Far Cry 2 specs revealed

Is it just me or do those actually seem quite reasonable?

They seem extremely reasonable, maybe it's the Farcry Engine :p

Maybe these are recommended specs to be able to play it on 'low detail' mode??? Having said that I remember reading that the engine has gone through some heavy optimisation so with any luck those specs are indeed correct.

well those do seem pretty reasonable but typically even recommended specs is never really recommended and something higher is needed, its kinda like min is for very low, recommended is for like medium and then something top notch for high.

Gaah it looks like my 8400M GT won't be able to handle this T-T

yay theres life still in my 8800GTS 320MB, tho at 1920x1200 it might be a different story....

That looks pretty good - depends how it actually runs though. So many games have had sensible minimum specs then run like a dog.

thats is very reasonable, atleast people wont be bitching about how shite their pc is and how games try to force them to upgrade all the time like they did with crysis....if you wanna play the most graphically awesome and detailed game pull your wallet out, otherwise shhhhhh....still back to the news thread, its good news as maybe with it being more accessible to more gamers, they will make some proper money from it and prove that pc gaming isnt dying, farcry 2 should be good

peace

Yeah totally agree with what he said ^ Maybe the "Dunia" engine is very well coded but I somehow doubt that you could see all those nice flame effects on a slow machine.

I hope that this game turns out great because the team behind is a very talented and young one and they really deserve to put out a good product.

thats actually not that bad. lower than assassin's creed, which was ridiculous.

Not too horrible... all things considered. I suppose I'll need to grab a good gaming card to throw in the MP for boot camp gaming.

Guess now i know my goals for the upgrade :)

Noooorrrs my 9500 pro won't make the cut! ...Not that I was expecting it to or anything but hey, a broke guy can dream.

Deleted

i doubt those recomended specs will provide the stunning visuals I've been seeing of farcry 2

Recommended specs are such a waste of time. The MOST important thing to how the game will run is what resolution you are going to run it at! It is never referenced in rec. set. (and often not in not tech savvy reviews of games and gear). I would imagine those rec. sets. would give pretty rubbish frame rates on a 30" monitor!

A waste of time IMO

Originally Posted by Tile
Not reasonable at all.

yeah, too low.

looks like i'll have to wait for Rage's recommended spec for an upgrade goal.

i highly doubt those recommended are what's required to max the game.

I thought they are quite acceptable specs. I really hope those recommend could get us to a high level od detail... but i doubt it.

i'll see what happens when i run this at 1680x1050.

I say that the recommended specs should be what it takes to run the game at max settings with a frame rate of at least 75 - 85Hz sustained, no dropping below that frame rate at all.

The minimum specs should be what it takes to run the game at half settings while maintaining the same 75 - 85Hz sustained frame rate.

Having a PC with specs higher than recommended should enable you to get up to 120Hz sustained frame rate on max settings, there is no point going above 120Hz as very few monitors can display it and your eyes cannot see any difference above that frame rate.
Contrary to popular belief the human eye can see above 60Hz, the limit is 120Hz, below 60Hz things start to strobe, below 25Hz you get the slideshow effect.

If you have a PC that falls below the minnimum you should still be able to run the game but at lower settings while maintaining at least 75Hz sustained frame rate even if you have to run the game at the lowest settings or you can then decide to set the frame rate lower to get higher resolution/effects settings.

You should have an option in the settings menu to set the frame rate and it should stay at that frame rate and not drop below it at all, if your PC can't sustain the frame rate you set it to then you decide on how to compromise, be it an option to have it automatically lower resolution to prevent frame rate reduction or have an option to let it lower the frame rate and maintain resolution.

As for consoles, they are made with a set system spec and are made for use with either 50Hz or 60Hz frame rate depending on what TV system it is used on, they should not have the frame rate dropping either.

Having a constant frame rate is part of the quality and enjoyment, a constant high frame rate of 75Hz or higher makes the game much more enjoyable and does not cause eye strain or fatigue, frame rates lower than 75Hz cause eye strain and fatigue, I can't have my monitor set below 75Hz, I have it set at 85Hz and keep it at that, if I set it at 75Hz I start to see strobing, if I set it to 60Hz I can't even look at it because it hurts my eyes.

I can watch TV at 50Hz but that is standard definition, I haven't watched high definition at 50Hz yet because of the cost of HDTV's.

These recommended specs are higher than that for crysis though, so it might be even more demanding than that....

Originally Posted by Smegwarrior
*snip*

Interesting idea, but it's not really that simple - anyone can tweak a computer to make it look like the minimum specs are lower if you have to achieve a certain framerate. As for the recommended settings being able to run it at max, what if the hardware doesn't exist? What if it's such a high spec it'll put people off?

All this is res-dependant anyway.

Originally Posted by Krikkit
Interesting idea, but it's not really that simple - anyone can tweak a computer to make it look like the minimum specs are lower if you have to achieve a certain framerate. As for the recommended settings being able to run it at max, what if the hardware doesn't exist? What if it's such a high spec it'll put people off?

