Nice, looks like the PC version is the one to beat, then. Know which one I will be picking up when the game ships. 
Irrational Reveals BioShock Infinite PC Details
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
thesilentman said:
Gentlemen, would you kindly direct your attention to . . .Akexi said:
Big textures need big gigs. I, for one, am looking forward to what appears to be a breath-takingly gorgeous game.Andy Chalk said:
Imagine having to install that via download, though. I get pretty solid internet at my university, but I recall my postage stamp of a hometown giving me a paltry 512-ish KB/s on a good day.
Games reaching sizes of 20 gigs isn't that uncommon any more. Max Payne 3 required somewhere along the lines of 35 gigs. The only games in recent memory that were less than 10 gigs in size were console ports with low res textures like Dishonored. (Bear in mind this mostly applies with "AAA" games, and very rarely indie games.)Vitagen said:
And here I have even more justification for dropping most of my coin into a gaming pc. All I have to do now is get an unlimited internet connection. Somehow I think I might go over my 40gb limit in March otherwise...
The Force Unleashed: Ultimate Sith Edition was 35 GBs after the last patch.thesilentman said:
On topic: Glad I pre-ordered the song bird edition, I can't wait for this to come out. Right now I am replaying BioShock after reading the book BioShock: Rapture I had to.
Same Specs as Batman Arkham City which ran nice on my setting. And Intel HD3000 is _officially_ supported! WOW!
As far as Moore's Law is concerned, we're WAY BEHIND. I remember Myst IV (2004) was 8GB... according to straight Moore's Law, we should be at the 100 GB per game mark by now, and even with tapering Moore's Law, we should still be up around 50.thesilentman said:
That said, it is a decent size, yes. Hope you have a big enough hard drive.
Pretty sure Moore's Law was processing power [Or moore [SeewhatIdidthere?] accurately, the amount of time it takes the number of transistors that can be put on a microchip or W/E to double], not the amount of size programs take up on a Hard Drive.lacktheknack said:
Even then, things have been at a standstill in the games department thanks to the fact that a fair portion of the gaming audience is still using 8 year old hardware [Xbox360, PS3], which takes Moore's Law, even if it did apply to today, back a good 5-6 cycles.
I guess they're nice system requirements. I'm happy to hear they seem to be properly catering to the PC audience with many control scheme options that can be custom remapped, optimization across 6 levels of hardware and, like a thankful many other games these days, a freaking FoV slider so I don't have to play with less than 90' FoV on my widescreen monitor.
Will be interesting to see how it actually turns out. Whilst it could turn out well, all of what has been said could also be exaggerated a fair bit in an advertising bid. We'll see. Its still on my "Get ASAP" list though.
Some people like to PC game from their couch, don't think the "why would you want to do that" line regarding controller support is really necessary...
Moore's law is for computer processing power, not hard drive size. A comparison would be the top-of-the-line GPU two years ago and the top-of-the GPU now. There's a huge difference between the two.lacktheknack said:
*Looks at his slightly-past-its-best PC sitting in the corner. Looks at specs again*
Oh sweet, I can run this baby on there!
Oh sweet, I can run this baby on there!
Minimum and low end specs have been roughly the same for a long time.shiajun said:
High end specs change a lot more, because the PC has a lot more effects as 'standard' now than it used to. Also, the recommended specs now reflect the standardization of 1920x1080 for gaming instead of saying 'oh, yeah, a 9800 GTX will run the game fine!*'
*at 1280x720, which hardly plays at unless they have a low end PC
Well yeah, the shiny new PC hardware allows them to do the really fancy things at the top end. On a personal note, I'm still on the fence if 1080p is soooooo much better than 720p. It's odd, but in a lot of the games I've played it's only the mainly 2d menus or games (like Mark of the Ninja) where there's a quite noticeable drop in quality by going down.TheComfyChair said:Minimum and low end specs have been roughly the same for a long time.shiajun said:
High end specs change a lot more, because the PC has a lot more effects as 'standard' now than it used to. Also, the recommended specs now reflect the standardization of 1920x1080 for gaming instead of saying 'oh, yeah, a 9800 GTX will run the game fine!*'
*at 1280x720, which hardly plays at unless they have a low end PC