Duke Nukem system specs revealed

Gearbox released the official minimum and recommended system specs for Duke Nukem Forever, putting us one tenuous step closer to the release of the game.

65

You can tell a PC release is getting close when the developers send out the system specifications. In the case of Duke Nukem Forever, it's been a long time coming. Gearbox released the full specs today, along with a reminder that it will require Steamworks authentication on the PC.

The requirements don't seem too taxing, but they won't run on the machine you bought for the game back in 1998. The game's latest delay slates it for a June 14 release.

    Minimum Specifications

      OS: Windows XP/Vista/7

      Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.0 Ghz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 @ 2.0 Ghz

      Memory: 1 Gb

      Hard Drive: 10 Gb free

      Video Memory: 256 MB

      Video Card: nVidia GeForce 7600 / ATI Radeon HD 2600

      Sound Card: DirectX Compatible

    Recommended Specifications

      OS: Windows XP/Vista/7

      Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.4 Ghz / AMD Athlon 64 X2 @ 2.6 Ghz

      Memory: 2 Gb

      Hard Drive: 10 Gb free

      Video Memory: 512 MB

      Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS / ATI Radeon HD 3850

      Sound Card: DirectX Compatible

Editor-In-Chief

From The Chatty

  • reply
    May 3, 2011 9:45 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Duke Nukem system specs revealed.

    Gearbox released the official minimum and recommended system specs for Duke Nukem Forever, putting us one tenuous step closer to the release of the game.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 9:48 AM

      Cool, June will be pimp, the game will be good.

      Pretty light on the reqs, I am sure everyone that wants to will be able to play it which is a good thing.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 9:49 AM

      Man, I think I could run several instances.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 9:50 AM

      Damn my old computer I built in 2007 crushes these recommended specs.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 9:50 AM

      whoa such high specs

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 9:51 AM

      These specs are also applicable to the demo as well, right?

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 9:54 AM

        no, the demo requires a 6-core Xeon w/ 24 gigs of RAM and a Radeon 6970

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 9:58 AM

          Is that because I need it to run some kind of wormhole device to travel to a time/alternate reality where the demo is actually released?

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 10:08 AM

            no, it's because game developers usually make games have completely different specs than a small subset of that same game, known as a "demo'

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 11:40 AM

          With 6 bridges covered in sand.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 1:41 PM

          I heard a 16 core with a 10 meg pipe.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 3:49 PM

            you must have the high score in almost all the top mmorpgs

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 11:40 PM

              You guys wanna hack together? I'll move over

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 3:12 PM

        What demo?

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 9:54 AM

      rofl

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 9:58 AM

      whoah i have recommended specs

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 10:04 AM

      Yeah, those are pretty light specs! I built my computer three years ago, looks like I won't have to rebuild it for another five. ;)

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 1:53 PM

        yeah everything is being built for consoles and those are 5 years old now, so you should be good for another 2-3.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 10:15 AM

      Looks like I need an upgrade

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 10:23 AM

      I wonder if the art director has decided to give us all an eye blinding FOV?

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 10:26 AM

        Probably but hopefully they won't do anything as stupid as hard coding the fov value or encrypting the config files so we can't change it.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 10:42 AM

          Gearbox got their hands into it. You'll get 65 FOV and the game will self-delete if you try to change it.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 11:30 AM

            Exactly, every time you'd sprint it'd remove your custom FOV, very annoying.

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 1:13 PM

              I also love resetting all my controls and graphics options every fucking time there's a patch, or a dlc install, or even better... when daylight savings time switches.

              It's shit like this why they aren't getting me to buy this game on release. Also, the inevitable Steam Christmas sale. :D

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 1:18 PM

        Can't we get some official migraine association to come out with a statement against low FoV in PC games, to make publishers care about the issue?

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 2:03 PM

          "Studies have shown that FOV's below 90 can cause migranes in 30% of the population."

          Say that often enough and it might work.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 11:30 PM

            "Further studies have shown that people who hardcode these FoV settings are fags."

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 2:43 PM

        I'm thankful it was so easy to tweak for Crysis 2 (well, it took a console command and it "stuck" when set). It could have easily ruined the entire experience for me. The default was god awful.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 11:39 AM

      Wh0a, good thing I upgraded for this game...three years ago. Sadly, I upgraded again recently.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 11:43 AM

      I'm surprised the recommend spec wasn't "Just buy a damn Xbox 360 you computer curmudgeon!"

