Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

Dunno, GAF told me you can build a gaming PC for the same price as the PS4. Although this is obviously factually incorrect.

Who is this "GAF" person? He sounds silly.

When can we expect monster GPUs which only require a 300W PSU?

That would by definition make them not monster GPUs.

It's like asking for a race car beating speed records which also creates new records in fuel efficiency. Or audiophile-quality speakers which are only 5 cm³. That's just not the nature of enthusiast equipment, in any field.

 

[xBladeM6x]

GTX 780? Unless they purposely unoptimized the game for the sake of selling more hardware because of an internal deal made behind closed doors, then I smell bullshit.

 

[Stallion Free]

Why are people so obsessed with turning their PCs into consoles in terms of power consumption?

PCs are about removing ceilings, not adding them.

 

[Alasfree]

So...where are the other recommended specs beside GPU? Kinda weird to release them like this.

 

[Naminator]

Why are people so obsessed with turning their PCs into consoles in terms of power consumption?

PCs are about removing ceilings, not adding them.

Some people just want a roof over their head.

 

[Sethos]

Some people just want a roof over their head.

You need a lot of consoles to make a roof

 

[Smokey]

Why are people so obsessed with turning their PCs into consoles in terms of power consumption?

PCs are about removing ceilings, not adding them.

Yeah I think the do same whenever this topic cones up...

 

[Horp]

There is one single, very easily explained reason for this:

A COD-fan comes in to a computer store and says to the clerk "I want the new COD:Ghosts, going to play it on my PC.
The clerk answers: "Have you made sure your PC lives up to the minimum specifications?"

Then one of two things can happen.

1.
Either the COD-fan doesn't have that much money, so he looks at the minimum specs. "Oh I need to get some RAM... Luckily thats cheap. Oh and whats a 550Ti?"
Then the clerk says "It's cheap, but you should go for the 660. Or why not the 760?"
Maybe the COD-fan buys a 550, maybe a even a 660 or 760.
Nvidia highfives Activision "yaaaay!"

2.
The COD-fan has a lot of money, so he says "MINIMUM specs?! I want to run it at recommended, at LEAST". He looks at the recommended specs. "Oh I need to get me one of those 780 GTX cards. I only have an old 680!"
Nvidia highfives Activision "yaaaay!"

The real story is that both these people actually had computers strong enough to run on minimum and recommended, respectively. But whats the fun in that, says Nvidia and highfives Activision.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

Uh isn't that the whole point of the low level APIs on consoles?

He wants to start something.

 

[Stallion Free]

There is one single, very easily explained reason for this:

A COD-fan comes in to a computer store and says to the clerk "I want the new COD:Ghosts, going to play it on my PC.
The clerk answers: "Have you made sure your PC lives up to the minimum specifications?"

Then one of two things can happen.

1.
Either the COD-fan doesn't have that much money, so he looks at the minimum specs. "Oh I need to get some RAM... Luckily thats cheap. Oh and whats a 550Ti?"
Then the clerk says "It's cheap, but you should go for the 660. Or why not the 760?"
Maybe the COD-fan buys a 550, maybe a even a 660 or 760.
Nvidia highfives Activision "yaaaay!"

2.
The COD-fan has a lot of money, so he says "MINIMUM specs?! I want to run it at recommended, at LEAST". He looks at the recommended specs. "Oh I need to get me one of those 780 GTX cards. I only have an old 680!"
Nvidia highfives Activision "yaaaay!"

The real story is that both these people actually had computers strong enough to run on minimum and recommended, respectively. But whats the fun in that, says Nvidia and highfives Activision.

I was gonna point out that no one buys physical copies of PC games in actual stores, but with the next-gen downloaded sizes people with restrictive internet would actually be wise to do that lol.

 

[Geoff9920]

There is one single, very easily explained reason for this:

A COD-fan comes in to a computer store and says to the clerk "I want the new COD:Ghosts, going to play it on my PC.
The clerk answers: "Have you made sure your PC lives up to the minimum specifications?"

Then one of two things can happen.

1.
Either the COD-fan doesn't have that much money, so he looks at the minimum specs. "Oh I need to get some RAM... Luckily thats cheap. Oh and whats a 550Ti?"
Then the clerk says "It's cheap, but you should go for the 660. Or why not the 760?"
Maybe the COD-fan buys a 550, maybe a even a 660 or 760.
Nvidia highfives Activision "yaaaay!"

