assuming they are just being more honest with their recommended. That's what most games seem to be wanting to play at intended lately.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
No. 3 GHz dual core. Each.
Click to expand...

I really doubt that, the percent of the market that even has dual cores clocked over 2.4 a piece is astonishingly small.

Unless you were being sarcastic, which is really hard to tell on the intarweb. D:
 
meh...this game is so not my style.

i don't give a flying F*** about specs i'm not playing.
 
Keep in mind those are recommended specs not min. Intel has Pentium 4 dual core chips at that speed. That is probably what they are referring to by 3ghz dual core. Not a core2duo or AMD X2 chips which are more powerful per GHz. Otherwise those with a P4 3GHz dual core chip will be hurting when playing the game. hehe
A number of games have been going Shader 3.0 only recently. And more and more can use 256MB+ VRAM. Stalker 437MB, Quake 4 500MB, C&C Tiberium Wars 280 MB, CoD2 314MB
 
I am going to save a whole heap of money not buying games this year. :/
 
Now I can't decide on the platform to buy it for D:
 
Meh fancy graphics dont impress me anyways. As long as I can play at some decent setting with my Athlon 64 3500 and 7800gt then I am happy. Plus I'm graduating in April and will probably get a lot of money from the parents then, which ill use to upgrade :)
 
I'm going PC for community support and mods.

I'll be upgrading before college so it should be no problem.
 
Hey at least they're honest, they did say if you want to run the game on high settings too. That's better than Crytek claiming you can run Crysis on high with a GF 5200.
 
babyheadcrab said:
I'm assuming they are just being more honest with their recommended. That's what most games seem to be wanting to play at intended lately.
Click to expand...

I think so too. I remember the last time I upgraded my pc - all the latest and greatest hardware - and immediately certain games were running poorly. Developers make pc games for hardware that doesn't exist yet :/
 
I'm definitely picking this up for the 360.

In my heart of hearts, I am a PC gamer. Unfortunately, it seems I cannot afford to be one. The amount of financial upkeep required is ridiculous. The only two developers whose games I have on my computer at the moment are Blizzard and Valve. Quality gaming at half (or less than half) of the requirements needed for anything else.
 
That puts the Rainbow Six:Vegas system specs to shame. :(
 
I just don't get it. How can a game which is essentially designed to work on an xbox 360 need that high recommended specs. I mean recommended specs are always the minimum that you can run the game at medium at 30 fps. On medium settings it should look like the xbox version. I mean the darkness and fear don't need that high specs, why this game, it doesn't look much better.
 
Absinthe said:
I'm definitely picking this up for the 360.

In my heart of hearts, I am a PC gamer. Unfortunately, it seems I cannot afford to be one. The amount of financial upkeep required is ridiculous. The only two developers whose games I have on my computer at the moment are Blizzard and Valve. Quality gaming at half (or less than half) of the requirements needed for anything else.
Click to expand...

same here,all I have is Hl1,CSS and WoW installed right now.
 
I dont see what there is to complain about ..you can pick up a more than decent pc for $1000 ..much much less than it was when pc gaming was all the rage in the late 90's ..easily double that. It's just this particular transition that is so expensive...also it helps to plan your upgrade path to minimize expense
 
And again I don't get it. Recently PC devs seem to have gotten smart. I mean when I bought my first pc in 1999 there were games I could not play just a year later. On my current PC I was able to play Prey 4 years after he purchase of my pc, on the highest settings. And I can still play company of heroes and CnC3, TRA( again on highest everything).

Does anyone know what resolution they were talking about, maybe it was like 1900x???? so thats why the high specs.
 
yes:

"But to run the game at 1280x1024 with all graphics options enabled you really need an NVIDIA 8800 or ATI 2900XT or better."
 
Vista Exclusive...
 
I hope this means the PC-version will have a substantially higher potential in the gfx-department than the xbox-version. If not the developers either suck or have a deal with MS.

Either way, when Crysis launches I will be getting a new rig that will handle "everything", at least for a while.

.bog.
 
CPU: 3GHz dual core processor
Click to expand...
Seems high but it could also refer to the amd style "rating" ; ie, an x24400 only runs at 2ghz but is -according to amd- as fast as two athlons running at 4.4ghz each. I hope thats the case, they're not going to sell many copies with that steep a requirement
- Memory: 2 GB RAM
Click to expand...
Its a Vista exclusive right? If so then 2gig sounds about right for an intensive cutting edge game(on Vista)
Video card: Pixel Shader 3.0 compliant video card with 512 Ram (Geforce 7900 GT or better)
Click to expand...
It needs a card capable of sm3, thats cool.
But to run the game at 1280x1024 with all graphics options enabled you really need an NVIDIA 8800 or ATI 2900XT or better.
Click to expand...
Hint; what cards are capable of running dx10?

Other than the processor, those reqs dont seem too bad, but Im not sold on the game yet. It doesnt seem to offer more than SS2 underwater, in the past.

Might pick it up once I get Vista.
 
pc players geting sad cuz a game needs much more specs that theyr pc's? welcome to my world
 
Eh, I'll just go nuts on my system when I build it a few months out :O
 
*Uriel pats his Dell XPS

Good boy....good boy.

Don't look at me that way, i got a killer deal on it.
 
I have a 2.8G dual. If I overclock it to 3G, will I be okay to play the game?
 
No biggie, I plan to get this on the 360. It won't look as nice as it would on a high end PC, but it will still look great and i don't have to worry about performance.
 
bbson john said:
I have a 2.8G dual. If I overclock it to 3G, will I be okay to play the game?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll be fine... If you're so intent on playing this game on uber-high settings and want to void your warranty to overclock though, then by all means go for it. I would rather turn down a setting or two myself.
 
I don't get this either, although it's getting old HL2 still looks amazing really even today. It must be all these fancy new shader models that they are using, it was the biggest fps hit in stalker. I don't know why they can't support a range of shader models and make it more scalable.

It comes across as everything being poorly optimised or they are simply forgetting a massive chunk of people who don't upgrade so quickly and heavily who still enjoy PC games. I think since developers work in cahoots with the top range tech at that time it's purposefully aimed at making people have to buy more upmarket rather than them spending time making the engine more scalable.
 
What a joke. What's with the new games have stupidly high requirements despite not even looking that great or at least not compared to the specs ? Shadowrun, Bioshock, etc.

I'll just get it on 360 than, if I get it at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anthraxxx
BF3 System Specs
Replies
22
Views
2K
unozero
unozero
Dynasty
GTX 770 SLI Disappointing Performance.
Replies
3
Views
5K
sixteenth
sixteenth
Bad^Hat
Renegade Ops - top down, vehicle-based explody action from the Just Cause dudes
Replies
34
Views
2K
Bad^Hat
Bad^Hat
NikolaX
Free PC games Thread
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
VirusType2
VirusType2
Warped
Demigod is now really cheap
Replies
1
Views
560
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Back
Top