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 1:15 PM

      specs are meaningless. it will all depend on how it's ported from console :( /shakes from BLOPS launch recollections

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 1:34 PM

      That's funny b/c years ago when I got my 8800GTS on my Core2Duo system George said that would be good enough for Duke3d. So I guess the man does tell the truth.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 2:48 PM

      Wait a fucking second here. We've waited a decade for this game and even it's going to have consolized graphics? Got To Be Fucking Kidding...

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 3:11 PM

        fuck you! this ain't crysis 2 mother fucker!

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 3:17 PM

        You used the word consolized which automatically nullified anything else in your post.

        Just a heads up.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 3:19 PM

          I prefer to use the more generic phenomenon of "Console Leakage"

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 3:24 PM

            Fucking Olestra.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 3:44 PM

            people who use BRO and CONSOLED need to punch themselves in the head for their stupidity.

            Gaming is cool. Stop being a faggotist.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 3:32 PM

          the gamer version of Godwin's Law? Does it have a name yet?

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 3:50 PM

          Recommended specs for a game in 2011 is an 8800. C'mon dude, that's laughable.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 3:52 PM

            ya i figured my pc would be in the basic, its like 3yrs old now, but its in the rec emended. bad sign lol.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 4:01 PM

            Well, it was supposed to be out last year if 3DR hadn't gone kaput.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 4:15 PM

            It's also a game that was, supposedly, near release-quality over a year ago. Unless you wanted them to start the game from scratch on a new engine I don't see why people are so surprised by this.

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 4:21 PM

              You can't get mad at someone for calling it consolized graphics when it clearly is made for super low end systems.

              Near release quality a year ago is DX10/11 cards, not the first DX10 card with 2gb of system ram. Even a year ago those were clearly low end specs.

              • reply
                May 3, 2011 4:26 PM

                The point is more that saying "consolized" is a lazy ass fucking word to use. Plenty of other games come out on consoles and PC and people have no problem saying how much better the PC version is. Call the developer lazy or blame the engine for not being scalable enough, but just blaming the fact that a console version exists is just lame.

                • reply
                  May 3, 2011 4:29 PM

                  Oh, so now it's his word choice he used, not the fact that the game is actually being made for low end systems which will result in muddier graphics, not as sharp texture, direct x features not made in new games. 'Consolized' to me easily describes all of those features.

                  It clearly is being developed for the consoles primarily and the PC version will only get a resolution scaling option and HOPEFULLY AA. These PC specs are a joke dude.

                  • reply
                    May 3, 2011 4:33 PM

                    Yes it has everything to do with his word choice and not actually making a good argument. Other games with PC versions do not have those issues. Blame fucking Gearbox for this shit or the fact that the code for this game is probably a goddamn mess at this point. I am just tired of PC gamers using consoles as a scapegoat for issues the PC ports have, they should hold people developing games for the PC to a higher standard.

                    You at least pointed out issues the game has, him saying "consolized" just sounds ignorant.

                    • reply
                      May 3, 2011 5:33 PM

                      If PC ports have issues, it's cause they're ports. From consoles. Because the console is the focus of development for that developer. In what way are consoles then 'scapegoats' then?

                      • reply
                        May 3, 2011 5:36 PM

                        Because if the developer wanted to put the actual effort in to the PC version then they could make it work just fine. Instead they either do not want to spend the time or the small amount of PC sales does not make it worth it. The fact that people get all bitchy about the existence of a console version is stupid.

                        • reply
                          May 3, 2011 8:32 PM

                          If someone says "consolised" they aren't pissed that console games exist of themselves. They're pissed that someone took the console game and tried to pass it off as a PC product worth $60 dollars. This is real simple. I don't like words like 'consolitis' cause they're kinda played, and a shortcut to actually thinking about what you want to say, but they do represent a legitimate grievance, if only expressed poorly.

                • reply
                  May 3, 2011 4:31 PM

                  ^^^This

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 4:37 PM

            what games have higher?

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 5:02 PM


              Full System Requirements for Brink
              Apr-13-2011
              Here are the Brink requirements.

              Brink System Minimum Requirements

              CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz / Athlon 64 X2 5600+ or equivalent
              RAM: 2GB RAM
              GFX: NVIDIA 8800GS / ATI Radeon HD 2900 Pro or equivalent
              OS: Windows XP(SP3)/Vista/Windows 7
              Hard Disk: 8GB Free

              [Minimum requirements are the bare minimum to get the game playing and by possibly reducing the screen resolution.]