2.
The COD-fan has a lot of money, so he says "MINIMUM specs?! I want to run it at recommended, at LEAST". He looks at the recommended specs. "Oh I need to get me one of those 780 GTX cards. I only have an old 680!"
Nvidia highfives Activision "yaaaay!"

The real story is that both these people actually had computers strong enough to run on minimum and recommended, respectively. But whats the fun in that, says Nvidia and highfives Activision.

You lost me at a PC gamer walking into a store to buy a game. Who still does this?

I was gonna point out that no one buys physical copies of PC games in actual stores, but with the next-gen downloaded sizes people with restrictive internet would actually be wise to do that lol.

Ah, good point.

 

[kharma45]

I was gonna point out that no one buys physical copies of PC games in actual stores, but with the next-gen downloaded sizes people with restrictive internet would actually be wise to do that lol.

Retail games afaik don't run off the disk anyway, they install the whole thing onto the PC like a download does.

 

[Stallion Free]

Retail games afaik don't run off the disk anyway, they install the whole thing onto the PC like a download does.

It's not the install size, it's the download size. That is why I specified lesser internet, not lesser storage space.

People can't really control the ISP options available to them, but hard drive space? LOLOLOLOL.

 

[metareferential]

6GB of ram is understandable. Besides, it's dirt cheap.

Either way, I don't get those specs for such undemanding games.

A gtx780 as recommended gpu? They be smokin'. xD

 

[velociraptor]

The GTX 780 has got to be bollocks though. There is nothing about the game that screams it's going to melt hardware. Even a modest 'gaming' rig should comfortably run this at 1080p60. Ghosts looks exactly the same as Black Ops II + 'sub D'. But nevermind the insane GPU requirement, what in god's name would warrant 50GB of HDD space?

 

[kharma45]

It's not the install size, it's the download size. That is why I specified lesser internet, not lesser storage space.

People can't really control the ISP options available to them, but hard drive space? LOLOLOLOL.

Mis-read you there, sorry.

 

[Durante]

what in god's name would warrant 50GB of HDD space?

I guess the combination of confirmed better-than-next-gen assets and SP movies that aren't terrible quality.

 

[DLaicH]

You guys will stop your whining when Nvidia FishX is announced exclusively for CoD: Ghosts.

 

[Sethos]

I guess the combination of confirmed better-than-next-gen assets and SP movies that aren't terrible quality.

For a Call of Duty game, that still doesn't warrant 50GB. Maybe if they use it as buffer space for future DLC etc. we can maybe get that high but for the vanilla base-game it sounds batshit.

 

[boi]

Holy shit I cant believe people saying this game looks bad. I dont know what you classify as a bad looking game but Ghosts sure as hell isn't. The game looks damn fine. CoD is slowly getting prettier every year and people expecting huge graphical leaps every time the new version gets announced will always be disappointed. There is way worse out there.

 

[Skunkers]

I guess the combination of confirmed better-than-next-gen assets and SP movies that aren't terrible quality.

That's my guess. Now that Xbone and PS4 are coming out, the primary high end consoles will both have Blu-Ray; so no more need to compress the absolute shit out of video files on PS and PC so the Xbox can handle them (as if there ever was one, but that's still often what we got this gen).

EDIT: Rest of the specs still don't make sense though.

 

[Stallion Free]

For a Call of Duty game, that still doesn't warrant 50GB. Maybe if they use it as buffer space for future DLC etc. we can maybe get that high but for the vanilla base-game it sounds batshit.

There is also the very real possibility that they are using the set up where it downloads ~20gb and unpacks ~30gb of of actual game files necesitating 50 gb of HD space for the process. I believe Black Ops 1 used that set up. The ~20 gb would then be removed.

 

[velociraptor]

Holy shit I cant believe people saying this game looks bad. I dont know what you classify as a bad looking game but Ghosts sure as hell isn't. The game looks damn fine. CoD is slowly getting prettier every year and people expecting huge graphical leaps every time the new version gets announced will always be disappointed. There is way worse out there.

Ghosts looks bad compared to other 'next gen' games. Compare Ghosts to previous COD games:

Yep, looks current gen. Looks the same as every other COD game.

