Friday, September 7th 2007
Quake Wars Only Requires Radeon 9700 to Play
I have good news for the crowd of people who can't realistically afford to play Crysis for the next year. We finally have the hardware requirements for Quake Wars, one of the most anticipated shooters of the year (next to BioShock, Unreal Tournament 3, and Crysis). Despite Quake Wars being done off a heavily modified and upgraded Doom 3 engine, which includes John Carmack's famed megatexturing algorithms, all you need to play is a GeForce FX 5700, or an ATI Radeon 9700. As far as CPU and RAM requirements go, those required to play Quake Wars are almost predictable. For XP, you need a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 or AMD equivalent, and 512MB of RAM. If you are running Vista, you need a 3GHz Pentium 4 or AMD equivalent, and 768MB of RAM.
Source:
The Inquirer
36 Comments on Quake Wars Only Requires Radeon 9700 to Play
Min Reqs mean you can run it on min settings at 30fps sustained.
It sure as hell won't be pretty but it will still be pretty as hell for the guy who just barely got enough money to buy the game and gets to play it without dumping $200 or more into his rig to update.
Plain and simple this is the coding we need more often. Too many games such as FEAR, DiRT, etc need to have more options so you can scale the game down to low spec computers. I wouldn't say crysis will be a big problem as crytek games are so well optimized you can run it on almost anything.
The main aim of having low req's these days isn't for the desktop people either, its for the people who only own laptops (that group is ever growing too), who can't upgrade graphics. Being playable on a 3 year old laptop opens up a huge market for those who want to be able to play a game or two on their lappy instead of just sittin on the net "because the game won't run".
True we need games that can be played by old hardware but if the time it will take the team assigned to built the game isnt enough and if coding it for older hardware means that they cant make it as realistic and eye candy as possible then no i dont agree with that. As i dont agree that someone can give 40$ to buy games that can be played with his rig but at the same time cant afford to make an upgrade for 4 years.
If you want to dump thousands into your computer so you can always play the latest games at 1920*1080 maxed go right ahead. nVidia and ATI enjoy taking money from you.
If a game dev is too lazy to make a game run well on anything but the top spec, I don't want their shit on my hard drive.
And it has nothing to do with them beeing lazy, it has to do with deadlines.
From your comment I suggest you run 640x480 in every one of your games and see what impact you think it has then.
I miss the days when games were completed before they were sold. The days where there was no patch for an issue, because there were few if any issues to be fixed.
I don't mind if a came comes out a year late, but it had better be bug free if I'm going to pay them for it.
By the way coding a game to run on older hardware isn't coding just for the old stuff, its called optimization. A game that will run well on an older system will run even better on a new one, compared to a game that was coded for a 8800 to be the minimum req.
However since most here tried the open beta and some even the closed beta the demo isnt something new. The full Game however may be interesting.