              Brink System Recommended Requirements

              CPU: Intel Quad Core i5 / Phenom II X4 620
              RAM: 3GB RAM
              GFX: Nvidia GeForce GTX 460 / ATI Radeon HD 5850
              OS: Windows XP(SP3)/Vista/Windows 7
              Hard Disk: 8GB Free

              [Recommended requirements are often listed as the system you would require to get the game running at a great rate with graphical features turned up on a large screen resolution etc.]


              New Red Faction game coming out a week before DNF:

              System Requirements
              Minimum:
              OS: Windows® XP
              Processor: 2GHz Dual Core Processor (Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon™ X2) or higher
              Memory: 2GB System RAM or more
              Graphics: 320MB Video RAM, GPU w/ Shader Model 3.0 support, NVIDIA® GeForce® 88xx series or better, ATI Radeon™ HD30xx series or better
              DirectX®: 9.0c
              Hard Drive: 7.5 GB
              Sound: 100% DirectX® 9.0C compliant sound card or equivalent onboard sound

              Recommended:
              OS: Microsoft® Windows® 7
              Processor: Any Quad Core Processor(Intel® Core i5 or AMD Phenom™ II X4) or 3.0+ Dual Core CPU
              Memory: 4GB System RAM or more
              Graphics: 1GB Video RAM, GPU w/ Shader Model 4.0 support, NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 400 series or better, ATI Radeon™ HD5000 series or better
              DirectX®: 11
              Hard Drive: 7.5 GB
              Sound: 100% DirectX® 9.0C compliant sound card or equivalent onboard sound

              A game that already came out this year, Homefront:

              Minimum
              OS: Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7
              Processor: Intel Pentium Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 2.8GHz
              Memory: 2 GB RAM
              Graphics: Shader Model 3.0 graphics card with 256MB of memory, NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS or ATI Radeon 1900XT
              DirectX®:
              Hard Drive: 10GB of free hard drive space
              Sound:

              Recommended
              OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
              Processor: Intel or AMD Quad Core 2 GHz+ CPU
              Memory: 2 GB RAM
              Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 260 or ATI Radeon 4850
              DirectX®:
              Hard Drive: 10GB of free hard drive space
              Sound:
              NVIDIA 3D Vision Recommended
              OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
              Processor: Intel Core i7 processor
              Memory: 2 GB RAM
              Graphics: 3D Compatible NVIDIA GeForce 480/570 Series GPU, NVIDIA 3D Vision Kit
              DirectX®:
              Hard Drive: 10GB of free hard drive space
              Sound:
              Other: 3D Vision-Ready Display

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 5:50 PM

            that's got nothing to do with the game being 'consolized' though. 3DR fired everyone two years ago and Gearbox didn't start working on the game until a year later. the game has had one of the most absurd development cycles in the history of video games... and on top of that it was developed on PC, not consoles. it's just an old engine. under normal development circumstances with a competent developer it would have come out three years ago.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 9:36 PM

            Not really. An 8800 is about twice as fast as the gfx hardware in a PS3. It's pretty reasonable.

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 10:01 PM

              128 shaders vs 24 at pretty similar clocks is twice as fast? or are you including texture rates and bandwidth in that statement? (it would make sense that you were, I'm just seeking clarification)

              • reply
                May 3, 2011 10:20 PM

                I'm really just referring to how much faster it is in practical applications. If you look at reviews of the 8800 when it came out, it effectively doubled framerates for games that people were playing at the time. (This is virtually unheard of, btw).

                • reply
                  May 3, 2011 10:34 PM

                  I suspect it's actually a good chunk faster than double the 7800GTX (which is roughly what the PS3 carries) but actually moved the bottleneck at the time (and in the reviews at the time) to the CPU, which instead of driving the GPU flat out whilst it was turning over at 70% or so, was going maximumfast and the GPU was all "is that all you got? I GOT PIXELS BIGGER THAN YOUR HEAD BITCH" or something. ?

                  • reply
                    May 4, 2011 10:51 AM

                    It's definitely a lot faster than 2x in a lot of areas, my point is that for an actual user the number they care about is that it is 2x faster than a 7800 in practical, real world applications.

                    And I can't stress enough--there hasn't been a GPU before or since that can claim that kind of speed up in applications people are already using.