 

[Sethos]

There is also the very real possibility that they are using the set up where it downloads ~20gb and unpacks ~30gb of of actual game files necesitating 50 gb of HD space for the process. I believe Black Ops 1 used that set up. The ~20 gb would then be removed.

Yeah, that might also be a possibility. However there has to be a twist to that number because I flat out refuse to believe the base game, as a whole is close to 50GB.

 

[Durante]

For a Call of Duty game, that still doesn't warrant 50GB. Maybe if they use it as buffer space for future DLC etc. we can maybe get that high but for the vanilla base-game it sounds batshit.

But this isn't just "a CoD game". It's the first one with assets truly designed for systems with 8GB of memory (and beyond that on PC).

That's an 8x jump from being designed primarily for 512 MB RAM. Blops2 had 16 GB HDD requirements, so 50 GB is a ~3 jump. Not so unbelievable to me. (I also assume it won't actually take the full 50 and they left some breathing room)

 

[Backfoggen]

Ghosts looks good for a game running on a modified old engine.

 

[synce]

The 50GB thing is probably dummy data or bloated files to discourage piracy

 

[Windom Earle]

Ghosts looks bad compared to other 'next gen' games. Compare Ghosts to previous COD games:

It's fugly. Nothing next gen about it.

 

[Sethos]

But this isn't just "a CoD game". It's the first one with assets truly designed for systems with 8GB of memory (and beyond that on PC).

That's an 8x jump from being designed primarily for 512 MB RAM. Blops2 had 16 GB HDD requirements, so 50 GB is a ~3 jump. Not so unbelievable to me. (I also assume it won't actually take the full 50 and they left some breathing room)

Yeah and there's beautiful PC exclusive games that look better and span massive islands yet that takes up 1/4th of that. Plus, this is a Call of Duty game - They are renowned for not being visual masterpieces -- This certainly ain't one either. So no matter how you spin it, 50GB for the base game makes no sense.

 

[angular graphics]

I guess the combination of confirmed better-than-next-gen assets and SP movies that aren't terrible quality.

Nvidia is pushing for 4K gaming currently so I wonder if they have asked the developers they co-operate with, should they be using prerendered videos in their games, to render them at 4K to look sharp at the 4K native resolution, lol!

 

[velociraptor]

It's fugly. Nothing next gen about it.

It looks exactly like BO2 on PC.

 

[boi]

Ghosts looks bad compared to other 'next gen' games. Compare Ghosts to previous COD games:

Comparing still images never truly represents a game in motion. Check out their presentation from the announcement. They clearly highlighted the technical differences between MW3 and Ghosts this year.

MW3 also runs sub-720p or something. Black Ops II is simply a beautiful looking game, but also a completely different game and thats mostly style & art design. The game has a cleaner look as Ghosts and the Modern Warfare-series. The game doesn't look worse than BOII and probably a lot better in motion. You can't spot all the detail immediately in a trailer or a screenshot.

 

[Durante]

Nvidia is pushing for 4K gaming currently so I wonder if they have asked the developers they co-operate with, should they be using prerendered videos in their games, to render them at 4K to look sharp at the 4K native resolution, lol!

I wish! Seriously, the prerendered compressed 720p movies are the ugliest part of many console ports on my 1440p display.

 

[velociraptor]

Comparing still images never truly represents a game in motion. Check out their presentation from the announcement. They clearly highlighted the technical differences between MW3 and Ghosts this year.

MW3 also runs sub-720p or something. Black Ops II is simply a beautiful looking game, but also a completely different game and thats mostly style & art design. The game has a cleaner look as Ghosts and the Modern Warfare-series. The game doesn't look worse than BOII and probably a lot better in motion. You can't spot all the detail immediately in a trailer or a screenshot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQ5Yxs9yk8

Looks like COD with a fresh new coat of paint.

I can see the resolution, textures and effects look better, but c'mon, this looks 95% the same as every other COD game. It's the kind of improvement I would expect in a sequel, not a true next-gen experience.

 

[RulkezX]

I'd like to know what resolution(s) they mean when they recommend a 780.

Are we still talking 1080p or when we get high end specs are they giving recommendations for higher resolutions.

