Mirror's Edge Catalyst PC Specs Are a Little Steep
- Thread starter ffronw
- Start date
I legit laughed out loud when I saw those recommended specs. I am not the neo-luddite millennial most of my brethren are, but I also know that MAAAYBE those specs are a tad high.
And this might be the culprit since DA: I was very poorly optimized on PC.votemarvel said:
In what universe is a GTX 970 the equivalent of a R9 280X? And why is minimum RAM 6GB but recommended 16GB? By looking at the recommend specs its clear somebody either didn't know what they were talking or taking the piss. But what's far more unsettling is that it most likely isn't a mistake and simply signifies that the high end graphics are poorly optimised. Seems that the shitty ports are real this year.
They should add a bucket to the requirements. from gameplay videos i saw playing this is most definately going to make you vomit. The camera work is even more obnoxious than the first one!
Coil while only means that your PSU was working with high voltage. Its not dangerous on its own, but it can be a sign of PSU overload which may be dangerous if you got a cheap no-name PSU. Coil while itself is very common, but most manufacturers actually glue the coils in place to reduce it (literally they just pour glue to reduce vibration). I got a GPU that whines when framerates rise over 400. Very annoying in Bethesda games where if you unlock framerate as soon as you go into menu/inventory/book the game stops generating the world behind you so FPS jumps to 2000+ and it starts to whine. I had to make a custom FPS cap at 120 fps just to stop this bug.fix-the-spade said:
No, it is not. not reasonable that is. This is because games do not require that much ram. expoeriments done on builder forums revealed that even games claiming 8 GB to be minimum ran just fine on 3GB and the difference between 3GB and more were nonexistent. Bellow 3 GB you start to have problems, but if you have the currently standard 8 GB you should run EVERYTHING without ANY problems.Kenjitsuka said:
People want their shitty prebuild with 730M in it to run games forever.Lillowh said:
Wow, that's pretty ridiculous. That probably means the game is terribly optimized.
Oh, it's published and developed by EA? Well, that explains that then.
Oh, it's published and developed by EA? Well, that explains that then.
I guess if I wanted to play this on max settings (I don't actually want to play it at all, but hypothetically speaking), I'd have to get more ram. As others have said though, as far as system specs go, ram is one of the cheapest components.
I think they just cover themselves since other processes use ram too. When checking my ram usage in game, I don't think I ever went over 6.5, and that's with almost max settings.Charcharo said:
Having a ram or two extra in the requirements is par for the course with most games that say 6-8. Going from 6 to 16 just screams poorly optimized. I'm assuming the game would at least use more than my 8.
Wow. I never paid attention to Battlefront's specs because I had zero desire to get it. People are running it on ultra with 8GB.... I mean, I always knew they exaggerated a bit with any game, but not this much. And then there's a video of a guy running it smoothly on medium with 4GB! I don't think I'll be upgrading in the near future. Today I have learned.Charcharo said:I use Windoes and have dozens of tasks open as well. So all 4GB of RAM did in Witcher 3 was make loadings worse. Nothing more or less.RedDeadFred said:
Also, Star Wars Battlefront said it wanted 16gb of RAM as well. It was NOT correct and the game is VERY optimized.
So again, just marketing lies people that dont know much (most of the Escapist unfortunately) eat up
Such is life I guess.
... Eh?
My now 6 year old desktop system, while probably unable to run this still comes surprisingly close to those specs.
If this is considered demanding, I'm concerned about the state of PC gaming, honestly.
Then again, only about 1 in 100 games no longer seem to run on that same 6 year old system.
And before you ask, no it wasn't a top of the line most expensive parts available kind of build either.
Core i5, and 5770 is hardly high end parts. It's the upper bounds of mid-range for that era.
But the thing is, past that point you easily double or triple the cost, (or worse)
In any event, PC gaming has always been expensive if you want to keep up with the mainstream AAA titles.
Or at least, that was absolutely the case from about 1995 to 2005 or so.
After that... Things got a little less predictable, especially since consoles started dictating what high end games looked like, which really wasn't the case before then...
My now 6 year old desktop system, while probably unable to run this still comes surprisingly close to those specs.
If this is considered demanding, I'm concerned about the state of PC gaming, honestly.
Then again, only about 1 in 100 games no longer seem to run on that same 6 year old system.
And before you ask, no it wasn't a top of the line most expensive parts available kind of build either.
Core i5, and 5770 is hardly high end parts. It's the upper bounds of mid-range for that era.
But the thing is, past that point you easily double or triple the cost, (or worse)
In any event, PC gaming has always been expensive if you want to keep up with the mainstream AAA titles.
Or at least, that was absolutely the case from about 1995 to 2005 or so.
After that... Things got a little less predictable, especially since consoles started dictating what high end games looked like, which really wasn't the case before then...
Holy shit. I think whatever uni/college these guys went to, they forgot to take optimisation courses. Jesus christ.
On the other hand: I remember that ME1 was also colossally fucked. I played it on an old-ish laptop, which made for some fun scenarios. Apparently physics calculations on background objects was only done in idle time. This meant that glass from a broken window was falling in slow motion, while people ran around at normal speeds.
On the other hand: I remember that ME1 was also colossally fucked. I played it on an old-ish laptop, which made for some fun scenarios. Apparently physics calculations on background objects was only done in idle time. This meant that glass from a broken window was falling in slow motion, while people ran around at normal speeds.
To be fair, it IS basically the best graphics card of that generation. XDCharcharo said:
Right when the AMD/ATI merger had just happened, and they were still messing with the name. (my card mentions both AMD and ATI).
Best Price/performance, and best performance/watt of the era.
Also makes me laugh watching fanboy arguments about AMD using too much power.
Not because it isn't true at the moment, but because it's presented as though it's some kind of truism that is a permanent fact of life.
(Eg. They imply that it's something that always has been, and always will be, when I have explicit evidence of that not being true in the system I'm using right this second. XD)
Well, yeah. Anyway, the fact that I had a midrange system and basically only feel like I need to upgrade 6 years later...
Just shows it doesn't it.
For that matter it's really only VR that is making me give major thought to an upgrade...
Yeah. PC gaming is just so crazy expensive, huh. XD
Yes. On the whole fanboys are a pain to listen to, or worse, talk to. XDCharcharo said:
Still, I guess that's the way it's always been...
The arguments about stupid stuff... XD