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 4:05 PM

        To be fair dude, it's not really about it being consolized at this point, it's about it going through so many engine updates and then 3D Realms going under which left the game using fairly old tech. It's not a cuting-edge graphics game. As much as I dislike the fact that consoles do generally hold back bleeding-edge gaming, it is not the case here. DNF has been the victim of a series of unfortunate circumstances.

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 4:43 PM

        People are really so anal that they'll bitch about the terminology I use to easily describe an issue that they'll just ignore the issue?

        How about this can of worms. In 2012 snapdragoon will release and we'll have console like graphics on a phone/tablet. How does it make you feel that your 1k+ gaming rig will be playing games that are made for a system as capable as a phone? How does it make you feel that a game in dev for a decade will be able to run, fully, on a phone in a year? Feels a little retarded imo.

        You guys are getting all anal over a term when the most anticipated game of all time will be able to effectively run it's graphics in full on a phone. It's retarded. Yet it's not nearly as retarded as ignoring the issue based upon a disagreement on what term should be used. FFS.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 4:45 PM

          To be fair, in the case of DNF, "consolization" could only help. I mean, the 360 is vastly more powerful than your average PC from 1997.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 5:36 PM

          Makes me feel fine. Are the games still fun? Because that's really all that matters.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 5:58 PM

          why is that retarded? games are games, who cares if they are Crysis 2 or fucking Super Mario Bros. I played the shit out of Super Meat Boy on my $1000+ gaming rig and I enjoyed every second of it. Telltale consistently puts out lots of high-quality adventure games that would have looked amazing like four years ago (sometimes longer) that people pay money for. there are tons and tons of examples of new PC games that can be run on older or less powerful hardware, if anything it's suicide for developers to not make their games scalable on some level because you severely limit your audience.

          in any case DNF is a bit of a special case. even if 3DR updated to the latest engine at the exact moment the studio imploded they would still be only on Unreal 2, maybe a super early version of Unreal 3 at best, and we all know they hadn't switched engines in a couple of years. Gearbox seems to be in the mentality of getting the game actually finished which means they were not going to undertake an engine change unless they wanted to game to take another five years to come out.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 6:25 PM

            It's called indignation. It's bad enough that games on the PC are limited in scope due to the memory limitations and lack of horsepower found on consoles. It's an injustice that developers don't always take advantage of the extra horsepower and memory on PCs by at least increasing visual fidelity that looks like it isn't a direct port of dx9 lighting and textures.

            Games are games. Yeah right. Better hardware means you can make better games simply b/c you're not as limited as you were before. Imagine how a game like Mass Effect would play on say the PS7. Intelligent mission creation to the extent of having stories that continue to unfold without a set script but only basic parameters. A game that creates new npcs and voices+facial animations to go with. It'd be a game that'd play different every single time. Not different choices that are only options but a story you direct based upon your choices.

            That's far off but the principle is the same. The better the hardware the more devs can do and as a result the quality of games improves. That's Why I'm Angry That A Phone Will Be Able To Play the Exact Same Games That're Dev'd for Console and Then Ported To PC!

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 7:26 PM

              better hardware does not mean better games. the things you are suggesting would be a logistical nightmare and exponentially increase the cost and time required to make something like Mass Effect that already requires a few hundred people and hundreds of thousands of man-hours to put together.

              • reply
                May 3, 2011 7:35 PM

                Ya, funny how cost, time, and quality go hand in hand.

                • reply
                  May 3, 2011 8:35 PM

                  They don't actually. Mass Effect is not that good a game, nor is Avatar that good a movie. They're not bad, but they're not going to blow anyone's mind. And that's because they're such expensive, massive games that under the weight of their own budgets they end up having kinda thin, not very special gameplay or story. The world has enough superexpensive ridiculo-mega-blockbusters, guy.

                  • reply
                    May 4, 2011 1:17 AM

                    Mass effect only a "good" game? Really?

                    • reply
                      May 4, 2011 1:53 AM

                      Good and not a bit above that, my dear nerd.

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 9:41 PM

              Lack of horsepower on the PC is pretty loltastic.

              The only thing that the consoles have on the PC is extremely low latency access to the memory bus.

              The GPU in a PS3 is about--and I want to be clear here--5.5 times slower than a modern GPU. The GPU in the X360 is a bit slower than the GPU in the PS3.

              The CPUs are significantly slower, too.

              If you genuinely believe that a phone will be capable of running the games that your PC will be capable of, I think we're finished discussing anything. Your view of the universe is so far from reality it's really not worth talking about.