Side note : if the 780 is being recommended for everything maxed then they should say that. Recommend specs have never meant that before so they shouldn't change it now.

 

[velociraptor]

I'd like to know what resolution(s) they mean when they recommend a 780.

Are we still talking 1080p or when we get high end specs are they giving recommendations for higher resolutions.

Side note : if the 780 is being recommended for everything maxed then they should say that. Recommend specs have never meant that before so they shouldn't change it now.

I think devs need to be more transparent.

IMO, recommended specs should simply mean 1080p60 at a level of detail comparable to the console versions. Simple.

 

[RulkezX]

I think devs need to be more transparent.

IMO, recommended specs should simply mean 1080p60 at a level of detail comparable to the console versions. Simple.

Exactly.

I was just looking at Metro:LL on the Nvidia site , it has minimum, recommended and optimal specs listed, while not perfect at least it's a little clearer.

 

[Caffeine]

we will see if this is bs in 28 days lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQ5Yxs9yk8

Looks like COD with a fresh new coat of paint.

I can see the resolution, textures and effects look better, but c'mon, this looks 95% the same as every other COD game. It's the kind of improvement I would expect in a sequel, not a true next-gen experience.

looks liek black ops 2 at max settings now.

 

[charsace]

I've been saying for months in threads not to buy or build a new PC until a year into the gen if you want it to last. People got too comfortable this gen due to PC and console gaming converging, forgetting that specs always make a big jump with every new console generation.

 

[a916]

I think devs need to be more transparent.

IMO, recommended specs should simply mean 1080p60 at a level of detail comparable to the console versions. Simple.

These aren't devs though... it's Nvidia releasing it's own recommendations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEQ5Yxs9yk8

Looks like COD with a fresh new coat of paint.

I can see the resolution, textures and effects look better, but c'mon, this looks 95% the same as every other COD game. It's the kind of improvement I would expect in a sequel, not a true next-gen experience.

Ghosts looks just like

Spoiler

Titanfall.

but that game hardly get's the criticism this game does.

 

[Jrs3000]

These aren't devs though... it's Nvidia releasing it's own recommendations.



Ghosts looks just like

Spoiler

Titanfall.

but that game hardly get's the criticism this game does.

I think it's because COD has been looking nearly the same since MW1. Minor improvements here and there but overall the same as seen by the comparison pics. The crazy thing is suggesting a 780 for what has been maxed out on much older hardware unless the new features they added are horribly ineffiecent or it's because of PHYSX.

 

[Alienous]

Ghosts looks bad compared to other 'next gen' games. Compare Ghosts to previous COD games:

Yep, looks current gen. Looks the same as every other COD game.

Scathing.

Well compiled, thanks.

 

[a916]

I think it's because COD has been looking nearly the same since MW1. Minor improvements here and there but overall the same as seen by the comparison pics. The crazy thing is suggesting a 780 for what has been maxed out on much older hardware unless the new features they added are horribly ineffiecent or it's because of PHYSX.

They do mention Ghosts has PhysX... so that could be the reason for something as dire as a 780.

 

[Ty4on]

The 50GB thing is probably dummy data or bloated files to discourage piracy

This is 2013. Every PC gamer downloads games from Steam or other services and disc drives are even getting rare in modern computers.

 

[a916]

Wow, new trailer released... those graphics are unreal!!!

 

[poopninjamvc3mk]

Wow, new trailer released... those graphics are unreal!!!

Yikes new Eminem music is...yikes.

 

[Jrs3000]

They do mention Ghosts has PhysX... so that could be the reason for something as dire as a 780.

Yeah in which case playing they should label requirements reconmended for physx as I'm sure without is probably no more than BO2.

 

[Lettuce]

So if this runs on the 360 and PS3 with just 512MB of memory what excuse do they have? Agreed that it wont look as good as the PC version, but still doesn't warrant needing another 5.5GB of memory??

And no 32 bit support for OS??

PC ports have been excellent for the past 4 years and now by the looks of the 3 system specs we have seen in the last few days we've taken 10 steps back into the early 2000's again....damn thanks next gen!!!

 

[Danneee]

So with the new "eye candy" they didn't bother with any optimizations? Just take the same old engine and throw more stuff in there?

 

[djshauny]

I seriously doubt that it will need that much horsepower to run it at max lol