Alpha System Requirements - Let the Upgrades Begin?

[Uzor]

I don't think graphic options (other than windowed mode and resolution) will be locked in alpha, although they will possibly be limited.

I do think certain things will be very adjustable though. They wouldn't want to mix people with bad specs and good specs otherwise. If there were close to no options to change, the game would either run extremely slow on low-end computers, or wouldn't be possible to make it look as good as people want on high-end computers, and I'm sure this is one of the things they want to test in alpha (as well as beta). Although they may just push the graphics down to the minimum requirements throughout the alpha just to make people test the game rather than graphics.

[Kirb]

IMO that just mean that SE dont know you can DL a file in an other folder than "my document"

Does anyone read posts anymore? Like Kaelan said, it has to do user accounts, and more specifically, bypassing UAC because they're not allowed to modify game directory data.

Get used to it, it's a Vista/7 quirk.

Hopefully SE wakes up and realizes that developing the game based on budget systems is completely backwards...im all for nicely scaled graphics support for budget builds, but on max settings this game better be a beast or a lot of people, myself included, will not be happy.

Yeah, I heard Valve is really hurting.

Seriously though, the game we see in screenshots look pretty taxing for most systems, so I don't really see the point of worrying about this.

[Ghostsix.Midgard]

Guess this game will finally make me upgrade my current bottle neck of a system (video card is a 8600GT.... running with 6gb of ram, on a q6600 quad core) -.-

Same 256mb GPU here on an i7 860
Bottleneck award winnars?

[Lucavi]

They're building it for the PS3, ergo, they're building it for budget hardware.

Shit, they're building it for the 360, a system that came out what, like 5 years ago? /sigh....

Can't wait for the "PS3 RHRIMITATIONS!!" speeches.

[wipers]

I'm pretty happy with the system requirements (so far) gives me a reason to finally upgrade my video card.

[Foxer]

Oh, cool. It requires less PC to play than XI.

[Uzor]

Oh, cool. It requires less PC to play than XI.

am I getting wooshed?

[Xeurb]

am I getting wooshed?

Nope, I have a PC well over the recommended specs for 14 listed here, but I still get <10fps in campaign/dynamis.

FFXI is terribly inefficient on PC.

[Kurokikaze]

^ this lol.

Quite possibly the worst optimized game ever.

[Enos]

Nope, I have a PC well over the recommended specs for 14 listed here, but I still get <10fps in campaign/dynamis.

FFXI is terribly inefficient on PC.

i think this has been discussed multiple times...

[Sonomaa]

last remnant is very poorly optimized, SE just didnt do it right with the unreal engine, which can handle basically anything thrown at it without a care.

if LR was optimized properly it would be half the specs it is guaranteed. Unreal3 engine is amazing

[naninani]

At least it didn't have any upper limit constraints on PC like FFXI does.
When enough power is put behind it, The Last Remnant is an absolutely stunning spectacle, especially in combat.

[Reality]

They're building it for the PS3, ergo, they're building it for budget hardware.

wrong, pc is the primary platform this time around, not the console

[Gwynplaine]

Nope, I have a PC well over the recommended specs for 14 listed here, but I still get <10fps in campaign/dynamis.

FFXI is terribly inefficient on PC.

It's completely true. I just downloaded the Last Remnant trial to get a feel for how my PC may handle 14 and it ran fine. But earth weather in XI still destroys my FPS. It's a tragedy that XI is so graphically handicapped. Using Altanaviewer to view the graphics unhindered looks wonderful.

[niwaar]

It's completely true. I just downloaded the Last Remnant trial to get a feel for how my PC may handle 14 and it ran fine. But earth weather in XI still destroys my FPS. It's a tragedy that XI is so graphically handicapped. Using Altanaviewer to view the graphics unhindered looks wonderful.

Lol, I need to test out LR. But Earth Weather just has kicked my ass in everygame. Even in Aion (a game that plays flawlessly in all situations), sandstorms just kick my ass. Dunno what it is about coders not fixing this crap.

[loyaltrekie]

^ this lol.

Quite possibly the worst optimized game ever.

Comparing an ancient game to the 'new kids on the block' games is hardly fair - either.

[Falisa]

Pretty sure FFXI was poorly designed no matter the time frame. I'm not too savvy with the technical stuff but as far as I know, FFXI was built around the power of your video card, rather than processor (i believe this was because of how PS2 works?) so it just struggled to run well even on top of the line computers. You could have an awesome processor but it didn't matter at all. I could be wrong though.

[Vinto]

I'm not too savvy with the technical stuff but as far as I know, FFXI was built around the power of your video card, rather than processor (i believe this was because of how PS2 works?) so it just struggled to run well even on top of the line computers. You could have an awesome processor but it didn't matter at all. I could be wrong though.

I believe it was the opposite. The game, unlike most others, was almost 100% processor driven, with the graphics card bearing almost none of the load.

[sruon]

I believe it was the opposite. The game, unlike most others, was almost 100% processor driven, with the graphics card bearing almost none of the load.

^

Which is why single core owned dual/quad/hexacores FFXI-wise.


Just a poor PS2 emulation, really.

[Reality]

^

Which is why single core owned dual/quad/hexacores FFXI-wise.


Just a poor PS2 emulation, really.

that would make no sense, why a single core would own a dual/quad core

a single core CPU is nothing more than half as powerful as a dual core, because a dual core CPU has two hardware threads, one cache per CPU, and often a shared allotment of cache, making a dual core CPU exactly the same as two CPU's combined

and as far as i know, there's no speed (Mhz/Ghz) limitation on dualcore/quadcore cpu's at this moment, so you could be running a single core P4 at 3.2Ghz, and have a dualcore/quadcore at the same speed, the only difference between the two from a hardware standpoint is one chip has two hardware cores inside it, whereas the other just has one

i'm not sure where this broad idea on the internets came to be, that dualcore/quadcore cpus were 1 CPU chopped into two or 4, that's not the case at all, they're literally two/four CPU's inside 1 die

so yeah, what you said makes no sense

edit: before i get flamed by someone who thinks they know more than I do, i want to make it clear that a dualcore/quadcore cpu isn't twice/4x as powerful as a single core CPU just because it has more cores. the application has to actually support those extra threads for them to show any sort of performance gain (fortunately you will see a benefit under the actual OS, most current versions of windows support multiple hardware threads)