              • reply
                May 4, 2011 1:11 PM

                Google "Snapdragon". I never said consoles can run PC games. I said PC's are running games ported from Consoles. And since they're all basically console ports Snapdragon will be able to run those games in both quality and graphics. L2Read

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 10:21 PM

              WTF? Is this gonna be a "Cell Processor" post.

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 10:37 PM

              Aside from what everybody else said..

              What you just described would be an algorithmic nightmare to make work in any large scale setting, it's not a matter of throwing computing power at the problem, it's knowing how to solve the problem, and a procedurally generated voice work (very difficult to make convincing voices digitally) and PLOT are absolutely an unsolved problem no matter how much firepower you throw at them.

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 11:46 PM

              this doesn't make any sense at all. not trying to sound like a jerk (i'm going to, but there's no avoiding it) but you should do a little bit more research and come back to the land of logic. there are plenty of things to get upset over concerning development and pcs and consoles but this is just illogical.

            • reply
              May 3, 2011 11:59 PM

              Yeah seriously, fuck those guys for not being able to hand deliver your imagination to you.

              • reply
                May 4, 2011 12:00 AM

                "Hand Delivering Your Imagination since 1947. I'm Cave Johnson, We're done here."

              • reply
                May 4, 2011 1:24 PM

                what part of PS7 and 'far out' is hard to understand. Let say consoles going on from 2014 go with a 7 year cycle. PS7 would be in 2035. Now lets say for the sake of argument that we can expect a switch to Graphene based chips by at least 2020-2025. Now we have chips that cool themselves and limits on clock speeds aren't based upon thermal limits any longer. So, we have who knows what kind of chipsets(20cores?) with no thermal limits on clock speed at 2025. Add another 10 years of 'who knows wtf tech we'll deveolop' and the PS7 drops in 2035.

                If you compare games and tech from 21 years ago to how they are now, how is the idea of something as complex as I outlined with tech that basically sounds like magic(self cooling processors, didn't believe my eyes when I first read what they've managed) too much of a leap?

                • reply
                  May 4, 2011 6:34 PM

                  You aren't talking about gains that can be made from increases in computational power, you're talking about algorithmic problems that are a LOT LOT LOT harder to solve... because no amount of computing power will allow you to do something in realtime when you don't know how to do it at all.

                  • reply
                    May 4, 2011 6:49 PM

                    I'm talking about hardware that enables developers to create games like that. Arguing the difficulty of a problem is besides the point especially given how quickly tech improves on all fronts. ps7 in 21 years and you're trying to argue against me b/c something isn't really possible in the present. Come on now.

                    • reply
                      May 6, 2011 5:35 PM

                      Read what I said again, hardware only allows you do to mathematics problems at a given rate, if you don't know how to do the maths at all, being able to do those maths faster DOES NOTHING TO HELP.

            • reply
              May 4, 2011 12:31 AM

              Guys, it's okay. The PS7 is going to deliver all of the secrets to hard AI. We can all rest easy now and wait for the singularity to arrive.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 6:26 PM

          3DR spent their entire development cycle trying to make a game that taxes high-end systems. I think the prospect of a DNF with mind-blowing graphics is long gone.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 6:45 PM

          I don't want console like graphics, I want modern PC level graphics

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 6:54 PM

          Except you're not taking into account the fact that the better graphics get, the more money and manpower it takes to produce them. 3dRealms was one of the last indy developers. They couldn't even get the game out and didn't have the budget or manpower to produce a game with better graphics.

          • reply
            May 3, 2011 7:33 PM

            The stories I've read about DNF development have the DNF delays being more about poor management than actual difficulties in implementation of tech. Anything that's complex and requires coordination becomes inefficient and problematic with poor management.

            I would also take issue with you statement about how cost intensive it is to improve textures and lighting. The numerous amount of graphics mods for games like half life2, STALKER, and Crysis demonstrate that individuals or small groups of individuals can improve the graphical fidelity of a game substantially beyond not only the original product but oftentimes products brought to market long after a mod like that was released. How can one individual or small group of individuals create a superior graphical experience in their spare time if it really does cost all the money and manpower to create? Sparetime hobbyist>Paid Developer? Doesn't fly man.

            The real story is it'd cost extra money and they frankly don't give a shit whether or not the PC version looks way better. In fact, I'd say it's intentional to a certain degree. Wouldn't want all their console users to get angry at having an inferior product now would they?

