Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 23 Oct 2009.
They forgot DVD-R hohoho
Those look like 'minimum specs', not 'recommended specs'. yeah it will run but only just and will look horrendous. I find even the recommend specs can be a little misleading at times.
I'm sure the game will look great at high resolution.
Just for the record steam lists cod mw2 release date as nov. 13, 09 but I suppose none of you are
really interested right guys?
Oh I duno, if everybody holds to the boycott, there might be a few on the shelf gathering dust that need heavy discounting to shift!
Won't tempt me tho
Guess I'll just keep on grinding the damn CoD4 then.
You better watch out, coz the Pandalicious panda is still in action.
Those specs mean absolutly nothing. You will not be able to play the game on them, they are the minimum spec to get the game to start and nothing more.
Minimum specs never are enough to run a game, have you seen what Arma2 has as its minimum spec is, its pathetic.
OS: Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor: Dual Core CPU (Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, Intel Core 2.0 GHz, AMD Athlon 3200+ or faster)
Memory: 1 GB RAM
Graphics: GPU (Nvidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800 or faster) with Shader Model 3 and 256 MB VRAM
Hard Drive: 10 GB free HDD space
I'm a little confused about why they need 16 GB. That amount wouldn't fit on an XBox 360 disc, so why would the PC version need that much room? I don't think that they made higher resolution textures because they have low system requirements.
*Waves his torch and pitchfork*
Ignoring the issue of the servers for a mo, I wouldnt slag the game off for its low specs until I've seen it running. MW 1 managed to look excellent on my old PC - it was the best looking visuals that machine ever produced. I think they deserve great credit for building such an efficient engine - Crytek should take note. Lets not forget we all like to criticise studios for putting graphics before gameplay (Crytek take note).
Ultimately the first MW won through its terrific gameplay, and MW II will win or lose on the same criteria (well, that and the servers).
crysis' gameplay was superb, it just didnt hold your hand like a child.
COD 4 just needs a half decent graphics card, it's not particularly CPU dependent as there is virtually nothing going on in terms of physics or destroyable environments etc. Crysis just got a bit too over-ambitious in that respect and raised everyone's expectations of what they would experience.
Is this for the Pc Gamers who are going to buy the game.... both of them (or "bof a dem" in UK-speak).
I refuse to buy a game that doesn't have a feature that Quake had.
They are burying themselves, self-marginalization, I wonder if IW is owned by the GOP, lol.
Yours in Anti-Moron Plasma,
Is there any more news or comment from Infinity Ward or are they still hiding away and laughing at the PC community?
The term damage limitation should be on the top of fourzerotwo's agenda.
16GB is a bad joke.
The graphics won't be much improved from MW but to be honest I quite liked them.
The price is a killer but it'll come down to normal levels eventually.
To all those people out there:
Stop whining, just don't buy it FFS!
I won't! I think I must be the only person who wasn't bowled over by COD4. I've played the game through twice now, and each time I lose interest before I can complete it.
That's because you are playing the wrong gamemode - COD4 IS mulitplayer...
Forget it! I wont be playing this at all, I hope the game sinks on all platforms yet there will still be loads of people buying it just because of the name and the fact they are clueless to everything going on around them. I shall be a happy chappy if cod4 is buzzig on release of cod6, that will surely put a stonker in the way of the morons behind this.
Separate names with a comma.