All this is res-dependant anyway.

Simple, games should only be made to be used on systems that exist now, why design a game for hardware that doesn't exist yet, no one can use it propperly.

Look at all the crysis people are having over the game with that as a name. :p

Originally Posted by Smegwarrior
Simple, games should only be made to be used on systems that exist now, why design a game for hardware that doesn't exist yet, no one can use it properly.

Software has always driven hardware to evolve. Hardware improvements push software to evolve. Sounds like a paradox, but such things often are. If software was always coded with a 'current is good enough' attitude, we'd all still be playing in 8-bit colour at 640x480, and the cost of a GPU capable of doing that would be higher than the launch price of a GTX280, as there would be no need to improve the hardware. Or compete. Or lower costs.

This constant pushing against the boundaries of both hardware and software is what has driven the stunningly quick development of computers. And this is not a bad thing. I never would have thought a few years ago that I would be able to do DVD encoding on my home PC at the speed I can now.

I'll agree that Crysis doesn't scale well with multiple-GPU scenarios, and it doesn't really seem to do much multicore processors either... but when Far Cry was released, the 9800 Pro was the 'top card', and a fair number of people were complaining about how Far Cry was badly coded and ran terribly... yadda yadda. Then the series 6 cards from nVidia were released, and all of a sudden Far Cry was playable at max or close-to-max settings, depending on what sort of resolution you had in mind.

The situation has changed since then, however... due in no small part to the rapid growth in the market of high-resolution widescreen displays. When Far Cry was released, 1024x768 was 'standard', 1280x1024 was more or less 'power user' and 1600x1200 was rather seriously high end for the 'normal' consumer. Now, though... 1680x1050 is not exactly an uncommon res, and even 1920x1200 is quite affordable. 2560x1600 or 'TripleHead' are now the 'power users' (Matrox have just released triple 1680x1050 support for their TripleHead2Go) and, frankly, it's a heck of a lot easier to push 800,000 pixels than it is to push 2.3 million... let alone the 4 mil of 2560x1600 or 5.3 mil of some of the serious TripleHead setups.

I'll look at CryTek and say they should have gotten multi-GPU right (they should have, as Crysis has next to no multi-GPU scaling) particularly since the 'high end' now is multi-GPU... and has been since PCI-E and the series 6 cards were released with SLI, and the X800 series with CrossFire. They've got no excuse for blinkering themselves on that front. Equally, when I look at Crysis on medium, it doesn't look bad. It looks very good. On high is looks even better. But on very high... I don't notice a great deal of difference, aside from the nosedive on the framerate. Crytek could almost have left 'very high' out entirely (or added it in a patch later) and probably avoided some of the internet mauling they received for a game they tried to make push boundaries.

Pushing technological boundaries isn't a bad thing. Why make it seem like it is?

Easily met by my new build...

Whether this is recommended for 1920x1200 or not is a different story, though..

What's a shader model?!

(Yes, yes, I know, I know, but christ.)

I assume an "NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT", which is the bad news given to me by device manager, need not apply.

I wonder if my laptops 8800MGTX will be able to run this on medium / high @ 1920x1200 (Native resolution).

Heres hoping :)

They seem reasonable, but then, rec/minimum specs usually mean jack without a resolution to put them to.

Hell, I'm sure Crysis would run beautifully on its rec. specs on 640x480.

I think I'll stick to my 'wait for decent reviews' practice before I make any judgment of the rec. specs.

Originally Posted by liratheal
They seem reasonable, but then, rec/minimum specs usually mean jack without a resolution to put them to.

Hell, I'm sure Crysis would run beautifully on its rec. specs on 640x480.

I think I'll stick to my 'wait for decent reviews' practice before I make any judgment of the rec. specs.

I'd imagine recommended will give acceptable performance on a standard 1280x1024 monitor, since that is a very popular resolution.

what settings do you guys think i sould be able to run this at 1680x1050 with a 9800GT 1GB? it gives me 30fps with crysis high (not very high) because im sure you need MORE than what crysis needed. Thats y im asking.

Hmmm, well when I think back to the trouble I had with the original Far Cry this seems like a much better opportunity to not have to wait to play a game.

Luckily I am going to build a new pc so this should tie in nicely :)

Greetings!

FarCry 2
...
Ce jeu vidéo est protégé par le logiciel SecuROM pour la gestion des droits numériques. Ce logiciel installe sur l'ordinateur de l'utilisateur des modules supplémentaires nécessaires pour la protection
de copie et limite le nombre d'installations possibles pour le jeu. Une connexion à Internet sera nécessaire au cours de l'installation et/ou de la première exécution pour déverrouiller le jeu.

Securom, limited activations, online authentications for single player game.

Greetings!

And Farcry2 Steam version also has that DRM scheme.