            • reply
              May 4, 2011 12:50 AM

              . The numerous amount of graphics mods for games like half life2, STALKER, and Crysis demonstrate that individuals or small groups of individuals can improve the graphical fidelity of a game substantially

              You heard it here guys, mods are exactly the same as producing a full game. Let's just shut this whole crazy game industry down and leave it to the mod teams, I'm sure we'll still have games coming out with the level of writing/audio/graphics/AI quality we've gotten used to over the past couple years. Right?


              Seriously, Yumcheese, your conspiracy theories about console developers having some evil plot to deprive PC gamers of games with a high-level of graphic fidelity are utterly asinine. Don't mean to sound like a dick, but do you have any idea how games are actually made? If DNF was near release 2-3 years ago (when the first shots of the new engine came out) and Gearbox has been doing a polish job before release, why would you possible expect a game that compete with Crysis 2?

              Seriously, I don't understand gamers sometimes. DNF gets delayed so the engine can keep up with modern shooters, gamers bitch. DNF finally is on track for release, albeit without every single gee-whiz graphic technology known to man (which is what delayed it in the first place!), gamers bitch. Honestly, is there any satisfying the "hardcore" crowd these days? It seems like no matter what developers do it's the worst thing ever. Would you rather they release DNF with graphics only a couple thousand people can really appreciate, ala Crysis, and see the gamer community bitch that they can't max out the game on their 4 year-old system?

              • reply
                May 4, 2011 12:51 AM

                possible possibly

              • reply
                May 4, 2011 3:02 PM

                Ya, I'd like to see more games where a gamers bitch about a 4yr old system not maxing it out.

                Also seems kind of sad you think it's a conspiracy theory. All I said that if it was really so difficult and cost intensive to do how can hobbyist drastically improve the quality in their spare time. SPARE TIME ffs.

                CM10 for hl2 makes a lot of games released just recently look like doodoo. I wouldn't really expect anything to touch the graphics mods for Crysis though.

                How hard would it be to hire one of those guys to do what he did/does for PC mods in their retail product? One man or very small group of individuals. Face it. Textures and lighting are basically ported over from the console release and companies can't be arsed to at least hire some hobbyists to improve the PC version.

                It's also rather pathetic you would mention crysis 2 given how bad of a port it was. Conspiracy theories...don't forget to "Press Start" to begin playing Crysis 2!!!!!

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 5:55 PM

        they should delay it and rework the graphics engine

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 8:37 PM

        "The first releases of the 8800 GTS line, in November 2006..."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series#8800_GTS

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 4:01 PM

      I guess I can look forward to constant 60FPS and a buttload of AA on a GTX 460.

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 4:42 PM

        yup I'd hope I can run it maxed with 16x or 32x fsaa!

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 5:21 PM

        No jaggies on them titties?

        • reply
          May 4, 2011 12:43 AM

          not when you crank up nipplesampling to the max!

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 5:56 PM

      Specs so low even your Xbox 360 could run it.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 6:37 PM

      Can't wait to see some low poly, muddy tits.

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 6:49 PM

        At least we now know one reason why they aren't doing the early release demo.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 8:15 PM

      Wow, my compy can actually run this. I beat everything except for the card's processor, which mine is an 8600 GT. Although I have 1gb of VRAM. Anybody think I'll be able to run it well? I should also mention that my processor is a Core 2 Duo 3ghz, and I have 2 gigs of RAM. Windows XP Pro, also.

      • reply
        May 3, 2011 8:45 PM

        I dunno, if its GPU intensive, you might be disappointed.
        The 8600 was a pretty throttled card.

        • reply
          May 3, 2011 8:59 PM

          You know, based on what I've heard, this game is basically running on a slightly enhanced version of the Doom 3 engine. What was that, idTech 4? Anyway, if my computer can run those games (Doom 3, Wolfenstein, Prey), I don't see why this wouldn't run on high. The geometry doesn't seem all that taxing, so I might be in luck.

    • reply
      May 3, 2011 8:40 PM

      a potato

    • reply
      May 5, 2011 5:42 AM

      Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.
      Welcome to http://www.voguecatch.com
      Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
      UGG BOOT $50
      Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
      Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35
      T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16
      Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
      Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
      New era cap $16
      Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18
      FREE SHIPPING
      http://www.voguecatch.com

      http://www.voguecatch.com

      http://www.voguecatch.com

      http://www.voguecatch.com

      http://www.voguecatch.com

      http://www.voguecatch.com